Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: foobar2000 v1.4.4 vs WMA Lossless (Read 1232 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from Foobar 1.4.4 Beta 1: ...
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

foobar2000 v1.4.4 vs WMA Lossless

Quote
foobar2000 now refuses to open 24-bit WMA lossless files on Windows 10 - which would otherwise decode incorrectly.

I don't think that this issue worth creating its own thread, so I'll post about it here:

it seems that the problem with WMA was sort of solved here: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,117275.msg969628.html#msg969628

Re: foobar2000 v1.4.4 vs WMA Lossless

Reply #1 –
I tried the known workarounds for WMA Lossless decoding, including Media Foundation decoding with parameters posted in the linked thread. I managed to get better results, as in no glitching in majority of files. However one WMA Lossless 24-bit file that I have still decodes with a loud glitch. The same file decodes fine using wmal2pcm.exe or foobar2000 running in Windows 7.

This case is particularly worrying - if I enabled Media Foundation workarounds, users could notice that there were issues with decoding long after converting and deleting the original files.

Therefore I made foobar2000 outright refuse to open WMA files with known problematic configurations.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

Re: foobar2000 v1.4.4 vs WMA Lossless

Reply #2 –
The file Peter has is from me. Unfortunately it isn't an isolated case.

I had encoded my lossless library as WMA a couple of years ago and bitcompare found several tracks with sample mismatches. Once Peter shared the MF decoder I first confirmed that it produced bit-perfect results with the samples posted in the linked thread. Then tested it with the problem files I had logged and saw that bitcompare produced exact same sample mismatch results.

Re: foobar2000 v1.4.4 vs WMA Lossless

Reply #3 –
Here's a 20 second sample as FLAC and WMA that shows the problem.

Re: foobar2000 v1.4.4 vs WMA Lossless

Reply #4 –
Thread split to give the discussion a more meaningful/discoverable title.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.