U2 - "Beautiful Day" - free single for download

WMF files doing damage on the alternatives?

Quick opinion on the formats war: .WMF vs .MP3 vs .RA

On the 31 October 2000, U2 - the Irish band that brought you such unforgettable albums such as Joshua Tree and War (my favorites) - WILL BE BACK.

"Beautiful Day" will be U2's first single to be released in two years, and it is a proof of how comfortable the band is with the Internet... why?

Contrary to so many dumb bands and individuals, U2 sees the Internet and the tons of new digital formats, just like replacements for the good-old magnetic audio tape; plus they certainly are not afraid of the "sharing behaviors" that emerge from its use... That is why, nearly 2 months prior to its CD-A (Compact Disc Audio) release, you can now download the "Beautiful Day" single, FREE, from here. You'll need Windows Media Player 7 to play the file.

The single "beautiful day" is currently made available at a quality of 96 kbps, under Microsoft's new WMF (Windows Media File) format. The WMF format is in for the war against the popular MP3, and offers nothing but advantages...

WMF files can integrate video, audio, static text and hypermedia contents, on files which are absolutely unrivalled on (small) size. For example - again - the "Beautiful Day" WMF file contains a clip from the upcoming video, the complete 96 kbps audio track, the complete lyrics, and a link to U2's official domain www.u2.com. All this stuff weights a mere 7 MB.

7 MB is twice the size that the equivalent MP3 file would require, but is just because of the video + text stuff; if it was just 96 kbps audio, the WMF file would have been slightly smaller.

What about quality? Well, 96 kbps is low quality. Unfortunately, most people still use crap music systems (from crap cables to crap loudspeakers), so they can't really tell the difference to higher bitrate files, or less lossy formats, such as CD-A's PCM.

The minor dynamics, the lesser bass, the unexisting high frequencies, and the not-even-coded stage background details, should be enough to motivate people towards buying U2's CD, when it is released, thus making the now available 7 MB file, nothing more than smart promotion, not just for the band, but also for Microsoft's WMF format, which really delivers impressive features.

The following comments are relative to observations possible with high quality audio hardware: dedicated stereo amplifier (CREEK 4330R) + bookshelf shielded speakers (ENERGY XL-16) + quality cables (SUPRA 2.5). If you are running ordinary musical equipment for PC, you'll have a hard time telling the difference between formats and low bitrates.

The sound quality of a 96 kbps WMF file is distinctly below that of a 128 kbps MP3 equivalent, and subjectively the same of MP3 @ 96 kbps, though requiring nearly the double of processor occupancy.

This happens when playing WMF via Windows Media Player 7 [WMP7], and MP3 via WinAmp >= 2.5.

There is a serious alternative to both WMF and MP3, when bitrates fall below 128 kbps. I really can't tell you the link right now, but one of these days, while surfing stuff on encoding systems, I read a serious (University) study, that clearly identified Real Network's Real Audio format (www.real.com), as the best for < 128 kbps files.

Because I am a Real Producer Plus user myself (read more about it on 050800), I do (subjectively) confirm the study's results. After encoding a CD-A PCM file, to the equivalent .MP3, .WMF and .RA representations, there seems to be more relevant information in the .RA product.

Notice that:

- my .MP3 files are produced using Xing's encoder (time restricted demo, available from www.xingtech.com);

- my .WMF files are produced using the Microsoft's Windows Media Tools (free tools, available from www.windowsmedia.com);

- my .RA files are produced using Real Networks' Real Producer Plus 8 (150 USD - www.real.com).

So, there is quite a war going on - the war of the formats. If you want my advise:

- for AUDIO ONLY contents, go for MP3 @ 128 kbps (96 kbps shows a too obvious loss, and 256 kbps simply isn't worth the file's size increase). Also notice that WMP7 playing WMF is heavier on the processor, than WinAmp playing MP3.

- for AV contents (video with soundtrack) AND for AUDIO ONLY, at bandwidths lower than 128 kbps, go for Real Producer Plus - the differences (for better) are really smashing what the competition currently delivers. This is the only situation where you really have very significant differences. If you are not interested in video, or if you just want high-bitrates encoding, then there are a lot of free MP3 encoders, all delivering a sound quality that is on pair with Real Network's .RA proposal.

- if you are not a producer, but just a consumer, than WMF files should really serve you greatly, with lyrics, audio and video, perfectly integrated. The free Windows Media Tools, also allow you to produce video (.ASF files), though you'd better have processor power.

We are living great times, in what comes to digital formats. Enjoy them!