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: [sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible? (Read 2562 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible?

Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Neuron on
Anyways, to me, a 64 kbps mono mp3 sounds a lot better than 64 kbps wma stereo, through obviously stereo vs. mono is an unfair comparision.

64 Kbps spent all on one channel vs. 64 Kbps spent on two channels; yeah just a little unfair.


Are you always this unpleasant, snide and sarcastic or you just hate me? I said it was unfair, on the other hand, WMP does not even offer encoding mono WMA. There is also the thing that wma uses joint stereo encoding, so no, it is not actually just 32 kbps per channel in a 64 kbps wma. An average 128 kbps mp3 sounds a lot better than mono mp3 at 64 kbps due to most 128 kbps mp3s using joint stereo.

[sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible?

Reply #1 –
You are barking up the wrong tree.  Did I say that the bitrate must be divided such that half can only go to each channel?

[sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible?

Reply #2 –
Quote from: greynol on
You are barking up the wrong tree.  Did I say that the bitrate must be divided such that half can only go to each channel?


I am not offended by this, I am offended by the way you put it. And this is not the first time http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=820408
Quote
One needs to know how to conduct proper DBT tests and understand that something like 8 out of 13 does not exactly constitute a compelling score. wink.gif
.

Do you tease all newbies like that? Or it is something you have against me personally? You are making sarcastic, off topic remarks (like teasing me on my first ABX test results on a VRB Lame encode from an entirely different thread in a thread where I politely asked questions about Ogg Vorbis, or saying how "little unfair" is comparing 64 kbps mono files with stereo even through I already clearly acknowledged I know that)?

[sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible?

Reply #3 –
I'm sure you would have never called yourself a noob if you weren't playing the victim card.

Regarding the 8 out of 13 comment, had you manned-up to finish your other conversation you would have earned more respect from me.  Please revisit your claim about audible clipping of mp3 decoding that violated TOS #8 (and not your only TOS #8 violation, though hopefully this is now behind you).

As to the on-topic single channel vs. dual channel encoding at the same bitrate which you brought up, I thought it should be pointed out that such a comparison really should not be made.  Sorry you didn't like it, or the way that I said it.

[sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Neuron on
Are you always this unpleasant, snide and sarcastic or you just hate me?


You've been Greynol'd™! Welcome to the club.

[sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: greynol on
I'm sure you would have never called yourself a noob if you weren't playing the victim card.

Regarding the 8 out of 13 comment, had you manned-up to finish your other conversation you would have earned more respect from me.  Please revisit your claim about audible clipping of mp3 decoding that violated TOS #8 (and not your only TOS #8 violation, though hopefully this is now behind you).

As to the on-topic single channel vs. dual channel encoding at the same bitrate which you brought up, I thought it should be pointed out that such a comparison really should not be made.  Sorry you didn't like it, or the way that I said it.


I don't hear the clipping on the particular track, okay? Stop this. I didn't respond because I have other things that I have to do, like say, preparing for a series of 5 exams. I don't have to prove anything to a bunch of guys on a forum that I will probably never know in real life. I don't have to justify anything to you. Your avatar certainly reflects your personality.

I am not "playing the victim card", you are just making me angry. This is not the behavior I expect from a "Super Moderator".

[sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible?

Reply #6 –
That wasn't so hard now was it?  Too bad those reading that thread will likely continue to wonder.  Anyway, I don't see how any of this was necessary. The only point was that I felt the apples to oranges comparison was understated and maybe it might lead to a little clarity on how bits are distributed between channels when encoding mp3 and wma.

[sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: skamp on
You've been Greynol'd™! Welcome to the club.

Post nonsense, get called on it. Glad there's a term for it.  Any more off-topic remarks to share with the crowd in order to further derail the conversation?

[sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: greynol on
Any more off-topic remarks to share with the crowd in order to further derail the conversation?


Yes: everyone's invited to /join #hydrogenaudio on FreeNode, where they can freely vent and bitch about you in a playful manner.

(Oh you asked for it)

[sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: greynol on
As to the on-topic single channel vs. dual channel encoding at the same bitrate which you brought up, I thought it should be pointed out that such a comparison really should not be made.  Sorry you didn't like it, or the way that I said it.


Somewhat fair if mono gives the best quality and WMA doesn't allow it.

What struck me about that comparison is the other thread where the same poster is bemoaning an alleged weak stereo separation in vorbis.

[sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: DonP on
Quote from: greynol on
As to the on-topic single channel vs. dual channel encoding at the same bitrate which you brought up, I thought it should be pointed out that such a comparison really should not be made.  Sorry you didn't like it, or the way that I said it.


Somewhat fair if mono gives the best quality and WMA doesn't allow it.

Somewhat fair? How about encoding mp3 in stereo, or encode both from the same mono source. The comparison that was made was totally worthless and told us nothing about either encoder.

[sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible?

Reply #11 –
I am leaving this site. Thanks for those who actually helped me, no thanks for those who used my weaknesses to feel "more powerful, rational and scientific". If the second group believe people should be teased and humiliated for such a minor thing like audio preference or being a layman, it only shows what pathetic excuses for human beings they are.

Have a nice day.

[sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible?

Reply #13 –
FYI, no one is a winner in this food-fight.
 

[sigh] From: Is my computer totally faulty or is WMA just so horrible?

Reply #14 –
greynol is the cold hard logical conscience on the forum. Leave any ambiguity in your statements and he'll be happy to point out your flaws..

Don't take it personally. He's simply interested in keeping the discussion on HA of high quality and relevant, as we all are.

edit:  in the time it took me to type my response at work all the applicable comments have been removed!