wma information

[xerophyte]

My first post so please be kind, and apologies if this question has been asked and answered.
I have checked in FAQ and binned the idea I had of converting a file from wma to mp3. How do I get information from a wma file, specifically find out what bit rate the file is as it appears converting to mp3 is a bad idea?
I have read on another forum that wma 64kbps is equal to mp3 128kbps, is this true? wma is would not be my first choice of format, (I can't add tags to the files for one thing!) where is a good place to find out its pros and cons?

[Spoon]

Re: wma information

WMA 64kbps does not equal 128kbps mp3, that is only Microsoft marketing speak. Infact in listening tests WMA of 128kbps came out worse than mp3 at 128 kbps.

[xerophyte]

Re: wma information

Well that is a bit disappointing, but I can't say I am particularly surprised. Microsoft telling a fib.:vmad:
So how do I work out the bit rate and can I tag the files with dMC?

[Porcus]

Re: wma information

If it is already lossy-encoded, then transcoding to a different lossy format is likely to give you a few of both formats' disadvantages. The wma encoder has already thrown away information in a "wma-optimized" way, and then your mp3 encoder will throw away information in an "mp3-optimized" way. Result: for the same bitrate, you will have thrown away even more information.

[xoas]

Re: wma information

My own take on this issue would be as follows:

Your original lossy wma file is its own best copy. Yes you could convert it to FLAC or some other lossless codec but this will merely give you a faithful copy of the wma file in a format that uses a lot more file space than the original wma file took up and converting to another lossy format opens up the problem that Porcus described so well. Your best bet for converting a track ripped to wma at 64 kbs to mp3 would be to re-rip the track from CD to mp3.

Still, despite the theoretical disadvantages people (some, by no means all) will convert a file in a lossy format to another lossy format for various reasons and more often than not they are reasonably happy doing so. For the reasons Porcus described, any track that you convert from wma to mp3 will NEVER be quite as good as the original wma. However, you may be able to convert the wma file to mp3 directly in such a way that you will not detect a difference. This goal is known as transparency and is one of the ideals for lossy conversions. The idea is that if you can't tell a difference between the original wma file and the mp3 (or m4a or ogg or musepack) copy then you have done good enough. Of course, transparency is dependent upon your ability to detect differences, on the types of music you listen to, on the equipment you use for listening and on your listening environment. Your own sensitivity may differ from that of your friends or acquaintances but if this is primarily for your own listening, you merely need to determine what will work for you.

My own experience at one point in time was that wma at 64 kbs was roughly equal in quality to mp3 at 96 kbs. What I would suggest is that you take a variety of tracks (or short samples from a variety of tracks) that feature different acoustic features from music you are likely to listen to. Convert them from wma at 64 kbs to mp3 at 64 kbs, 96 kbs and 128 kbs (for each sample. Compare the various mp3 samples to the original wma files and look for the bitrate that sounds like the most faithful copy (and being alert for various types of acoustic distortion that may show up). Ideally this is done blindly through a process known (I believe) as ABX testing. Even if you do this more informally, you can still probably find what will work best for you. Even if done informally, this is a process that will take time, patience and commitment since you will need to do several sessions to make sure you are listening with fresh ears.

With dMC, I believe you will find that it should preserve most or all of the tag information in the conversion process.

Hope this helps.

Best wishes,
Bill

[xerophyte]

Re: wma information

Thanks to both Porcus and xoas for very detailed and helpful responses.
The file in question is a download, (hope that is not a verboten topic), if I had ripped it myself it would probably have been as a 320kbps mp3. I would choose mp3 for portability and being able to use dMC to tag it. As xoas points out there are many variables including my own ears and I can honestly say that I cannot hear a discernible difference between FLAC and a 320kbps mp3 of the same source, and I chose some pretty intricate music to make the comparison. I suspect that some of the "I only listen to FLAC" comments are a bit of an "Emperor's New Clothes" situation, but I will concede that others with better hearing, and superior equipment, may well be able to distinguish better quality in a FLAC and use their HDD space accordingly.
While dMC has not been able to tell me the bit rate Soft Pointer's AudioShell 1.35 (not as good a tag editor generally, but useful in this instance) has enabled me to determine the bit rate (192) so I now have some tips and will do some experimenting.
Thanks once again for the responses. It is good to find people willing to take the time to help. I like this forum!:komisch9:

[xoas]

Re: wma information

You are very welcome.
I would like to point out (in case you don't realize this already) that the bitrate to achieve transparency varies with the quality of the source. Thus, you might need 192 kbs mp3 to achieve the same sound (to yoour ears, through your equipment) with a CD but that 96 kbs mp3 is probably sufficient if your source is a wma file at 64 kbs.

Best wishes,
Bill

[xerophyte]

Re: wma information

Hi Bill,
Thanks for extra info. I know there are better sound cards than mine, and better speakers too, although the ones I am using at present are not too shabby. And it is all subjective if I am honest about the gray hairs.
I do have a hard drive close to bursting with all my old vinyl and cassettes. They are all still wav files, and the furthest I will go in saving space would be flac, or another lossless format. Do many people use APE? The only lossless format I see on line are flac.
All the best
Russell:supersmil

[Porcus]

Re: wma information

I would choose mp3 for portability and being able to use dMC to tag it.

My solution would then be to keep the original, and convert to your portable whenever you need a portable version -- and then your question is whether tags are easily preserved, right?

(I have no experence to that, sorry.)

[xoas]

Re: wma information

They are all still wav files, and the furthest I will go in saving space would be flac, or another lossless format. Do many people use APE? The only lossless format I see on line are flac.

I believe APE (or Monkeys) is still fairly popular as is Wavpack. Other lossless formats have their followings including ALAC (Apple Lossless) which works with iPods. I believe that there are some reservations about WMA lossless and also about Real Lossless.
With your saved wav files, you would be better off converting to one of the better lossless formats (FLAC, Ape, Wavepack) and then converting from those to mp3 as the need arises for your other needs (alternately, you can burn the lossless files to CD ROM for archiving and convert to mp3 (or other lossy format, many prefer ogg vorbis or musepack and m4a is also popular) at your favored bitrate for storage and use on your PC and/or audio players. I believe dMC will be able to help tag in any of these formats and should save tag information when converting from one format to another.
With your stored wav files, unless they already have tag information (this is not part of the wav standard so wav tags are relatively recent) you may have to create the tags. There are some inconsistencies between tagging programs that warrant always checking your tags on conversion to make sure they come out ok.

Best wishes,
Bill

[xerophyte]

Re: wma information

Thanks (again) to Porcus and Bill.
I'll follow Porcus' suggestion and convert wma when/if I need to. And I think I will archive the wav files to DVD before I convert to flac. Flac does appear to be the most widely used lossless codec, but thanks to Bill for the info about others.
At the risk of going "off thread" Windows Media player has a plug ins button which takes you to a Microsoft site. Looking for a flac plug in takes me to another site, which Microsoft disavows (a bit like Mission Impossible). Has anyone used these codecs to play flac on Windows Media Player? The actual link is http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/ and the codec allows you to play Ogg Vorbis, Speex, Theora and FLAC in Windows Media Player.:smile2: