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: wma pro, ogg, or musepack (Read 7852 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

I tried to compare these 3 formats at bitrates around 192 kb/s. I used the last versions of all codecs. It seems that wma pro sounds very good. To mee it seems better that ogg at this bitrate. Musepack gives me bigger filesize and of course it sounds great. I read I lot about how wma isn't good, so I decided to try wma pro. Is there any tests that compare these 3 formats at bitrates around 192 kb/s ?

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #2 –
Quote
Take a look at these sites: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat12...esentation.html
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html

Its a comparison on different codecs at ~128Kbps, but it should get you on the right track!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=265106"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry, in my opinion you're wrong.
WMA Pro isnt the plain WMA and its much more 'tuned' for professional listening.

I wouldn't consider to compare WMA with WMA Pro. They're just different.


Well, don't get me wrong. There is only one thing I wanted to say:
No one really made a proper listening test comparing those  three encoders.
at that bitrate. It woulnd't surprise if WMA Pro is better / more transparent
than OGG because its tuned.

Even WMA Pro is "better" at those bitrates I woulnd't use it. Because it's M$
portable: 128 kbps cbr AAC
local: -7 FLAC

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #3 –
@darky. Perhaps you should look at this site instead!
Quote
Another important note: It's worth mentioning that the WMA codec used in this test is WMA PRO (introduced in Windows Media 9). It has better quality, but is not backwards compatible with WMA standard, that is the codec that is actually supported by portable players, DVD players, etc. It's expected that devices supporting WMA Pro start being manufactured soon.
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #4 –
So you're thinking it's right to compare 192kbit/s as if they were 128kbit/s?
I'm really interested which codec is more transparent. (at those bitrates)

Probably you're just right.
portable: 128 kbps cbr AAC
local: -7 FLAC

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #5 –
Quote
I tried to compare these 3 formats at bitrates around 192 kb/s. I used the last versions of all codecs. It seems that wma pro sounds very good. To mee it seems better that ogg at this bitrate. Musepack gives me bigger filesize and of course it sounds great. I read I lot about how wma isn't good, so I decided to try wma pro. Is there any tests that compare these 3 formats at bitrates around 192 kb/s ?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=265101"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Start reading the FAQs about ABX testing. You've started a TOS #8 violation thread.

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #6 –
Its not right, since codecs are optimized for different bitrates.
But I dont know any 192kbps listening tests. But you could always do an ABX test yourself!

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #7 –
Well, on the first song I tested those codecs it wasn't hard to differ wma pro from ogg vorbis. So why should I do ABX when I can clearly hear the difference? I know that ogg vorbis isn't tuned for high bitrates. I think that tests at 128 kb/s can't be compared to tests at 192 kb/s. Ogg is good at 128 kb/s, but at 192 it's not so good as some other codecs. I am more interested in how mpc is standing against wma pro.

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #8 –
>>Is there any tests that compare these 3 formats at bitrates around 192 kb/s ?
Such a bitrates are huge, most music samples are transparent for most of the listeners on this bitrates with any of codecs you mentioned.
Difference usually can be noticed on so called problematic samples...
Also, such a tests are hard, listeners became tired quickly, so do not expect very many performed ABX test for this bitrate to be found
EDIT:
>>So why should I do ABX when I can clearly hear the difference?
You may hear it, but the only way to prove it is to ABX.
Is this understandable ?
Anyway, expect very confusing results when you try to do ABX test for the first time

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #9 –
Quote
Also, such a tests are hard, listeners became tired quickly, so do not expect very many performed ABX test for this bitrate to be found
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=265140"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Quote
Leviathan says:
There's some inverse proportionality there :B
Leviathan says:
At low bitrates nobody is interested, but the results are easy to obtain
Leviathan says:
At high bitrates everyone is interested, but you pratically can't obtain usable results
miyaguch says:
s/bitrates/beauty and s/results/f**ks


(Leviathan is me, miyaguch is ff123)

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #10 –
These listening tests included WMA9 standard, and other tests included WMA9 Professional. WMA9.1 (which is the current version) standard or pro has not yet been included in these multiformat tests. You probably are using WMA9.1 Pro.

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #11 –
Yes, I used WMA9.1 Pro. It would be nice to see some new tests that will incude this version.

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #12 –
Today I did invert/mix_paste with wma pro 9.1 and musepack. Look the picture:
http://www.spymac.com/gallery/show_photo.php?picid=332192

Does this mean that musepack is bad? How to interpret this ? Does this mean that mpc differs much more from original wav than wma pro?

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #13 –

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #14 –
Quote
Today I did invert/mix_paste with wma pro 9.1 and musepack. Look the picture:
http://www.spymac.com/gallery/show_photo.php?picid=332192

Does this mean that musepack is bad? How to interpret this ? Does this mean that mpc differs much more from original wav than wma pro?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


From the FAQ:

[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=7834&view=findpost&p=77265]Why not to use graphs to compare codecs[/url]

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #15 –
branko: In short, this kind of comparison is useless for perceptual coding. (see the FAQ entry picmixer linked to)

On top of that, it looks like you messed the mpc screenshot up royally (was the mpc decoded with replaygain applied or something like that?)

Furthermore, I second Roberto's thoughts: 
A riddle is a short sword attached to the next 2000 years.

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #16 –
>>Furthermore, I second Roberto's thoughts:
He-he 

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #17 –
I replaygained both files but when I did decoding in foobar I didn't check to use replaygain or dsp. Both files were decoded at same conditions. I am surprised about mpc screenshot too. I repeated it 3 times and everytime I got the same picture. " YOU CANT' SAY SOMETHING SOUNDS BETTER BASED ON A PICTURE" - I agree, but mpc looks very different!!? I will try once again with mpc just to be sure.

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #18 –
I encoded and decoded the file once again without replaygain and I got different picture.It looks almost the same as wma pro. It was the foobar problem. It used replaygain on mpc when converted, even if it wasn't checked in converting options.

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #19 –
Quote
Well, on the first song I tested those codecs it wasn't hard to differ wma pro from ogg vorbis. So why should I do ABX when I can clearly hear the difference?


Perhaps you had one track replay gained and the other not when you did those comparisons?

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #20 –
Quote
It was the foobar problem. It used replaygain on mpc when converted, even if it wasn't checked in converting options.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=265413"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Errrrm, I seriously doubt that.

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #21 –
First I ripped the same track 3 times(mpc,wma pro,ogg) . I used EAC. I replaygained them in foobar and I listened for them all couple of times. Then I decided to compare them to original, so I used foobar to decode them. First I checked that dsp and replaygain wasn't checked. It decoded files, and only with mpc it used replaygain. I don't know why.

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #22 –
Many people here claim that musepack is the best encoder for high bitrates. But there were no high bitrate tests to prove this, or I am wrong? What is the situation today when we have ogg vorbis 1.1 and wma pro 9.1?

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #23 –
musepack gives you abx trouble at 160-170k. I've abxed quite a few mp3 samples at that bitrate - even on aps with concentration. Also music with sharp transients will often fail to some extent with mp3 and maybe even vorbis due to pre-echo.

Have a search of this forum and you will see that mp3 and vorbis both fail from time to time on just normal music. MPC on the other hand has only few 'bad ' cases from many years of testing.

wma pro, ogg, or musepack

Reply #24 –
Quote
Many people here claim that musepack is the best encoder for high bitrates. But there were no high bitrate tests to prove this, or I am wrong? What is the situation today when we have ogg vorbis 1.1 and wma pro 9.1?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=266122"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Have you even tried the search feature here? It would seem not.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650