Skip to main content

Topic: WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps? (Read 16625 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • detokaal
  • [*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
According to this article it is. . .

"Microsoft had just released Version 9 of Windows Media Audio, and earlier testing had assured us of the codec's capabilities. We settled on a 96-kbps constant bit rate for the broadest possible compatibility versus the variable-bit-rate option, which we estimated would give us equivalent quality to MP3 at 160 kbps with most music types."

Read it Here

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #1
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • Digisurfer
  • [*][*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #2
Think I'll continue to trust my own ears, thanks.

  • Gabriel
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #3
That is some very good news: They are no claiming twice the mp3 efficiency anymore.

Previously, Microsoft was claiming that 64kbps wma = 128kbps mp3.

  • Zurman
  • [*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #4
Quote
According to this article it is. . .

"Microsoft had just released Version 9 of Windows Media Audio, and earlier testing had assured us of the codec's capabilities. We settled on a 96-kbps constant bit rate for the broadest possible compatibility versus the variable-bit-rate option, which we estimated would give us equivalent quality to MP3 at 160 kbps with most music types."

Read it Here
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253193"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They probably made their tests with Xing

  • zver
  • [*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #5
Quote
Quote
According to this article it is. . .

"Microsoft had just released Version 9 of Windows Media Audio, and earlier testing had assured us of the codec's capabilities. We settled on a 96-kbps constant bit rate for the broadest possible compatibility versus the variable-bit-rate option, which we estimated would give us equivalent quality to MP3 at 160 kbps with most music types."

Read it Here
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253193"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They probably made their tests with Xing
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253327"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Xing enoded files to 160k would easily beat wma@96

  • negritot
  • [*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #6
Quote
That is some very good news: They are no claiming twice the mp3 efficiency anymore.

Previously, Microsoft was claiming that 64kbps wma = 128kbps mp3.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253307"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So according to them, the quality of their codec has actually gone down. 

  • mithrandir
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #7
Quote
That is some very good news: They are no claiming twice the mp3 efficiency anymore.

Previously, Microsoft was claiming that 64kbps wma = 128kbps mp3.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253307"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Don't get too excited; it seems they are saying 96kbps wma vbr = 160kbps mp3 cbr. That's a very bold claim.
  • Last Edit: 12 November, 2004, 07:35:40 PM by mithrandir

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #8
Quote
They probably made their tests with Xing
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253327"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I see the misconception that Xing is a very bad encoder is still rampant here. :B

If you want to talk about shit, mention Blade, QDesign, dist10... but not Xing.
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • Brink
  • [*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #9
Quote
I see the misconception that Xing is a very bad encoder is still rampant here. :B

I remember a test that compared these codecs, and dismistified this claim. It's still avaiable?
Alguém pare o mundo que eu quero descer!!

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #10
Quote
Quote
I see the misconception that Xing is a very bad encoder is still rampant here. :B

I remember a test that compared these codecs, and dismistified this claim. It's still avaiable?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Here you go:
[a href="http://www.rjamorim.com/test/mp3-128/results.html]http://www.rjamorim.com/test/mp3-128/results.html[/url]

It's worth mentioning that test uses an old version of Xing, from when it was still developed by Xingtech, and it reportedly became much better after it was bought by Real. I repent quite a lot that I didn't test Real's latest version. in my defense, I can say Real Player was being misbehaved and refused to install on my system.
  • Last Edit: 13 November, 2004, 07:46:12 PM by rjamorim
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • mithrandir
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #11
Quote
I see the misconception that Xing is a very bad encoder is still rampant here. :B

If you want to talk about shit, mention Blade, QDesign, dist10... but not Xing.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253468"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Xing garnered a bad reputation because it didn't use short blocks, methinks.

  • QuantumKnot
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #12
Xing's VBR technology seems to have disappeared in Real's mp3 encoder.

  • Brink
  • [*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #13
Quote
Lame wins, followed by AudioActive, which is more or less followed by Xing, FhG and Gogo.
(...) Also, it seems the constant criticism directed at Xing is exaggerated at best.

Yeah, its really interesting to see Xing close to Fhg. This test uses the old Xing version, and, AFAIK, all the xing critcism started since r3mix.net. I remember everyone saying "stay away from xing". This became a kind of rule for so much time that people forget the improvement made into the codec.
Alguém pare o mundo que eu quero descer!!

  • Jojo
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #14
doesn't Xing cut everything > 16khz?
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #15
Quote
Xing garnered a bad reputation because it didn't use short blocks, methinks.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253687"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The version I tested didn't use them either.

Quote
Xing's VBR technology seems to have disappeared in Real's mp3 encoder.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253697"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #16
I haven't heard of AActive, but it performed rather well in those tests (particularly as a CBR encoder).

Albiet it ended up with the highest average bit rate overall :/
<==== Hydrogen Audio Bomb

  • uart
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #17
Quote
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps


Weird then that in the multiformat 128kbps-public-listening-tests that "Lame3.96 -V5" actually beat WMA9 when they were both at 128kbps.

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #18
Quote
Weird then that in the multiformat 128kbps-public-listening-tests that "Lame3.96 -V5" actually beat WMA9 when they were both at 128kbps.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=260532"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


True. But in Microsoft's defense (heh), one could claim they used another MP3 encoder. Maybe Blade, or iTunes, or even an old version of Lame. I remember they had a WMA comparision up where the MP3 files were encoded with Lame 3.6x or something, that was completely deprecated at the time, versus WMA's latest version.
  • Last Edit: 18 December, 2004, 11:41:46 AM by rjamorim
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • danbee
  • [*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #19
Quote
doesn't Xing cut everything > 16khz?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254185"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I believe it did, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.  I used xing for quite a while and was quite happy with the quality... until I discovered LAME of course.
Dan

  • uart
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
Reply #20
Quote
I remember they had a WMA comparision up where the MP3 files were encoded with Lame 3.6x or something, that was completely deprecated at the time, versus WMA's latest version.


Yeah, that's why I was really glad to see the comparison of the the up to date codecs in your public listening tests.  It was just the information I was looking for as I recently got a cheap portable mp3 player that only accepts either mp3 or wma.

Since I only want to use 128k on this player I was seriously considering WMA, (mostly because I'm always hearing those stories like the above about how great wma is), but after seeing those listening tests I'm more than happy to stick with lame and use -v5 for the portable.