Audio Formats
The audio formats on this page have been tried on a Pentium
120 computer with an Ensoniq Soundscape sound card connected to a 4 speaker
& Sub woofer system (40 Hz - 20 kHz, 0.5% total harmonic distortion)
and a pair of Goodmans PRO CD2035 headphones (20 Hz - 20 kHz). Unlike
some audio comparison web sites, I tested music which I normally listen to.
This includes country, rock, pop and some classical which I enjoy.
Some other people just pick out one type of music, usually classical or
some music which they normally would not listen to!! It's kind of
like testing cars off-road even though you plan on purchasing one just
to use back and forth to work on a normal road! I also got opinions
from mates (few of which are very picky about the sound quality & clarity)
at college and asked them for what type of music to try out.
Audio formats compared:
MP3 - MPEG 1.0 Layer 3
VQF - Twin VQ Format
OGG - OGG Vorbis
WMA & ASF - Windows Media Audio 8
RM - Real Audio 8 (Atrac 3)
Other Formats - Liquid Audio, Advanced Audio Coding, Atrac 3. . .
Format Sound features, quality & Bit rate comparison table
E-mail me at:
If you've images disabled, take out all the commas and _'s in the above address.
This prevents annoying junk E-mail internet robots (which send out loan, credit card offer E-mails, etc.) reading it!
FastCounter by bCentral
MP3
The MP3 audio format is the type I use the most. Its quality is near CD quality (16 bit Stereo 44.1 kHz) at 128 kbps when encoded using a good quality encoder such as LAME. Some encoders put a watery sound in the encoded track. At higher bit rates using LAME or some other quality encoder, the MP3 encoded track is indistinguishable from the original unless compared using high quality audio equipment. Generally, 128 kbps MP3's sound like the original with most headphones & Speakers.
Advantages I find using MP3:
Near CD quality at 128 kbps when using a good MP3 encoder, e.g. LAME
Almost any computer over 66 MHz can play MP3 audio.
Almost all portable digital audio devices (which use flash memory) support the audio format.
MP3 portable players are a lot cheaper than those which support other formats such as WMA
Inexpensive MP3 CD players are available (CD can hold typically 180 - 200 MP3 songs!)
Some TV Internet Set top boxes support MP3 and streaming MP3 audio.
Very wide range of players and encoders.
Some MP3 players such as Winamp can convert tracks back to WAVE format for CD writing.
No worry about security, i.e. if an MP3 track plays on one machine, it's nearly certain to play on a different PC.
Ideal for encoding voice messages for E-mail, .e.g. 24 kbps Mono
It's easy to get hold of music on the Internet in this format.
Disadvantages I find using MP3:
Quality quickly drops at bit rates below 128 kbps
Takes a long time to encode a CD on slower PC's, i.e. 2 minutes per 1 minute audio on my PC (Pentium 120).
Take a while to download off the Internet on a 56k modem.
Advantages & Disadvantages of a solid state (flash RAM) portable MP3 player
They are very compact; as small as a wrist watch!
No skipping when bumped or used with jogging
Very quick to transfer music from PC to player (via USB)
The main thing that put me off them is that they have very restricted capacity and are expensive
Another problem is that some brands will not run on rechargeable batteries, e.g. some RIO brands.
I don't own one of these players although I tried one out; the sound quality is excellent
Advantages & Disadvantages of a MP3 CD Player
No restrictions on space as you can carry as many CDs as necessary!
180 - 200 songs can fit on a single CD. This greatly reduces the number of CDs to carry.
They are not as expensive as the solid state players but you need a CD writer to put the music on CD first!
They can run off rechargeable batteries. See my battery information page for how cheap it is to maintain rechargeable batteries.
The only disadvantage I find is that they tend to skip/jitter on CD-RWs and some brands of CDs written on early CD writers.
Usually contain good skip protection although this doesn't stop skipping on scratched or some brands of CDs
My CD MP3 Player is a Goodmans CDMP 370 player. It has 45 seconds anti roll, CD-RW playback and 10 hours battery life per 2 AA's
VQF
This is a nice audio format for storing music on PC's with small hard disks. It's royalty free, i.e. you can sell VQF tracks (if you own the copyright) without paying a fee per song sold. Depending on the tracks encoded, the quality can vary from near CD quality to a fuzzy radio although this happens rarely! Audio can be encoded in either 80 kbps or 96 kbps 44.1 kHz VQF tracks. Both the 80 kbps and 96 kbps formats sound about the same. When encoding tracks which don't have a lot of stereo effects, the encoded 80 kbps VQF track sounds as good as the track encoded in 128 kbps MP3. It handles percussion and voices very good but has problems when encoding music which has high frequency instruments that are not in the center, i.e. either on the left or right. E.g. the song Billie Jo Spears - Blanket on the ground has an acoustic instrument playing on the left and right with a female voice in the center. This track comes out rather distorted when encoded in VQF. The Billy Joel CD sounded like the original in VQF format since it doesn't use a lot of stereo in its tracks.
