Will mp3pro format work on Rio Cali?

I’m just wondering if the mp3pro format will work for Rio Cali, it’ll save me 40% of space, that means even more songs. :iagree: I can’t really find anything about it. Does Rio have an code update for it? I’ll try it this weekend, but just want to see if anyone has any experience with this. Thanks.

As far as i know , it can’t !

I just tried it. It’ll play the files, but it sounds horrible. So yeah, it doesn’t work. But the 64kbs WMA files sounds pretty good tho, and it’s 40% smaller than a 128kbs MP3 file, so I’m just going to use the WMA format.

Why don’t you try encoding files to mp3 using a very cool Lamed ABR-VBR-Hq, with CDex ! nobody uses WMA on portable players !!

40%? Where did you get that figure? 64kbps ÷ 128kbps = 50%, not 40%. :wink:

But realisticly, I counted the space I saved after I convert them to WMA, it’s about 45% smaller, not the full 50%. Idk why.

That sounds complicated. The program I used is dbPowerAMP. I used the WMA 9.1 codec, 64k, and 2 pass VBR, it sounds acceptable.

That sounds complicated

believe me, it’s easier done that said :wink:

The program I used is dbPowerAMP.

you can make good quality small file sized mp3’s even with dbPowerAMP !

it sounds acceptable.

not everybody’s standards are the same !

Yea, that’s true. But my Rio Player only has 768mb of storage, so in this case, I will lower my standard a little bit. I can store over 350 songs on it now. :iagree:

and so what ?, my creative muvo only has 1 gb and i don’t care if i can get 400 songs instead of 410 !

Do you realize how many albums you can fit on your player (@ abr-vbr hq) ? making a rough guess i would say 18 albums.
How long is a standard album …45 to 60 minutes ? multiply that for 18 …that’s about 15 to 16 hours of music…think about it :wink:

What’s the average size of one of your songs when compressed using your methods? One song only takes 2mb on average using WMA compression methods. I don’t think any codec can compress MP3 that much and still have the same quality as WMA. (Other than MP3Pro, but MP3Pro doesn’t work with Rio)

Probably because there was a LOT of pointless info (such as JPEG images of the album covers) crammed into the ID3v2 tags in those MP3 files.

Maybe. But still, the WMA format saves a lot of space. But I wish my Rio Player would work with MP3Pro tho, MP3Pro has better quality, it’s almost like regular MP3 with no quality difference.

I have a different approach, you compress tracks, i compress full albums. I only do this once , hence the need to have more quality, with the avent of cheap storage, to me it doesn’t make sense compressing music to the bone!

I have many mp3 players and not all of them support WMA or mp3pro !
my standalone and portable dvd players only support mp3, my stereo supports only mp3 and last but not least the only format supported from my car player is mp3 and audio cd !

So how you see, WMA and mp3pro loose the game in compatibility and that’s a worldwide fact !" Manufacturers don’t support a bulky format like WMA, or a non cheap royalt mp3pro, software developers don’t give a dead dime for WMA …! It’s a losing project !

WMA versus MP3

In order to demonstrate how good its WMA is, Microsoft provided an online comparison page allowing to hear both WMA and MP3.

This comparison is featuring two test samples encoded at several bitrates. The comparison seems to be oriented toward low bitrates, as the featured bitrates are 128, 64, 32 and 20 kbps. This comparison does not include any comment, allowing the reader to judge by himself/herself, which is a good thing.

But there is a problem with this comparison provided by Microsoft: it is unfair. We could argue that the test samples could be carefully choosen in order to provide good quality with WMA and bad quality with MP3. But as there is no clue about this, we are ignoring this possibility, even if it is likely to be the case.

The problem comes from the encoding itself. The MP3 encoded files are encoded by the Lame MP3 encoder, but the version used is 3.83. This version was released in may 2000, so this comparison is featuring the just released WMA 9 versus a Lame version that is nearly two years and a half old. This is something totally unfair.

In order to be have a more accurate opinion of the respective performances of WMA 9 versus MP3, I am providing the same comparison, but featuring additional encodings. The first new encoding set is simply encodings made using an up to date MP3 encoder, Lame 3.93. The 3.93 version is used, but the results should be identical using the 3.92 Lame version, as the differences between both releases are mainly related to speed and usability. The second encoding set is encodings from Lame 3.93, but using selected additional parameters. Those parameters are selected to try maximizing quality and to reach the same filesize as the WMA samples, because the WMA samples are always bigger than the MP3 samples encoded using the same target bitrate. On the comparison page provided by Microsoft, we do not know if they used carefully choosen parameters for the WMA encodings or no.

Original sample (Baglama from The Guarneri Underground)

128 kbps samples

WMA9 sample - real bitrate: 136kbps- parameters: unknown

MP3 provided sample - real bitrate: 128kbps- parameters: unknown

MP3 new sample - real bitrate: 124kbps- parameters: --preset 128

MP3 tuned sample - real bitrate: 136kbps- parameters: --preset 140

64 kbps samples

WMA9 sample - real bitrate: 69kbps- parameters: unknown

MP3 provided sample - real bitrate: 64kbps- parameters: unknown

MP3 new sample - real bitrate: 62kbps- parameters: --preset 64

MP3 tuned sample - real bitrate: 69kbps- parameters: --preset 70 --scale 1.05 --resample 44 --lowpass 14

32 kbps samples

WMA9 sample - real bitrate: 35kbps- parameters: unknown

MP3 provided sample - real bitrate: 32kbps- parameters: unknown

MP3 new sample - real bitrate: 32kbps- parameters: --preset 32

MP3 tuned sample - real bitrate: 35kbps- parameters: --preset 35 --scale 1.05 --resample 22 --lowpass 8.5

20 kbps samples

WMA9 sample - real bitrate: 23kbps- parameters: unknown

MP3 provided sample - real bitrate: 20kbps- parameters: unknown

MP3 new sample - real bitrate: 20kbps- parameters: --preset 20

MP3 tuned sample - real bitrate: 23kbps- parameters: --preset 23 --scale 1.05 --resample 16 --lowpass 7 --noshort

For low bitrates, WMA seems to be a better compression scheme than MP3. But the difference is not as huge as Microsoft would like us to believe. By listening to the sample, you will understand that recent MP3 encoders are quite better than two years ago. Even without additionnal parameters, the results are way better than the MP3 samples provided by Microsoft. By using additional parameters, the quality can even be pushed further. You can also notice that medium and high bitrates (128kbps) do not need any additional parameter than the preset value, when using a recent Lame release, in order to provide optimum quality. (note: for Lame 3.90-3.92 it was necessary to use --alt-preset instead of --preset)

At very low bitrates, it seems obvious that WMA 9 is better than Lame 3.93. But as the bitrate increases, the difference shrinks, and at 128kbps they are quite similar. As the winner in such a low bitrate test seems to obviously be WMA 9, we can wonder why Microsoft did not provided an honest comparison instead of this very unfair one.

To answer your question, an average file size of tracks compressed by me is about 3,2 mb’s !

You’re right, storage is cheap. But my Rio Player can only support 512mb expansion, so I’m already maxed out at 768mb. The average size of the track for me is 2.1mb, I save 1.1mb per track, I can put 35% more music in my Rio Player. I only do this to store more songs on my Rio. I still have the original MP3 on my computer. As the passage you quoted, “At very low bitrates, it seems obvious that WMA 9 is better than Lame 3.93.”, I’m coding at 64kbps, so the WMA does have some quality advantage in this case.