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: Why is WMA so bad? (Read 41519 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #25
Quote
Quote

- Bad performance, even at high bitrate (compared with other codecs).

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315425"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The OP asked about 160-200 kbps range. Are you aware of some tests that prove that WMA is bad "even at high bitrate"? If so, please share with the group.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315435"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know of any official test. However when I first decided to go digital I examined MusicMatch MP3 and Microsoft WMA to find out at what bitrate each codec would be transparent.

Microsoft stated that 64 kbps was CD-quality and I was horrified how bad my music sounded at that bitrate. Very artificial, metalic/robotic sound that distorted even vocals.

I used Supertramp - School for an intensive comparison between the bitrates. No matter how high I went in bitrate for WMA I could still hear ringing.

Although the ringing artifact got less and less obvious, its metalic sound made me shiver, almost as if I had now become allergic to WMA and just the slightest metalic artifact would cause a reaction.

I was very disappointed by Microsoft as a company that they could make such a blatent lie that 64 kbps was CD quality. Never really trusted Microsoft ever since.

I ended up chosing MusicMatch 320 kbps...

Now this is my personal experience with WMA and I don't have fine reports proving that I can actually ABX the samples. This was way back, before I was introduced to HA and ABX testing.

Anyway, Microsoft still claims 64 kbps is CD quality...

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #26
Quote
Quote
OK, just to balance some of the obvious bias against WMA in this thread (and the painful displays of childness with writings of "Micro$oft" and "M$"), here's an advantage of WMA over MP3: Native gapless support.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315434"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Perhaps, but few software players and even fewer (if any?) hardware players can play back WMA gaplessly. With most hardware players, it doesn't matter what format you feed it; there will be gaps regardless.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315468"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have two Rio Karmas, both with the latest firware, and neither will play WMA gapless no matter what. LAME MP3's are ok for the most part (occasional gaps), and OGG Vorbis plays back gapless perfectly. This and the great quality is why I use Vorbis exclusively now, and will likely play a big role in my future DAP buying decisions.

Quote
Quote

- Bad performance, even at high bitrate (compared with other codecs).

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315425"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The OP asked about 160-200 kbps range. Are you aware of some tests that prove that WMA is bad "even at high bitrate"? If so, please share with the group.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315435"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've done my own ABX testing. I would start at a low bitrate and work my way up until I could not hear artifacts anymore. In every case, the only artifact free bitrates were those in the 400kbps range (VBR, non-pro) if I remember correctly. I was shocked. Of course, this only applies to my hearing (which I don't think is particularly special), and everyone is different, so one would have to try for themselves to see.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #27
Quote
Quote

- Bad performance, even at high bitrate (compared with other codecs).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315425"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The OP asked about 160-200 kbps range. Are you aware of some tests that prove that WMA is bad "even at high bitrate"? If so, please share with the group.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315435"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK. maybe is not so bad at that bitrate, I mean that "compared with other codecs" (like Vorbis or MPC) is not the best... sorry but I don´t have some tests that prove that... that is based on that MP3 is better than WMA at 128kbps so what big diference would have have WMA at 160-200kbps vs MP3 at the same bitrate? 
But I will make some personal test and if I´m wrong I accept it...
JorSol
aoTuVb5 -q4

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #28
Quote
Try testing OGG at various bitrates and pick the lowest that still sounds good to you. Besides more capacity lower bitrates also tend to increase battery life.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315228"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ogg is a container, Vorbis is the format.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #29
Quote
The OP asked about 160-200 kbps range. Are you aware of some tests that prove that WMA is bad "even at high bitrate"? If so, please share with the group.

Wasn't there a thread a year or more ago where someone did analysis of decoded WMA & MP3 and found the WMA had higher levels of bass? As if there was a bit of EQ being applied, though the decoding software was set to flat. I say that's bad. It's not true to the original sound, and it's not transparent.