Advantages I find using VQF
80 kbps VQF tracks usually sound as good as 128 kbps MP3 tracks depending on the music encoded.
Does not have a watery sound defect, unlike some other sound formats at low bit rates.
80 kbps tracks are ~62% smaller than tracks encoded at 128 kbps; ideal for small hard disks, web sites & downloading.
Can be converted back to WAVE easily for CD recording, e.g. Winamp with a VQF plugin.
Royalty free, i.e. you don't need to pay fees for every song you sell if you own the copyright
Disadvantages I find using VQF
Use more 25% - 50% more CPU power than MP3
Has problems encoding tracks with lots of stereo separation, e.g. Acoustic Country Music.
Tracks take a very long time to encode, typically 10 minutes per minute audio on my P120
I have not come across any portable players which support VQF.
It is hard to get hold of music on the net which is encoded in VQF.
Cannot encode VQF's above 96 kbps
OGG
This format is a quite a new format (web link may be different). It handles stereo music very well and the sound quality is superb at 128 kbps. Just like VQF, it's a royalty free format (i.e. no license required for selling tracks). A 128 kbps encoded OGG track sounds like an MP3 encoded track at 160 kbps. Another advantage is that this format uses variable bit encoding to handle complex stereo and audio parts of a track. The only problem with this format is finding portable hardware players which support OGG, i.e. just like VQF. So for the time being, I encode my music in MP3 as I can play them in my MP3 CD player.
Advantages I find using OGG:
128 kbps OGG handles stereo, wide frequency range, percussion, acoustic & voice instruments very well.
Doesn't use much more CPU power than MP3
Royalty free, i.e. you don't need to pay fees for every song you sell if you own the copyright
Can be converted back to WAVE easily for CD recording, e.g. Winamp with a VQF plugin.
Disadvantages:
I have not come across any portable hardware players which support OGG audio
It is hard to get hold of music on the net which is encoded in OGG.
Tracks take as long as MP3 to encode.
Does not support low bit rates such as 64 kbps, 96 kbps, etc.
WMA ASF
Microsoft made this audio format . They claim on their web site that a 64 kbps WMA file is CD quality; not in my opinion! At first, you'll probably think that a 64 kbps sounds like a 128 kbps MP3 but if you like drums, cymbals, etc. in your music, you'll soon very quickly disagree! I have very little interest in this format due to the number of restrictions it has also. It cannot be converted back to WAVE easily unlike most other formats (except with illegal programs). By default WMA tracks are secure and thus they will only play on the PC they were encoded on. I tried both version 7 & 8 WMA encoders on various types of music and I preferred a 128 kbps MP3 over a 128 kbps WMA (version 7 & 8). It handles acoustic instruments, stereo and frequency ranges pretty well but it distorts percussion instruments, especially at bit rates below 128 kbps. It adds a metallic artifact to female voices and certain instruments also, sometimes noticeable even at 128 kbps. If a song contains quiet instruments as well as loud instruments, WMA tends to cut out the quiet instruments, especially at low bit rates. This may be some noise reduction technique in the encoding but a person who likes to hear every instrument in a song will notice some missing!
Advantages I found using WMA:
64 kbps tracks download twice as quick as 128 kbps tracks
Companies frequently sell tracks in WMA since it cannot be easily shared (it's secure and cannot be played on a different PC).
WMA compatible portable players are available but rather expensive
Handles low bit rates better than MP3 at the same bit rate, i.e. 48 kbps WMA handles audio better than 48 kbps MP3
If you find 64 kbps acceptable, then you can fit twice as much audio in the space of tracks encoded at 128 kbps (Read RM below before doing so ;-) )
Almost every PC with Microsoft Windows 98 or higher supports WMA
Disadvantages I find using WMA:
Can completely distort some percussion instruments at any bit rate, e.g. Dire Straits - Money For Nothing
Adds a metallic noise to certain instruments and voices (e.g. female), more noticeable at bit rates below 96 kbps.
WMA tracks cannot be converted back to WAVE or used for CD recording, e.g. will not work in recent versions of Winamp.
Tracks must be not protected to be transferred from one PC to another.
Most non Microsoft WMA players cannot perform visual effects, sound effects, etc. due to Microsoft's restrictions, e.g. Winamp had to unsupport it!
If you have secure WMA tracks, even backed on CD, what happens if the hard disk goes corrupt and must be blanked?
Some operating systems don't have WMA compatible players out yet.
