Heck, Atrac3 loses to other codecs (in features) in nearly every imaginable way (not multi platform (only Windows)), only CBR, no open decoder or encoder, not usable in media players like Winamp or Foobar, not usable in movies besides Real ones (unless you do hacks)...
no legal way
By the way, the new RealVideo 9 EHQ Video Codec has won in several tests (against XviD, WMV9, DivX Kauehi), I would like to know how the audio quality is.
I think it should be legal to create a winamp-plug-in if it´s legal to create DirectShow-Filters.
This is not completly right:-not multi-platform:Everybody is allowed to create a en/decoder for every platform. Real will compile the libraries for every platform they said. This is part of the HelixCommuinty-project.-Playable in every DirectShow supporting player thanks to Gabest Filters-In movies it is useable, also thanks Gabest and it´s not a hack, Real has nothing against using their codecs in other containers. By the way, the new RealVideo 9 EHQ Video Codec has won in several tests (against XviD, WMV9, DivX Kauehi), I would like to know how the audio quality is. In the last month I got a new picture of Real, not the evil-format anymore.
And for wma9pro:-Nearly no player, because no DirectShow support (only WMP7+???)-Not useable in any movies except wmv
Anyone with thoughts on this idea? (of separating the test in two)
@Bond: There is a Real Audio plugin for Winamp called InnoReal. But it's "illegal" for some reason (Real demanded that Nullsoft remove it from their plugin database some years ago). I think that it's because they don't want people decoding their streams (what's stoopid, IMO).
@Gecko: What I mean that is that JohnV votes for a different lowpass for each one of the 12 samples. E.G, ATrain gets a lowpass of 11kHz, and Waiting gets 9.5kHz. ff123 would vote for ATrain and Waiting (and everything else) using a fixed lowpass.
Quote I vote both for keeping Musepack and for using WMA9pro.OK... unless someone comes with good reasons to use WMA std or to sack Musepack, I'll go with your vote.
I vote both for keeping Musepack and for using WMA9pro.
Short reply : - Sorry, I haven't test BeautySlept with and without PNS encoding with musepack.- Bachpsichord sample is available here : http://membres.lycos.fr/guruboolez/AUDIO/samples/
1R = C:\Temp\Pns\Sample03\BeautySlept_Q4xlev.wav2R = C:\Temp\Pns\Sample03\BeautySlept_Q4xlevNOpns.wavABX Results:Original vs C:\Temp\Pns\Sample03\BeautySlept_Q4xlev.wav 8 out of 8, pval = 0.004Original vs C:\Temp\Pns\Sample03\BeautySlept_Q4xlevNOpns.wav 8 out of 8, pval = 0.004C:\Temp\Pns\Sample03\BeautySlept_Q4xlev.wav vs C:\Temp\Pns\Sample03\BeautySlept_Q4xlevNOpns.wav 5 out of 12, pval = 0.806[CODE]Tried with Bachpischord : [CODE]1R File: C:\Temp\Pns\Sample03\Bachpsichord_Q4xlev.wav1R Rating: 2.01R Comment: very grainy---------------------------------------2L File: C:\Temp\Pns\Sample03\Bachpsichord_Q4xlevNOpns.wav2L Rating: 3.02L Comment: ---------------------------------------ABX Results:C:\Temp\Pns\Sample03\Bachpsichord_Q4xlev.wav vs C:\Temp\Pns\Sample03\Bachpsichord_Q4xlevNOpns.wav 14 out of 20, pval = 0.058
We need to define if, for our purposes, Atrac3 = RA or = Sony's version. That matters in the aspect that only one of these is usable in movies and playable in several environments, and only one is playable on hardware players. If both encoders are using the same encoding libraries, we can go ahead. But if they aren't, we'll have to chose between the multipurpose one of the hardware-playable one.I'll mail Karl asking for clarification.
hmm. maybe it sounds like a complete newbie question. but...how do I produce a wma 9 pro file? there is no option in wmp9. or is "windows media audio (variable bitrate)" the one I am seeking?
The OpenMG software does come with a directshow filter for decoding the ATRAC3 omg files it makes. In graphedit you could easily make WAV files for the ATRAC3 encoded files. Although getting the bitrate to be 128kbps might be a problem.
QuoteAnyone with thoughts on this idea? (of separating the test in two)hm, so you would do 2 different tests (and in use both aac, vorbis and lame)? or one big "mass test" and the second one just a small test with some pros?which codecs would participate in the mass test? aac, vorbis, lame, wma9 (std or pro?) [and realaudio or sony's atrac3 or real's cook ]
The Masses test would compare QuickTime, Lame, Sony´s Atrac3, WMA STD and VorbisThe HA test would compare Nero AAC, Lame, Musepack, WMA PRO and Vorbis.