Though I can't remember if it was ever proven if the bass thing was the fault of the WMA codec itself or just that something MS's playback software does to all WMA.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #30
I've found that WMA is acceptable if you're intent on compressing audio files as much as possible to fit on an MP3/WMA player with very limited storage.

I would never dream of using WMA for my CD collection, since I've got 20 GB to save my tracks on, my sister has only got 512 MB, so I used WMA 96kbps and checked to see if any tracks played back with any extra distortion (sometimes the drums echo at that bitrate), and those tracks I re-encoded at MP3 128kbps.

For voice recording and spoken word, WMA 20kbps (Mono) was superior to MP3 32kbps, and for many higher bitrates it would just be daft to encode so highly.

Benefit of WMA: Handles low bitrates better than MP3, so only consider this if you want to sacrifice a little quality for the sake of saving space.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #31
I don't understand all the negative comments regarding wma.  I have just finished comparing standard wma  at normal vbr against Lame Mp3 at normal/high vbr.  I changed both files to wav and compared to the original song as a wav file.  It was ABX wav to wav.  I honestly could not tell any difference between the MP3 or the WMA.  They both sounded like the original to me.  If there was a difference, it would only be in the range of the 'slightest' change.  In other words, I don't thin kit matters what a person uses.  I'm using WMA due to the fact that the file size is much smaller than the comparable MP3.  I have a 40gig mp3 player and have 650 records.  I I use MP3, I would have to buy a 60gig mp3 player.  Since I can't hear a difference, I'll use WMA.  That's my opinion

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #32
Quote
I'm using WMA due to the fact that the file size is much smaller than the comparable MP3.  I have a 40gig mp3 player and have 650 records.  I I use MP3, I would have to buy a 60gig mp3 player.  Since I can't hear a difference, I'll use WMA.  That's my opinion
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=319230"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How could it be any smaller? You just set the average bitrate lower with WMA than MP3. Do the same with mp3 and you'll have files as small. Voila! Try it and I bet you can't tell the difference.
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #33
Quote
I don't understand all the negative comments regarding wma.  I have just finished comparing standard wma  at normal vbr against Lame Mp3 at normal/high vbr.  I changed both files to wav and compared to the original song as a wav file.  It was ABX wav to wav.  I honestly could not tell any difference between the MP3 or the WMA.  They both sounded like the original to me.  If there was a difference, it would only be in the range of the 'slightest' change.  In other words, I don't thin kit matters what a person uses.  I'm using WMA due to the fact that the file size is much smaller than the comparable MP3.  I have a 40gig mp3 player and have 650 records.  I I use MP3, I would have to buy a 60gig mp3 player.  Since I can't hear a difference, I'll use WMA.  That's my opinion
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=319230"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #34
I am sure wma outperforms mp3 at 64k,but I heard that mp3 outperformed wma above 192 , is it true? Recently, I'm thinking over making mp3 with EAC instead of making wma with WMP 10 .

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #35
actually also the results from guru's test at ~80kbps should be posted here:



wma9 provided slightly less or the same quality than lame mp3 on classical samples and was slightly better on various music styles

read about the whole comparison here
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #36
WMA may have quality as good as OGG Vorbis but it suxx cos there are always some problems with playing it  With mp3, ogg and mpc I never had any problems!

Quality of WMA @ 64kbps is much better and I dont know what about higher bitrates cos I haven't done comparsion (wma is problematic so it's nothing I would use for storage)

anyway, we have grat OGG Vorbis, MPC Musepack and MP3 that is popular as it is so who cares about wma ? 

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #37
WMA seems ok as an alternative to the lo-fi mp3's for portable use, but on the system at home I can still hear jingling noises at the best it can do on occasions. Sure, I can use WMA lossless, but my iriver wont do it, and I cant seem to get anything to encode into the WMA 9.1 formats to try them, and I think the iriver wont do that either.