RM
Real networks came out with this format since their first players. Real Audio 8 uses Sony's Atrac 3 encoding system. The sound quality of Real Audio tracks has improved with every new version that came out. At 128 kbps, Real Audio 8 sounds about the same as 128 kbps MP3, depending on music. At 96 kbps, Real Audio begins to have a problem with music with lots of stereo effects, similar to VQF. At 64 kbps, most songs still sound very good with standard PC speakers but you will find some distortion when using a good pair of headphones or speakers. According to a survey on Real Network's web site, 9 out of 10 people can't tell the difference between Real Audio at 64 kbps and CD quality and over 70% prefer Real Audio over Windows Media Audio (WMA/ASF). It definitely handles percussion better than WMA at low bit rates but the stereo separation gets weaker. Real Audio version 8 is recommended when listening to streaming audio. I encoded a few song in 32 kbps, 48 kbps and 64 kbps and compared them with WMA at the same bit rates. I found that some of the songs, especially 'Girls Just Want To Have Fun' sound better in Real Audio at 32 kbps than WMA encoded at 64 kbps, some college mates said the same thing; especially the ones who are picky about the clarity! When encoding below 32 kbps, the audio quickly becomes distorted; although still good for streaming.
Advantages I find with RM:
Ideal for sharing music on web sites due to the size.
Ideal if you listen to music in the background since 32 kbps usually sounds fine at low volumes; thus saving hard disk space and uses little CPU.
Real Audio 8 streams can be streamed over 56k modem with reasonable sound quality.
Very quick encoding speed, i.e. 30 seconds to encode 1 minute of Real Audio 8 audio on my P120
Lots of web sites which stream Real Audio radio.
Disadvantages with RM:
Only Real Networks provide the player, although I have come across a Winamp plugin on winamp.com called Tara which even supports real audio 8.
Real Player does not export .WAVE from real audio although using Winamp with the Tara plugin, it's possible to convert a real audio track back to .WAVE.
It's difficult to find a portable Real Audio compatible player, I only every came across one and it was expensive.
MS Windows does not come with a Real Audio player so one must be downloaded to play Real Audio Tracks or Streams.
You need administrative rights on Windows NT/2000 to install the latest versions of Real Player. This can be a problem for students.
Other Formats
There are many other audio formats out there such as Atrac 3, Liquid Audio, AAC, etc. I haven't tried many of these due to difficulty in finding encoders to try them. Atrac 3 is used by Sony and from what I heard, Atrac 3 audio has heavy restrictions, e.g. cannot be shared. Real Audio 8 uses Atrac 3 encoding and is not that restricted, see the RM section above. Liquid Audio is similar and is used with some sites which sell music, just like WMA, it has sharing restrictions. AAC requires a quick computer to play on although Kjofol can play them fine on my machine.
MP3Pro is a new variant of MP3, designed to be backwards compatible with normal MP3. It claims to have the same quality at 64 kbps as a 128 kbps standard MP3. My computer isn't fast enough to support it and there are only a few demo players out at the moment. When I tried it on a faster computer, I found it noticeably better than the other formats I tested at 64 kbps but I only tested a few tracks. If you want to search the web for opinions on MP3Pro, be sure that the opinions are not from Microsoft clients! ;-)
Features Comparison Table
Please note that different people dislike some artifacts more than other people and some people may not even notice certain artifacts in the audio. I didn't try any format at 160 kbps or above since I would need very high quality audio equipment to compare them. Some people encode at 160 kbps to be sure that they can't hear any audio artifacts. The best way to see what audio format suits your needs is to try them. E.g. When I watch TV (original sound), I don't mind having a ticking clock (added audio artifact) going in the back ground where as I've come across a few people who can't stand the ticking sound of a clock while watching TV.
My order of quality ratings:
Superb - I couldn't make out any audio artifacts.
Excellent - When I listened carefully using headphones, I could make out the odd artifact or bit of distortion; depending on the music.
Very Good - Very difficult to make out artifacts using my computer's Sub woofer sound system; although noticeable on headphones.
Good - Can make out distortion and artifacts easily using my computer's Sub woofer sound system.
Moderate - The encoded track sounds quite different from the original, e.g. artifacts & distortion noticeable though out the encoded track.
Poor - Encoded track sounds little like the original, i.e. very distorted.
Unsupported - The encoder I tried wouldn't encode at the requested bit rate .
Sample Clips
Please note that these clips may or my not match the quality rating I gave in the above table since the table above is my general rating. Since I can make out no difference between the OGG samples and the original clips, I marked the OGG clips below as original. Any slight distortion I heard in the OGG files were already present in the original. This saves me in total over 5MB of webspace instead of using Wave files! The following 2 track clips came off the 'Peter's Friends' album.
