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 9.2 (Read 16467 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WMA 9.2

Has anyone noticed that WMP 11 has the WMA 9.2 codec?

I had to reinstall the dbpoweramp wma converter to get it to work, and noticed it was now 9.2

I wonder what is new?  I like WMA for my flash portable, q50 is pretty decent compression : quality ratio IMO
Chaintech AV-710

WMA 9.2

Reply #1 –
How many more threads do we need for this? It has been stated in the WMA 11 Beta thread as well in my listening test discussion thread.

Anyways, thanks for letting us know.

BTW, there were some problems with third-party software that encodes to WMA - the resulting files were playable, but were different from the ones created with WMP. I didn't test if this is still valid, but you should pay attention to what you do.

WMA 9.2

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
How many more threads do we need for this? It has been stated in the WMA 11 Beta thread as well in my listening test discussion thread.

Anyways, thanks for letting us know.

BTW, there were some problems with third-party software that encodes to WMA - the resulting files were playable, but were different from the ones created with WMP. I didn't test if this is still valid, but you should pay attention to what you do.


WMP can create Windows Media "Plus" files (pro, SBR+PS-ish sounding).  WME and 3rd-party applications can only access the standard codecs (9.2 and Pro 10 "standard").

edit: Oh, and if your Flash device supports WMA9Pro, try encoding with WMA10Pro at Quality 25  Files will be 60-75kbps...similar to the filesizes you already get.  Yeah, you'll see.
Copy Restriction, Annulment, & Protection = C.R.A.P. -Supacon

WMA 9.2

Reply #3 –
Do you have any evidence that WMA Plus is really using SBR and PS? If yes, please show me where you have that information from.

Edit: If a Ferrari car is as fast as a Porsche car it doesn't mean that they use the same engine.

WMA 9.2

Reply #4 –
I'm quite impressed with the quality of WMA Pro 10 in WMP11. My guess was also, that it uses SBR (or something similar) to reproduce higher frequencies (when seeking in a 32kb WMA Pro file you can hear how the higher frequencies "lag behind" a break of a second - an effect you can notice on mp3pro and he-aac (at least on some decoders, try Winamp...)

WMA 9.2

Reply #5 –
yeah, no wmapro support here, it just locks up my portable, though it does read the tags and bitrate
Chaintech AV-710

WMA 9.2

Reply #6 –
Has anyone tested to see if a WMA 10 Pro (with the 'plus' enhancements) 64k file created/ripped fom a CD with WMP 11 Beta will play on previous versions of WMA supporting apps (Winamp, Yahoo! Music and also on Windows Media Player versions 9 and 10) accurately?

I am anxious to know if files I create will be play, with all the whatever kind of SBR-like enhancements MS may be using, on earlier media player so I know my users can play my audio files encoding with WMP 10 Pro+ at 64K.

I tried Yahoo! Music, Winamp 5.21 and Windows Media Player 10 on a separate PC to playback a WMP 10 Pro+ 64k file and it played, but I can't tell if I am losing any of the upper end stuff or if it is plying only 22Khz, etc.

If anyone can find out if the new Codecs are automatically downloaded/used by these apps on a machine without WMP 11 Beta installed that would great to know. Thanks!

WMA 9.2

Reply #7 –
Quote from: goodnews on
Has anyone tested to see if a WMA 10 Pro (with the 'plus' enhancements) 64k file created/ripped fom a CD with WMP 11 Beta will play on previous versions of WMA supporting apps...accurately?
I am anxious to know if files I create will be play, with all the whatever kind of SBR-like enhancements MS may be using, on earlier media player so I know my users can play my audio files encoding with WMP 10 Pro+ at 64K.


Older decoders may not be able to play the Plus version--or they do, it plays back as 22khz mono (at 64kbps, not mono, but still 22khz, so no PS-like stuff at 64kbps).  I verify this with my PocketPC, which uses a first-gen WMA9pro decoder and plays 32kbps 44khz Stereo WMA10Pro+ files at 22khz mono.  The same PocketPC plays WMA10Pro (not plus) correctly at the same bitrate. 

So basically, to ensure compatibility, only use WMA10Pro (not plus).  But don't worry--try encoding something with WME (or any 3rd-party app which used the old WMA9Pro) at VBR Quality = 25, and tell me what you think.  Trust me on this one

edit:
Quote
Do you have any evidence that WMA Plus is really using SBR and PS? If yes, please show me where you have that information from.

Edit: If a Ferrari car is as fast as a Porsche car it doesn't mean that they use the same engine.

"Speculative conclusion" is based on the following:
1.  The PocketPC theorem (see above).
2.  The name "Plus" as in AAC "Plus"
3.  Artifacts, artifacts...
4.  They tested this explicitly against HE-AAC, not even comparing it to any other established low-bitrate winner like atrac, tuned vorbis, etc...
5.  Naa, that's about it, really.  But it's compelling dontcha think?