Best to just forget it and move along, there are better formats, or use MP3 for compatibility with everything under the sun. WMA was best at sub 96 bitrates, but recent tests I did with lame show its come a long way since I last tried that low a few years back.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #38
I used to think that WMA at +/- 96 kbps VBR was best for using on flash mp3 players with small volumes (128 MB, 256 MB) but now that I've tried LAME 3.97b1 with --vbr-new -V8 setting, I must admit that I prefer mp3. The squishy noises you get with WMA are simply not there with this LAME setting and the mp3's still sound "bright" despite of the low sampling rate. You get files ranging about 70-100 kbps (I think someone actually measured all that and published a table in this forum) and the artefacts aren't as annoying as WMA artefacts imho.
Congrats for the LAME developers !

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #39
Quote
Quote
does anyone need to say more? 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315278"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

All codecs except wma have evolved since that test.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315281"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


well, every one except atrac3...

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #40
At least WMA Pro is competitive with AAC and Vorbis. Or rather, it was 2 years ago, and I don't recall progress being made. So it might now be a bit worse.

The problem seems to be that Microsoft had problems "pushing" hardware manufacturers into supporting it. This while almost everything seems to support basic WMA, which sucks.

I don't doubt that Microsoft *can* actually produce a kickass format. Some of the people who basically invented audio coding work for them nowdays.  I am sure they are not there just to twiddle their fingers, so I would not be surprised if Microsoft can drop something good onto the world in the future.

Of course, it will be a closed format again, and hence, very uninteresting.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #41
I use the WMA VBR q25 on my portable.  It's decent for listening to music while running.  I read that WMA uses less battery life too, but that may be only CBR

I have ran into a few artifacts, but very rare.  I have this one song where it repeats a half second of the audio...
Chaintech AV-710

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #42
OK, uncle...uncle...UNCLE!!!!

You've convinced me!  I have a fair bit of music in wma (though almost entirely without DRM).  I'm going to re-rip into mp3.  Now, I'm guessing that WMP10 is pathetic in its mp3 ripping capabilities and I'm sure I'll go ahead and branch out into another media player.  So, I'm going to look around the forums for info on best way to encode mp3 - sounds like it's Lame but most of the tutorials I've found are for Lame 3.90 and from reading this thread, it sounds like several improvements have been made in the newer 3.97 version.  Any links to a tutorial for best Lame ripping etc. for the newer versions would be most appreciated. 

Another wma user bites the dust...

many thanks to you!

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #43
Quote
I don't doubt that Microsoft *can* actually produce a kickass format. Some of the people who basically invented audio coding work for them nowdays.  I am sure they are not there just to twiddle their fingers, so I would not be surprised if Microsoft can drop something good onto the world in the future.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331070"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This really is the paradox of Microsoft.  This same sort of situation exists in other areas.

They have a lot of very smart people working for them -- often times the brightest in their particular field, yet when Microsoft releases some work relating to that field, it's often lackluster.  It kind of makes you scratch your head and wonder wtf.

One other area that comes to mind as an example would be languages.  They have a bunch of smart language researchers working for them, such as Simon Peyton Jones, Simon Marlow and others, but then they release crap like C# and VB.NET.  This while F# and SML.NET basically languish in obscurity, and the Simons' Haskell work remains completely untapped (AFAIK).

*sigh*...

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #44
Quote
OK, uncle...uncle...UNCLE!!!!

You've convinced me!  I have a fair bit of music in wma (though almost entirely without DRM).  I'm going to re-rip into mp3.  Now, I'm guessing that WMP10 is pathetic in its mp3 ripping capabilities and I'm sure I'll go ahead and branch out into another media player.  So, I'm going to look around the forums for info on best way to encode mp3 - sounds like it's Lame but most of the tutorials I've found are for Lame 3.90 and from reading this thread, it sounds like several improvements have been made in the newer 3.97 version.  Any links to a tutorial for best Lame ripping etc. for the newer versions would be most appreciated. 