The sound quality in the following test compares quite a lot of sound effects. The clip has a female singer with plenty of stereo effects, instruments of various volumes and has percussion. At 128kbps you can hear the drum (last few seconds of clip) clearly distorted in the WMA clip, there is a light watery sound in the MP3 and I find it hard to make out any deffect in the RM track. At 96kbps, the MP3 clip is has a more watery artifact, a metallic artifact is present throughout the WMA track, the VQF has a slight background buzz here and there and a light upper frequency range loss and the RM has a light upper freqency range and slight distortion. I would prefer the VQF at this bit rate. The 80kbps demonstrates the lower VQF bitrate. It sounds identical to the 96kbps for me but the 80kbps WMA is more metallic and the MP3 looses more of its upper freqency range. 80kbps VQF is what I use to encode music at since most songs sounded as good as 128kbps MP3 tracks. 64kbps is what many codecs are aiming to hit for CD quality for the average person. The following 64kbps MP3 looses some of its treble range, the WMA sounds about the same as the 80kbps WMA and the RM loses a little more clarity. From this bit rate downwards, I prefer the RM over the MP3 and WMA clips. Down to 48kbps, the MP3 sounds like stereo AM radio, the WMA fades in and out and the quieter instruments disappear and the RM still sounds a whole lot better, i.e. its quality does not vary throughout the clip. At 32kbps, MP3 sounds like sereo Short wave radio, the WMA sounds like it's played by aliens and the RM sounds like it's coming from a submarine although noticeably clearer. When the 32kbps RM and 64kbps WMA were played though the computer speakers, most of my mates thought the 32kbps clip sounded better!
Note: Due to Geocities' restrictions on file extensions, I had to ZIP the OGG and VQF files, just unzip them using Winzip or other Zip utility before playing them. If you get a '404' or page not found error, please E-mail me; the E-mail address is at the top of this page, I haven't yet checked if all the links below work. Thanks.
The following clips demonstrate the stereo arifacts at low bitrates, e.g. when listening to the low bitrate clips, listen to the voice on the left and the 'hiss' type precusion instrument in the center. At 128kbps, the RM sounds the identical to the original, the MP3 has a slight watery sound in the voice and WMA has a metallic sound going in the background. Down to 96kbps and you can hear the left singer's voice coming out of the right speaker in the VQF sample (a flaw). This also happens with most MP3 enocders but not with LAME. LAME handles the stereo very well. The MP3 at 96kbps has a light watery sound as usual and the RM gets slightly distorted. The WMA cuts the centre instrument here and there; replacing it with metallic noise. The 80kbps is to demonstrate the VQF but it has the same stereo Flaw. The MP3 gets more watery sounding and the background instrument playing in the WMA fades out more. At 64kbps, I encoded the MP3 without filters and is probably the only clip where I find the 64kbps standard MP3 sounding better than the 64kbps WMA. The RM still does a good job on the clip; not losing the center instrument although the clip is not as clear as the original clip. At 48kbps, the WMA has lost the center instrument completely to metallic noise, it's still present in the MP3 although faded due to the upper frequency range being cut off. In the RM you can still hear it clearly although distorted. At 32kbps, the MP3 sounds like a short ware radio and the WMA has gone almost mono with the singer varying between the 2 speakers. The RM still keeps the stereo good, i.e. voice is still clear on the left, center instrument still present although faded and the piano is still on the right speaker although distorted. I would prefer the RM at 32kbps over the WMA at 64kbps.
MP3PRO Samples
I decided to provide MP3Pro sample clips for the above 2 song clips. Both are encoded at 64kbps since the MP3Pro encoder currently only supports that bitrate. Please note that you will need an MP3Pro player to play these as well as at least a P133 - P150, otherwise they will be played as standard 64kbps MP3's (22kHz instead of 44.1kHz). For the 'Girls just want to have fun' song, the MP3Pro file handles the frequency response better than the RM and WMA although it has a light watery sound. It also handles the percussion very well and does not fade in and out like the rest do. With the song 'My baby just cares for me', the MP3PRO clip sounds more watery than the RM clip but still handles the left voice, center instrument and right piano pretty well.
Girls Just Want To Have Fun
My Baby Just Cares For Me
The MP3 audio format is the type I use the most. Its quality is near CD quality (16 bit Stereo 44.1 kHz) at 128 kbps when encoded using a good quality encoder such as LAME. Some encoders put a watery sound in the encoded track. At higher bit rates using LAME or some other quality encoder, the MP3 encoded track is indistinguishable from the original unless compared using high quality audio equipment. Generally, 128 kbps MP3's sound like the original with most headphones & Speakers.
Advantages I find using MP3:
Near CD quality at 128 kbps when using a good MP3 encoder, e.g. LAME
Almost any computer over 66 MHz can play MP3 audio.
Almost all portable digital audio devices (which use flash memory) support the audio format.
MP3 portable players are a lot cheaper than those which support other formats such as WMA
Inexpensive MP3 CD players are available (CD can hold typically 180 - 200 MP3 songs!)
Some TV Internet Set top boxes support MP3 and streaming MP3 audio.
Very wide range of players and encoders.
Some MP3 players such as Winamp can convert tracks back to WAVE format for CD writing.
No worry about security, i.e. if an MP3 track plays on one machine, it's nearly certain to play on a different PC.
Ideal for encoding voice messages for E-mail, .e.g. 24 kbps Mono
It's easy to get hold of music on the Internet in this format.
Disadvantages I find using MP3:
Quality quickly drops at bit rates below 128 kbps
Takes a long time to encode a CD on slower PC's, i.e. 2 minutes per 1 minute audio on my PC (Pentium 120).
