Skip to main content


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 at like it ? (Read 4118 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WMA at like it ?

I encoded a couple of songs with WM8 and i think they sound really great at 192kbps, but my ears can be poor too  Did anyone perform some test about wma at 192kbps ??  I try the search fonction but didn't find valuable info, maybe i'm just dumb after all hehe

Thanks, Soren

WMA at like it ?

Reply #1
I haven't done any tests of WMA in quite awhile, but in my experience, it still does not sound that great even at 192kbps.  Certainly not compared to something like PsyTEL AAC, MPC, or Vorbis.  Aside from that, I don't really consider it a "serious" codec because of the apparent lack of interest in fine tuning the psymodel for discerning listeners and the fact that development is not open, even in a community sense.

Is there a particular reason you are interested in using WMA that isn't related to sound quality?

WMA at like it ?

Reply #2
Are there settings that'll make a 64 bit rate mp3 sound comparable to its wma equivalent?

Also something I've been wondering about - is a 320 cbr *always* better than anything else at any lower bitrate? Psycoustic modeling might, I would have thought, build a vbr mp3 at mostly under 320 that actually sounds *better* in many circumstances,  or am I completely off base? I haven't tried comparing yet, perhaps someone has. But theoretically, the preset tuning idea bears this out, doesn't it? Nex

(edit: lost a word in there somehow)

WMA at like it ?

Reply #3

I think you got off the WMA topic of the thread. But to answer, an MP3 isn't always better at 320 because some crazy person could have made adjustment (in Lame) to the switches to cause fouling of the sound. But in general, yes higher bitrates will reproduce better and that is why alt preset insane has become 320 cbr for maximum MP3 performance.
For the first question, WMA keeping full resolution down to 48 kbps at the expense of added artifacting. MP3 will usually cut under 10 KHz at that bitrate.

Back on WMA bitstream 8 I have noticed much increase in quality at lower bitrates and wonder what listening tests have been done, if any? I never liked it because it tends to distort drums and cymbals badly at all bitrates. Example: Listen to a hard rock song and concentrate on cymbals. They are louder and more crisp that the original. At least this was the case in WMA7 so annoying even at 160 kbps, and I couldn't stand to listen to that. This is why you notice the 64 kbps samples that comes with Windows XP is light classical. It works fairly well for low dynamics.