Navigation

Calendar

May 2012
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Most Recent Posts


MP3 vs. WMA: Understanding Bit Rate

June 6th, 2006 Jason Dunn

Much has been said over the years regarding MP3 and WMA music formats, and as a result there’s a lot of confusion about the strengths and weaknesses of each format. If you’re going to rip your own CDs, what format should you use? And what bit rates? Better yet, what does bit rate even mean? You’ve probably seen “128kbps WMA”, but what the heck does that mean? Here’s a quick primer on these two formats, starting with a discussion of bit rate. And for the sake of keeping things simple, I’m only going to cover MP3 and WMA – support for other formats, such as Ogg or AAC, aren’t widely supported across Windows Mobile devices, though there are some third party tools that enable support for those formats. The discussion on bit rate applies to these other formats just the same however. Lossless is another topic entirely - Damion Chaplin at Digital Media Thoughts has written an article on the topic.

When you listen to a CD, you’re listening to digitally encoded music. The quality of a digital sound file is measured in bits – 0’s and 1’s – the more bits, the more information there is, and the more information, the more sound there is. More sound means the digital audio is closer to the original recording, and when you’re listening to a song, you want it to be as close to the real thing as possible, right? So that CD you bought has a really high bit rate – 1410 kilobits per second (kbps) to be exact. That means that a CD, which is the consumer benchmark for audio quality today, dishes out audio at 1410 kbps (remember that number for later). Audiophiles will tell you that DVD Audio or SA-CD is the real high-water benchmark for quality, but considering those formats have been colossal failures with mainstream consumers in terms of adoption, I don’t consider them to be pertinent to this discussion.

So if a CD is 1410 kbps, why would we drop the bit rate when creating WMA or MP3 files, and thus the quality? Storage space is the answer why. Doing some quick math tells us that a 1410 kbps song requires 176 kilobytes per second, or 0.176 MB. Figure on an average four-minute song, and we have an audio file that needs 42MB of space. 42MB per song, multiplied by 15 songs, and we have 630MB, which is nearly the capacity of a CD. It all makes sense now, doesn’t it? But do you want to be able to fit only twelve songs on your 512MB digital audio player? No, I didn’t think so – that might not even be a whole album. So in order to make those big 42MB songs smaller, we compress them by lowering the bit rate. We toss out the 0’s and 1’s – we actually remove parts of the song in order to make it smaller. So what does a song sound like with parts missing? That’s the magic of psychoacoustics – and what I’ll be explaining next!

Entry Filed under: Site Management

3 Comments

  • 1. joelevi  |  June 7th, 2006 at 9:08 am

    On the “Lossless” tangent… Lossless compression is a thing of beauty… and with WMA Lossless, it’s also the most horrid beast imaginable.

    In short, in my attempt to keep as close to the original as possible on my Media Center PC (so that I could down-sample to other sizes for other devices) I encoded nearly all of my audio collection into WMA Lossless.

    I interface with my Media Center PC though an XBox (original) extender, so we watch TV and listen to music through the XBox in the other room on the big-screen and over the big-speakers.

    In theory, it sounds great. In practice, Extenders don’t support Lossless audio.

    Let me say that again, Windows Media Center Extender for XBox (made by Microsoft, in case you missed that) does NOT play Windows Media Audio Lossless (made by Microsoft). !!!

    The whole sordid tale: Joe Levi’s WMA Lossless Horror Story

  • 2. Jason Dunn  |  June 7th, 2006 at 10:15 am

    Ouch - that does indeed suck. I don’t see lossless WMA support on this list of updates, but maybe it’s in there anyway…?

  • 3. Damion Chaplin  |  June 20th, 2006 at 11:35 am

    Wow, thanks Joe, I didn’t know that and it’s good to keep in mind. You would think MS would support their own format…
    Thanks for the mention, Jason. ;)