Take a while to download off the Internet on a 56k modem.
Advantages & Disadvantages of a solid state (flash RAM) portable MP3 player
They are very compact; as small as a wrist watch!
No skipping when bumped or used with jogging
Very quick to transfer music from PC to player (via USB)
The main thing that put me off them is that they have very restricted capacity and are expensive
Another problem is that some brands will not run on rechargeable batteries, e.g. some RIO brands.
I don't own one of these players although I tried one out; the sound quality is excellent
Advantages & Disadvantages of a MP3 CD Player
No restrictions on space as you can carry as many CDs as necessary!
180 - 200 songs can fit on a single CD. This greatly reduces the number of CDs to carry.
They are not as expensive as the solid state players but you need a CD writer to put the music on CD first!
They can run off rechargeable batteries. See my battery information page for how cheap it is to maintain rechargeable batteries.
The only disadvantage I find is that they tend to skip/jitter on CD-RWs and some brands of CDs written on early CD writers.
Usually contain good skip protection although this doesn't stop skipping on scratched or some brands of CDs
My CD MP3 Player is a Goodmans CDMP 370 player. It has 45 seconds anti roll, CD-RW playback and 10 hours battery life per 2 AA's
VQF
This is a nice audio format for storing music on PC's with small hard disks. It's royalty free, i.e. you can sell VQF tracks (if you own the copyright) without paying a fee per song sold. Depending on the tracks encoded, the quality can vary from near CD quality to a fuzzy radio although this happens rarely! Audio can be encoded in either 80 kbps or 96 kbps 44.1 kHz VQF tracks. Both the 80 kbps and 96 kbps formats sound about the same. When encoding tracks which don't have a lot of stereo effects, the encoded 80 kbps VQF track sounds as good as the track encoded in 128 kbps MP3. It handles percussion and voices very good but has problems when encoding music which has high frequency instruments that are not in the center, i.e. either on the left or right. E.g. the song Billie Jo Spears - Blanket on the ground has an acoustic instrument playing on the left and right with a female voice in the center. This track comes out rather distorted when encoded in VQF. The Billy Joel CD sounded like the original in VQF format since it doesn't use a lot of stereo in its tracks.
Advantages I find using VQF
80 kbps VQF tracks usually sound as good as 128 kbps MP3 tracks depending on the music encoded.
Does not have a watery sound defect, unlike some other sound formats at low bit rates.
80 kbps tracks are ~62% smaller than tracks encoded at 128 kbps; ideal for small hard disks, web sites & downloading.
Can be converted back to WAVE easily for CD recording, e.g. Winamp with a VQF plugin.
Royalty free, i.e. you don't need to pay fees for every song you sell if you own the copyright
Disadvantages I find using VQF
Use more 25% - 50% more CPU power than MP3
Has problems encoding tracks with lots of stereo separation, e.g. Acoustic Country Music.
Tracks take a very long time to encode, typically 10 minutes per minute audio on my P120
I have not come across any portable players which support VQF.
It is hard to get hold of music on the net which is encoded in VQF.
Cannot encode VQF's above 96 kbps
OGG
This format is a quite a new format (web link may be different). It handles stereo music very well and the sound quality is superb at 128 kbps. Just like VQF, it's a royalty free format (i.e. no license required for selling tracks). A 128 kbps encoded OGG track sounds like an MP3 encoded track at 160 kbps. Another advantage is that this format uses variable bit encoding to handle complex stereo and audio parts of a track. The only problem with this format is finding portable hardware players which support OGG, i.e. just like VQF. So for the time being, I encode my music in MP3 as I can play them in my MP3 CD player.
Advantages I find using OGG:
128 kbps OGG handles stereo, wide frequency range, percussion, acoustic & voice instruments very well.
Doesn't use much more CPU power than MP3
Royalty free, i.e. you don't need to pay fees for every song you sell if you own the copyright
Can be converted back to WAVE easily for CD recording, e.g. Winamp with a VQF plugin.
Disadvantages:
I have not come across any portable hardware players which support OGG audio
It is hard to get hold of music on the net which is encoded in OGG.
Tracks take as long as MP3 to encode.
Does not support low bit rates such as 64 kbps, 96 kbps, etc.
WMA ASF
Microsoft made this audio format . They claim on their web site that a 64 kbps WMA file is CD quality; not in my opinion! At first, you'll probably think that a 64 kbps sounds like a 128 kbps MP3 but if you like drums, cymbals, etc. in your music, you'll soon very quickly disagree! I have very little interest in this format due to the number of restrictions it has also. It cannot be converted back to WAVE easily unlike most other formats (except with illegal programs). By default WMA tracks are secure and thus they will only play on the PC they were encoded on. I tried both version 7 & 8 WMA encoders on various types of music and I preferred a 128 kbps MP3 over a 128 kbps WMA (version 7 & 8). It handles acoustic instruments, stereo and frequency ranges pretty well but it distorts percussion instruments, especially at bit rates below 128 kbps. It adds a metallic artifact to female voices and certain instruments also, sometimes noticeable even at 128 kbps. If a song contains quiet instruments as well as loud instruments, WMA tends to cut out the quiet instruments, especially at low bit rates. This may be some noise reduction technique in the encoding but a person who likes to hear every instrument in a song will notice some missing!
