KMA or WMA/cdg

[jahern]

Do these two formats KMA-WMA/cdg have the same quality? If I use the same setting, say 192, they occupy the same space according to what windows explorer says (XP)

We talked about naming and the thread was moved to new features. If I convert my bin files to WMA/cdg the naming of the files is the same.

[ddouglass]

They are pretty close to the same and the quality should be about the same. The bigest difference is the wma+g, like the mp3+g has two files instead of one, but definately has better quality than the mp3. File name should be the same as the bin also.

[jahern]

I'm a little unclear about your response. Are you saying that they are the same or that one is better than the other? Which one is better? Because KMA named files don't always m i m i c the original names, I'm thinking of using wma/cdg until or if a new version of songverter does what I need, then switch to KMA for just what you said: a single file instead of two per song.

Thanks for your efforts and advice

[ddouglass]

Quality of sound and compression is very close to the same, so as you said use wma+g for now and wait to see if MTU can set up the kma option.

[jahern]

Yeah I probably won't put off re-importing my library until the file naming issue is changed, if it is. It's early in my thread, but noone has definitively said that KMA was higher quality than WMA/cdg. Frankly I think mp3g sounds very good, but I'm trying to go by the word of people with more sophisticated ears and machines. So I don't want to regret things later on when I get more sophisticated machinery etc. If the naming option for KMA is changed, I'm assuming I can always convert to that without any loss.

So it looks like I have a lot of work to do

[mindonstrike]

I thought kma and wma+g were exactly the same except for the added header information. I know kma's are based on wma audio so it should sound the same.

Sam