KMA or WMA/cdg

[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

[jahern]

That's what I figured by golly!! I mean it seemed just like what you said, both based on WMA

[ddouglass]

The difference is kma has graphics embedded and wma doesn't so has an additional file.

[mindonstrike]

Dale it looks like you were correct.
This is from another thread where Lonman posed a similiar question about a year ago.

Originally Posted by bryan at MTUsupport

There are 2 types of .kma files. The First is the ORIGINAL .kma file created by Hoster when you Import into Hoster directly from a CDG disk using Import CD Tracks. This file is a TRUE .kma file. The Audio is compressed using the .wma format, from Microsoft at whatever Compression rate you have set in Hoster. The graphics are then ripped and combined into this .kma file, so it is only ONE file, not 2.

The second is when you import a .zip or MP3+G file from the Hard drive. This file is then has the .kma file header wrapped around it. This indeed is the EXACT same as your Original .zip or MP3+G file, it just has the .kma file header wrapped around it. So this file is what you are explaining in your first post, but our TRUE .kma file is not.

Sam

[bryant]

Originally Posted by mindonstrike

Dale it looks like you were correct.
This is from another thread where Lonman posed a similiar question about a year ago.


Sam

Can someone add more clarity to this, I now am a bit confused?
Thanx.

[admin]

Originally Posted by bryant

Can someone add more clarity to this, I now am a bit confused?
Thanx.

We're confused about your confused.

As a question and we can answer.

Jahern, as to WMA -vs- MP3 quality, at 192Kb rate, probably both will sound good. That's not much compression. At 128Kb, WMA will sound about the same as MP3 at 160Kb. So WMA can give you the same quaity at a higher compression ratio.

We are waiting for a bit more user feedback before doing Songverter 1.001 release. We will correc then BIN -> KMA naming error. We should have used the same naming convention throughout, but copying code pieces from other programs to do the same function, does ALL the functions the same. In this case, the Hoster naming of KMA files is different than Songverter. I'm sure that's how it happened.