Advantages I found using WMA:
64 kbps tracks download twice as quick as 128 kbps tracks
Companies frequently sell tracks in WMA since it cannot be easily shared (it's secure and cannot be played on a different PC).
WMA compatible portable players are available but rather expensive
Handles low bit rates better than MP3 at the same bit rate, i.e. 48 kbps WMA handles audio better than 48 kbps MP3
If you find 64 kbps acceptable, then you can fit twice as much audio in the space of tracks encoded at 128 kbps (Read RM below before doing so ;-) )
Almost every PC with Microsoft Windows 98 or higher supports WMA
Disadvantages I find using WMA:
Can completely distort some percussion instruments at any bit rate, e.g. Dire Straits - Money For Nothing
Adds a metallic noise to certain instruments and voices (e.g. female), more noticeable at bit rates below 96 kbps.
WMA tracks cannot be converted back to WAVE or used for CD recording, e.g. will not work in recent versions of Winamp.
Tracks must be not protected to be transferred from one PC to another.
Most non Microsoft WMA players cannot perform visual effects, sound effects, etc. due to Microsoft's restrictions, e.g. Winamp had to unsupport it!
If you have secure WMA tracks, even backed on CD, what happens if the hard disk goes corrupt and must be blanked?
Some operating systems don't have WMA compatible players out yet.
RM
Real networks came out with this format since their first players. Real Audio 8 uses Sony's Atrac 3 encoding system. The sound quality of Real Audio tracks has improved with every new version that came out. At 128 kbps, Real Audio 8 sounds about the same as 128 kbps MP3, depending on music. At 96 kbps, Real Audio begins to have a problem with music with lots of stereo effects, similar to VQF. At 64 kbps, most songs still sound very good with standard PC speakers but you will find some distortion when using a good pair of headphones or speakers. According to a survey on Real Network's web site, 9 out of 10 people can't tell the difference between Real Audio at 64 kbps and CD quality and over 70% prefer Real Audio over Windows Media Audio (WMA/ASF). It definitely handles percussion better than WMA at low bit rates but the stereo separation gets weaker. Real Audio version 8 is recommended when listening to streaming audio. I encoded a few song in 32 kbps, 48 kbps and 64 kbps and compared them with WMA at the same bit rates. I found that some of the songs, especially 'Girls Just Want To Have Fun' sound better in Real Audio at 32 kbps than WMA encoded at 64 kbps, some college mates said the same thing; especially the ones who are picky about the clarity! When encoding below 32 kbps, the audio quickly becomes distorted; although still good for streaming.
Advantages I find with RM:
Ideal for sharing music on web sites due to the size.
Ideal if you listen to music in the background since 32 kbps usually sounds fine at low volumes; thus saving hard disk space and uses little CPU.
Real Audio 8 streams can be streamed over 56k modem with reasonable sound quality.
Very quick encoding speed, i.e. 30 seconds to encode 1 minute of Real Audio 8 audio on my P120
Lots of web sites which stream Real Audio radio.
Disadvantages with RM:
Only Real Networks provide the player, although I have come across a Winamp plugin on winamp.com called Tara which even supports real audio 8.
Real Player does not export .WAVE from real audio although using Winamp with the Tara plugin, it's possible to convert a real audio track back to .WAVE.
It's difficult to find a portable Real Audio compatible player, I only every came across one and it was expensive.
MS Windows does not come with a Real Audio player so one must be downloaded to play Real Audio Tracks or Streams.
You need administrative rights on Windows NT/2000 to install the latest versions of Real Player. This can be a problem for students.
Other Formats
There are many other audio formats out there such as Atrac 3, Liquid Audio, AAC, etc. I haven't tried many of these due to difficulty in finding encoders to try them. Atrac 3 is used by Sony and from what I heard, Atrac 3 audio has heavy restrictions, e.g. cannot be shared. Real Audio 8 uses Atrac 3 encoding and is not that restricted, see the RM section above. Liquid Audio is similar and is used with some sites which sell music, just like WMA, it has sharing restrictions. AAC requires a quick computer to play on although Kjofol can play them fine on my machine.
