PDA

View Full Version : Music formats and disk space

avelino
05-21-2007, 14:13
What music file type takes up the least amount of space? mp3, wav,wma etc..
thanks
GSV3MiaC
05-21-2007, 16:32
You really ought to do your research using google or something, however just to give you a hint, all compressed data takes exactly the same space at the same bitrate .. i.e. 64kbit/sec .mp3 is the same size as 64kbit/sec .wma, or .ogg, or whatever. (ignoring the minor space taken by overheads, tags etc.).

.wav is not compressed at all. Files from CD stored in .wav will be huge, since 64 kbit/sec wav is not something you'd want to listen to.

The more interesting question is 'given I'm storing the data at 64kbit/sec (or pick your own bitrate) what compressed format will sound best'. Opinions differ, but I'd go with .ogg most times, .WMA 2-pass VBR second, and MP3 a rather distant 3rd.
doniago
05-21-2007, 21:36
GS...not to scold, but in the future please don't suggest that someone search via Google or other means unless you're also willing to provide a helpful link found via such tools, to establish that it can be done easily.

Thank you muchly!
GSV3MiaC
05-22-2007, 03:00
Just open Google, stick in the what the OP usd for a title, (What music file type takes up the least amount of space? mp3, wav,wma), and you'll find any of the first 3 hits would tell the OP most of the basic stuff.

Sticking 'audio file formats' into wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_file_format
will give even more detail.

I personally think you are being unduly picky .. people SHOULD know that the best =first= port of call is a search engine, any search engine, and when that doesn't give them an answer, time for a new query in a forum, usenet, whatever. I'd assume useful until proven otherwise .. you seem to think 'assume useless until demonstrated otherwise'?

Even readingng through this forum would have answered some of the msiconceptions.
doniago
05-22-2007, 03:25
Think what you want, but it's a policy AFAIC- if you're going to tell someone to search you should be willing to prove that it's an easy search to do.
GSV3MiaC
05-22-2007, 06:43
In this case 'search' was not what the OP really needed .. basic REsearch was what they needed. Wiki, Google, read the group, whatever. Actually the best place for all things audio (in detail), including codec comparisons, is probably

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/

(I'd take the 'knowledgebase' link from that page, and look at the wiki, pick 'guides' and under 'c' you'll see 'choosing the best codec'). Of course that won't tell you which codec produces the smallest files, since that is a non-question (the answer being '.mp3 at four bits per fortnight')
doniago
05-22-2007, 12:35
Let's see about keeping further posts in this thread on-topic, please. Discussion of what the OP should/should not have done are not on-topic.

Thanks.
TedJ
05-22-2007, 19:45
I'd agree with GS... Ogg gives the best sounding files at low to moderate bitrates, at least to my ears, but I wouldn't discount MP3 entirely. As long as you're using a decent encoder (hint: you'll want LAME (http://lame.sourceforge.net/index.php)), you can get very decent results at ~160-192 kbps VBR.

MP3 also has the advantage that it's pretty much ubiquitous... I've yet to see a hardware or software player that doesn't support it. Something to keep in mind if you don't want to re-rip several hundred albums down the track. ;)

I've got to agree with Don about providing a link if recommending someone google for an answer... Gentle encouragement works best in my experience.
GSV3MiaC
05-22-2007, 19:49
Let's see about keeping further posts in this thread on-topic, please. Discussion of what the OP should/should not have done are not on-topic.

Thanks.

You've made 3 posts in this thread, none of them have told the OP anything useful at all. All my posts did at least tell him something he apparently didn't know. Hey, I'm out of here .. being helpful =your way= is clearly too much work for me.
doniago
05-22-2007, 20:34
Okie-doke.
cloud167
06-24-2007, 10:19
wma is my first choice, but ripping it to other audio is not a good choice;lose more bitrate.3 day ago ,i use a professional tool (http://www.imtoo.com/audio-encoder.html) to rip wma to mp3,but the sound of song made me crazy~
ManchesterBaby
06-25-2007, 05:43
I'd rip to something lossless like FLAC - you can always transcode from this to any other lossless format without unnecessary loss of quality. Transcoding from one lossless to another will always lose some quality (though not all that much as all lossless codes, while different, work on the same principles).

Ogg gives the best tradeoff of quality vs. space, in my personal opinion.

An off-topic sub-note regarding the moderation points: can't you keep these to PMs in future? There are far too many moderator posts on these forums (more than any other forums i visit) and it gets in the way of what would otherwise be a great forum. Not only was the comment unnecessary (in my opinion), but by posting it here (and not sending a pm) you sent the thread off topic, precisely what you as the moderator should be trying to prevent.
Alice
07-18-2007, 06:33
wma is my first choice, but ripping it to other audio is not a good choice;lose more bitrate.3 day ago ,i use a professional tool (http://www.imtoo.com/audio-encoder.html) to rip wma to mp3,but the sound of song made me crazy~

OK,OGG is better than wma as what ManchesterBaby said. i think so~
GSV3MiaC
07-24-2007, 17:35
wma is my first choice, but ripping it to other audio is not a good choice;lose more bitrate.3 day ago ,i use a professional tool (http://www.imtoo.com/audio-encoder.html) to rip wma to mp3,but the sound of song made me crazy~

Well transcoding from one lossy format to another is not a good plan, but the problem is more likely to be the .mp3, which I find is the worst of all options unless you are willing to go to stupid bitrates (320kb/s or higher). Even then I can sometimes hear strange artifacts.

I'd stick with the .wma if you already have it (unless the bitrate is too high). If I have a choice at ripping time, I'd rip to .ogg (or .flac if space was no object, and then convert from there). Putting .flac on a portable player is pretty much a waste IMO .. well, certainly for my ears/phones/ambient noise levels it is.
cloud167
07-25-2007, 08:24
Well transcoding from one lossy format to another is not a good plan, but the problem is more likely to be the .mp3, which I find is the worst of all options unless you are willing to go to stupid bitrates (320kb/s or higher). Even then I can sometimes hear strange artifacts.

I'd stick with the .wma if you already have it (unless the bitrate is too high). If I have a choice at ripping time, I'd rip to .ogg (or .flac if space was no object, and then convert from there). Putting .flac on a portable player is pretty much a waste IMO .. well, certainly for my ears/phones/ambient noise levels it is.

yes[thumbsup] , your reason is correct, what do you mean IMO(iMTOO?)
GSV3MiaC
07-25-2007, 08:46
IMO = In My Opinion
IMHO = In My Humble Opinion
ISTM = It Seems to me
IIRC = If I recall Correctly

or Google for TLA (Three Letter Acronyms). (Which is a misnomer, because many of them are not 3 letters).
TedJ
07-25-2007, 19:38
Well, most of them are 3 letters... of course, YMMV. [wink]