Are KMA files better than Zip, mp3g, etc?
 

Hoster is capable of importing & playing a plethora of karaoke file types.
What benefits - if any - are there to KMA files compared to all the other file types?
Not sure whether this subject has been raised before but thought it might be of interest to other users.

Re: Are KMA files better than Zip, mp3g, etc?
 

I personally can't see any advantage now days in kma types. When Hoster was first introduced hard drive space was at a premium especially with a laptop. When ripping direct from disc the kma format would rip to wma format which at the same compression as mp3 would supposedly give a better audio quality. In those days you were probably talking about 96k rips. With todays terabyte hard drives the need to compress so much is no longer a problem, I import all my CD+G now at 320k zip format which far exceeds the previous quality. Not only that mp3 or zip format can be used in most other audio software, kma is basically limited to MTU products and would need converting to be able to use in any other product.

Re: Are KMA files better than Zip, mp3g, etc?
 

Thanks Roy - you have confirmed what I thought too.
I agree with you re Kma files being limited to MTU products only - in the same way as Ots files are limited to theirs.
I will reorganize all my files along the lines you have outlined.
I have also moved them to a central NAS server to reduce unnecessary duplication.

Re: Are KMA files better than Zip, mp3g, etc?
 

All my songs are imported as KMA files at bit rate 192. Would it behoove me to re import them as say mp3g at a higher rate? And what would be the simplest way to do so?

Kelly

Re: Are KMA files better than Zip, mp3g, etc?
 

MTU Songverter is all you need to convert kma to mp3&g. It also allows you to convert at 192 bit rate. There are lots of other formats that it can convert from and to also. A great little program! You can convert all your files as a batch. I successfully converted 40,000. I was also trying to eliminate a lot of duplicate files, so I converted my Kma files to (mp3&g) zip files.

Re: Are KMA files better than Zip, mp3g, etc?
 

As Mike pointed out you can use Songverter to convert them in a batch format although they will not be any better audio quality than the existing so if you imported them at 192 then they will be a max of 192 when converted.
The only way you can improve on that bitrate is by re importing them direct from the disc as the later versions of Hoster allow importing at 320 rate.

If you imported them from mp3+g files originally then they will only be as good as the original mp3 rate that you imported them from.

As to "Would it behoove me to re import them" is a matter for you to decide if the difference is noticeable to you then perhaps worth it.

Why not import one disk at 320k as a zip format give it a false Disc Id so as not to cause duplicated Id's then play them back to back to see if you think the difference is worth it.
You can always delete it afterwards if you decide against.

Re: Are KMA files better than Zip, mp3g, etc?
 

Thanks for the info Mike & Roy!

Re: Are KMA files better than Zip, mp3g, etc?
 

Roy, just wondering...why "Zip" format instead of regular mp3 + G?

Re: Are KMA files better than Zip, mp3g, etc?
 

Now I'm even more confused. I have been re-importing some of my songs from kma to mp3+G. When I look in the file I now see 3 files for each song. Is this normal?

Re: Are KMA files better than Zip, mp3g, etc?
 

Yes it is normal for MP3+G you have the mp3 for music, the cdg is the graphic file and the kmh file which is Hosters file that holds all the info for Hosters database.
If you had imported them as zip files you would have only seen 2 files per song, that is because the zip contains both the mp3 and the cdg.

All 3 types must remain in the same folder should you ever move them to another drive or folder.

Re: Are KMA files better than Zip, mp3g, etc?
 

Thanks again! :)