MP3Pro is a new variant of MP3, designed to be backwards compatible with normal MP3. It claims to have the same quality at 64 kbps as a 128 kbps standard MP3. My computer isn't fast enough to support it and there are only a few demo players out at the moment. When I tried it on a faster computer, I found it noticeably better than the other formats I tested at 64 kbps but I only tested a few tracks. If you want to search the web for opinions on MP3Pro, be sure that the opinions are not from Microsoft clients! ;-)
Features Comparison Table
| Features |
MP3 |
VQF |
OGG |
WMA |
RM |
| Availability of portable players |
Widely Available |
None Found |
None Found |
Available |
Difficult to find |
| Pricing of portable players |
Moderate |
N/A |
N/A |
Expensive |
Expensive |
| Frequently used personal bit rate |
128 |
80 |
128 |
64 |
96 |
| My quality rating at above bit rate |
Excellent |
Very Good |
Excellent |
Good |
Very Good |
| Streamable |
Yes |
Possible |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| Sites containing the audio format |
Everywhere |
Very few |
Few |
Moderate |
Moderate |
| Encoding time for 1 minute on P120 |
2 minutes |
10 minutes |
2 minutes |
1 min |
30 seconds |
| Latest version (i.e.: not beta stage) |
MPEG 1.0 Layer 3 |
??? |
??? |
Version 8 |
Version 8 |
| Convertible back to WAVE |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Restricted |
With Winamp plugin |
| Tested with mates opinion also |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
| Variable Bit rate support |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes (On Stream) |
| Multi stream & bandwidth support |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
| Supported by Winamp |
Yes |
With VQF plugin |
With OGG plugin |
Optional plugin |
With Tara plugin |
| Myself & others quality opinion |
|||||
| 128 kbps |
Excellent |
Unsupported |
Superb |
Very Good |
Excellent |
| 96 kbps |
Good |
Very Good |
Unsupported |
Good |
Very Good |
| 80 kbps |
Moderate |
Very Good |
Unsupported |
Good |
Unsupported |
| 64 kbps |
Moderate |
Not Tested |
Unsupported |
Good |
Very Good |
| 48 kbps |
Moderate |
Not Tested |
Unsupported |
Moderate |
Good (44 kbps) |
| 32 kbps |
Poor |
Not Tested |
Unsupported |
Poor | Good |
| 20 kbps |
Poor |
Not Tested |
Unsupported |
Poor |
Moderate |
Please note that different people dislike some artifacts more than other people and some people may not even notice certain artifacts in the audio. I didn't try any format at 160 kbps or above since I would need very high quality audio equipment to compare them. Some people encode at 160 kbps to be sure that they can't hear any audio artifacts. The best way to see what audio format suits your needs is to try them. E.g. When I watch TV (original sound), I don't mind having a ticking clock (added audio artifact) going in the back ground where as I've come across a few people who can't stand the ticking sound of a clock while watching TV.
My order of quality ratings:
Superb - I couldn't make out any audio artifacts.
Excellent - When I listened carefully using headphones, I could make out the odd artifact or bit of distortion; depending on the music.
Very Good - Very difficult to make out artifacts using my computer's Sub woofer sound system; although noticeable on headphones.
Good - Can make out distortion and artifacts easily using my computer's Sub woofer sound system.
Moderate - The encoded track sounds quite different from the original, e.g. artifacts & distortion noticeable though out the encoded track.
Poor - Encoded track sounds little like the original, i.e. very distorted.
Unsupported - The encoder I tried wouldn't encode at the requested bit rate .
Sample Clips
Please note that these clips may or my not match the quality rating I gave in the above table since the table above is my general rating. Since I can make out no difference between the OGG samples and the original clips, I marked the OGG clips below as original. Any slight distortion I heard in the OGG files were already present in the original. This saves me in total over 5MB of webspace instead of using Wave files! The following 2 track clips came off the 'Peter's Friends' album.
The sound quality in the following test compares quite a lot of sound effects. The clip has a female singer with plenty of stereo effects, instruments of various volumes and has percussion. At 128kbps you can hear the drum (last few seconds of clip) clearly distorted in the WMA clip, there is a light watery sound in the MP3 and I find it hard to make out any deffect in the RM track. At 96kbps, the MP3 clip is has a more watery artifact, a metallic artifact is present throughout the WMA track, the VQF has a slight background buzz here and there and a light upper frequency range loss and the RM has a light upper freqency range and slight distortion. I would prefer the VQF at this bit rate. The 80kbps demonstrates the lower VQF bitrate. It sounds identical to the 96kbps for me but the 80kbps WMA is more metallic and the MP3 looses more of its upper freqency range. 80kbps VQF is what I use to encode music at since most songs sounded as good as 128kbps MP3 tracks. 64kbps is what many codecs are aiming to hit for CD quality for the average person. The following 64kbps MP3 looses some of its treble range, the WMA sounds about the same as the 80kbps WMA and the RM loses a little more clarity. From this bit rate downwards, I prefer the RM over the MP3 and WMA clips. Down to 48kbps, the MP3 sounds like stereo AM radio, the WMA fades in and out and the quieter instruments disappear and the RM still sounds a whole lot better, i.e. its quality does not vary throughout the clip. At 32kbps, MP3 sounds like sereo Short wave radio, the WMA sounds like it's played by aliens and the RM sounds like it's coming from a submarine although noticeably clearer. When the 32kbps RM and 64kbps WMA were played though the computer speakers, most of my mates thought the 32kbps clip sounded better!