Don't worry--though I'm new to the forum, I'm not necessarily uneducated enough to compare codecs based on ... well, nothing.  Nor would I say, for instance, that AAC and MP3 are the exact same thing just because LAME and Nero encode at the same speed on my system (Ferrari vs Porsche speed example)
Copy Restriction, Annulment, & Protection = C.R.A.P. -Supacon

WMA 9.2

Reply #9 –
I'll have to reboot into 32-bit Win now (WMP 11 isn't yet in 64-bit) to see where this "Plus" encoding is accessed. I noticed that my WMP 10 Pro 48 kbps files were done in one pass; I'd have expected a two-pass ABR method if they really were serious about quality at low rates.  Thus far, I don't see how this bolsters MS in a fight for placement on cellie/musicphones -- but this is a beta release. I also wonder if anyone knows about battery draw with whatever MS fields against HE-AAC; HE-AAC is very friendly to batteries.
Is making these codecs play on "Plays for Sure" mobile devices and Smartphones simply a matter of a BIOS update for the former and release of a WinMobile WMP 11 for the latter?

WMA 9.2

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
OK, my example wasn't the best, but unless it is known for sure that they are using PS and/or SBR, I don't think it's a good idea to say that WMA is using those techniques.

The fact that it degrades in the same way as AAC HE/PS with old decoders would tend to forward the notion. And while mpeg-4 bitstreams and specific techniques and formulae may be patented, I doubt simple, useful ideas like "extend harmonics above the lowpass" or "upmix mono to stereo" is covered. (Although specifics of each might be wildly different, both may be V8s because they're the best weight/performance/cost tradeoff that science has found yet. )

WMA 9.2

Reply #11 –
Quote from: foxyshadis on
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on

OK, my example wasn't the best, but unless it is known for sure that they are using PS and/or SBR, I don't think it's a good idea to say that WMA is using those techniques.

The fact that it degrades in the same way as AAC HE/PS with old decoders would tend to forward the notion. And while mpeg-4 bitstreams and specific techniques and formulae may be patented, I doubt simple, useful ideas like "extend harmonics above the lowpass" or "upmix mono to stereo" is covered. (Although specifics of each might be wildly different, both may be V8s because they're the best weight/performance/cost tradeoff that science has found yet. )


I think MS owns or has licensing agreements with the owners of many of the MPEG4 patents, so its probably possible for them to use many or most of them anyway.

WMA 9.2

Reply #12 –
Quote from: The Sheep of DEATH on
WMP can create Windows Media "Plus" files (pro, SBR+PS-ish sounding).  WME and 3rd-party applications can only access the standard codecs (9.2 and Pro 10 "standard").

Could you encode a file with this WMA+ setting please...

Now play it back directly in WMP 11 and go to Files --> Properties. You should have some infos about this wma file. So, could you post a snapshot of this ?

Thanks. 

WMA 9.2

Reply #13 –
Quote
Could you encode a file with this WMA+ setting please...

Now play it back directly in WMP 11 and go to Files --> Properties. You should have some infos about this wma file. So, could you post a snapshot of this ?


Code: [Select]
Audio codec: Windows Media Audio 10 Professional, 48 kbps, 44 kHz, 2 channel 16 bit 1-pass CBR


Nothing else of interest here.

WMA 9.2

Reply #14 –
Ok...thank you very much.  I've got the same properties by using directly WMCmd.vbs updated.

So this
Quote
WME and 3rd-party applications can only access the standard codecs (9.2 and Pro 10 "standard").

isn't true anymore...

WMA 9.2

Reply #15 –
Quote from: foxyshadis on
The fact that it degrades in the same way as AAC HE/PS with old decoders would tend to forward the notion.


Actually, the test results from a while ago that were pointed to here suggests to me that they do NOT degrade in the SAME way.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

WMA 9.2

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
I think MS owns or has licensing agreements with the owners of many of the MPEG4 patents, so its probably possible for them to use many or most of them anyway.


Seems so. WMA10pro has some kind of HE and LC profiles.
CT was first who applicated approx 20.5 khz lowpass  for SBR at low bitrates . The lowpass for LC at 96 kbit/s  remains between 15-16 khz for most of AAC encoders.  The same numbres for WMA10pro. First impression from codec : after ABXing first 10 samples WMA10pro CBR 1pass 64 kbit/s  is slightly better than Aotuv 4.51 beta -q 0 ( ap. 64 kbit/s) and Nero AAC VBR q 0.253  (aprox 64 kbits) .
But 10 samples aren't enough to do any conclusion.  Doing some more blind tests untill the minimum confindece interval for p=0.95