Note: Due to Geocities' restrictions on file extensions, I had to ZIP the OGG and VQF files, just unzip them using Winzip or other Zip utility before playing them. If you get a '404' or page not found error, please E-mail me; the E-mail address is at the top of this page, I haven't yet checked if all the links below work. Thanks.
| Girls Just Want to Have Fun (Sound Quality
test) |
MP3 |
VQF |
OGG |
WMA |
RM |
| 128kbps (Standard for MP3s) |
FUN_MP3
_128 |
Unsupported |
FUN_OGG
_128 |
FUN_WMA
_128 |
FUN_RM
_132 |
| 96kbps (Standard for VQF's & RM) |
FUN_MP3_96 |
FUN_
VQF_96 |
Unsupported |
FUN_WMA_96 |
FUN_
RM_96 |
| 80kbps (Standard for VQF collection) |
FUN_MP3_80 |
FUN_VQF_80 |
Unsupported |
FUN_WMA_80 |
Unsupported |
| 64kbps (Standard for WMA portable players) |
FUN_MP3_64 |
Untested |
Unsupported |
FUN_WMA_64 |
FUN_RM_64 |
| 48kbps (44kbps for compact RM collection) |
FUN_MP3_48 |
Untested |
Unsupported |
FUN_WMA_48 |
FUN_RM_44 |
| 32kbps (Standard for RA 8 tracks on websites) |
FUN_MP3_32 |
Untested |
Unsupported |
FUN_WMA_32 |
FUN_RM_32 |
The following clips demonstrate the stereo arifacts at low bitrates, e.g. when listening to the low bitrate clips, listen to the voice on the left and the 'hiss' type precusion instrument in the center. At 128kbps, the RM sounds the identical to the original, the MP3 has a slight watery sound in the voice and WMA has a metallic sound going in the background. Down to 96kbps and you can hear the left singer's voice coming out of the right speaker in the VQF sample (a flaw). This also happens with most MP3 enocders but not with LAME. LAME handles the stereo very well. The MP3 at 96kbps has a light watery sound as usual and the RM gets slightly distorted. The WMA cuts the centre instrument here and there; replacing it with metallic noise. The 80kbps is to demonstrate the VQF but it has the same stereo Flaw. The MP3 gets more watery sounding and the background instrument playing in the WMA fades out more. At 64kbps, I encoded the MP3 without filters and is probably the only clip where I find the 64kbps standard MP3 sounding better than the 64kbps WMA. The RM still does a good job on the clip; not losing the center instrument although the clip is not as clear as the original clip. At 48kbps, the WMA has lost the center instrument completely to metallic noise, it's still present in the MP3 although faded due to the upper frequency range being cut off. In the RM you can still hear it clearly although distorted. At 32kbps, the MP3 sounds like a short ware radio and the WMA has gone almost mono with the singer varying between the 2 speakers. The RM still keeps the stereo good, i.e. voice is still clear on the left, center instrument still present although faded and the piano is still on the right speaker although distorted. I would prefer the RM at 32kbps over the WMA at 64kbps.
| My Baby Just Cares For Me (Stereo & Quality
Test) |
MP3 |
VQF |
OGG |
WMA |
RM |
| 128kbps (Standard for MP3s) |
TEST_MP3_128 |
Unsupported |
TEST_OGG_128 |
TEST_WMA_128 |
TEST_RM_132 |
| 96kbps (Stereo problem with VQF) |
TEST_MP3_96 |
TEST_VQF_96 |
Unsupported |
TEST_WMA_96 |
TEST_RM_96 |
| 80kpbs (Stereo varies between the various formats) |
TEST_MP3_80 |
TEST_VQF_80 |
Unsupported |
TEST_WMA_80 |
Unsupported |
| 64kbps (WMA shows alien sound effects) |
TEST_MP3_64 |
Untested |
Unsupported |
TEST_WMA_64 |
TEST_RM_64 |
| 48kbps (RM piano loses clarity) |
TEST_MP3_48 |
Untested |
Unsupported |
TEST_WMA_48 |
TEST_RM_44 |
| 32kbps (WMA's stereo sounds totally weird!) |
TEST_MP3_32 |
Untested |
Unsupported |
TEST_WMA_32 |
TEST_RM_32 |
MP3PRO Samples
I decided to provide MP3Pro sample clips for the above 2 song clips. Both are encoded at 64kbps since the MP3Pro encoder currently only supports that bitrate. Please note that you will need an MP3Pro player to play these as well as at least a P133 - P150, otherwise they will be played as standard 64kbps MP3's (22kHz instead of 44.1kHz). For the 'Girls just want to have fun' song, the MP3Pro file handles the frequency response better than the RM and WMA although it has a light watery sound. It also handles the percussion very well and does not fade in and out like the rest do. With the song 'My baby just cares for me', the MP3PRO clip sounds more watery than the RM clip but still handles the left voice, center instrument and right piano pretty well.
Girls Just Want To Have Fun
My Baby Just Cares For Me