Another wma user bites the dust...

many thanks to you!
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You can use the same guides as for Lame 3.90.3.  When you download Lame, it comes in a zip package, just extract the lame.exe file.  It is the same procedures but instead of downloading Lame 3.90.3, download Lame 3.97b1.  You can also look around here as the command schemes for Lame 3.97b1 have changed.  Instead of typing in --alt-preset standard you will type in -V 2 --vbr-new Here is the pinned thread about the recomended Lame settings:
[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=28124[/url]

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #45
I'm actually a WMA fan (see my signature for details). WMP 10's never failed to rip a CD properly for me unless it's copy protected, in which case I use EAC + WME 9. In all my WMP ripping experience, I've experienced only 1 artifact. I've done listening tests vs. MP3 myself and prefer 9.1 overall for my personal ripping purposes (those are the only two compressed formats my MP3 player supports, and I'd rather not lose quality and time by transcoding). Otherwise my only rules are a 160 kbps minimum for MP3 (I find 128 in that format to be universally atrocious, but VBR efficiency is great), and 128 kbps minimum for AAC, MP3 and OGG format. MPC's also really good, but my experience with it is limited to one CD of songs I obtained.
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #46
Quote
You can also look around here as the command schemes for Lame 3.97b1 have changed.  Instead of typing in --alt-preset standard you will type in -V 2 --vbr-new Here is the pinned thread about the recomended Lame settings:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=28124
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339533"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


A small comment on this considering the context:

I think it's unfortunate that people are being asked to use --vbr-new.  I guess it's no real surprise to anyone that I disagree with the LAME developers on how to handle commandline switches, and that I still feel that the LAME frontend is very poorly designed (at least, the last time I used it, it was), but I really think that this is a step backwards from the presents we used to be endorsing.  -V2 is fine, but -V2 --vbr-new is not.  Part of this is because the switch is poorly named and completely uninformative (e.g., a user would wonder what exactly is special about it, other than that it is "new"), and part of it is because it moves back to the approach of adding extra commandline switches to change internal codec behavior in a subtle way that is not obvious to most users (which, incidentally, is what the alt-presets tried to eliminate).

If --vbr-new is to be recommended, and I assume that it's only attained this status through testing and approval from many interested parties, then it should simply be defaulted.  If there is a need to retain the same behavior with the alt presets as with previous releases, then --vbr-old should be appended to the internal configuration for these presets.

If it is simply uncertain as to whether --vbr-new is truly better than --vbr-old, and this is why it isn't completely defaulted, then one has to ask why it is being recommended, and why there hasn't been more work done to resolve whatever ambiguity there is in that regard before going ahead with the recommendation.

Anyway, just an observation from someone who had a bit of interest in creating the old presets...

Thus far I've not commented on current LAME issues, but this one has been bugging me, and this time I couldn't resist.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #47
Quote
Quote
I don't doubt that Microsoft *can* actually produce a kickass format. Some of the people who basically invented audio coding work for them nowdays.  I am sure they are not there just to twiddle their fingers, so I would not be surprised if Microsoft can drop something good onto the world in the future.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331070"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This really is the paradox of Microsoft.  This same sort of situation exists in other areas.

They have a lot of very smart people working for them -- often times the brightest in their particular field, yet when Microsoft releases some work relating to that field, it's often lackluster.  It kind of makes you scratch your head and wonder wtf.

One other area that comes to mind as an example would be languages.  They have a bunch of smart language researchers working for them, such as Simon Peyton Jones and others, but then they release crap like C# and VB.NET.  This while F# and SML.NET basically languish in obscurity, and SPJ's Haskell work remains completely untapped (AFAIK).

*sigh*...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339529"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This is my pure speculation but it might be true - field of digital audio compression is literally filled with patents.  Most of them actually do not belong to Microsoft.

Now, when it comes to worldwide standard codecs (e.g. G.729, MP3, AAC) - companies wishing to participate as essential patent holders are required to grant their IPR on a fair and non-discriminatory basis to everyone.

In case of proprietary codec, such as WMA - I don't think nobody is obliged to license Microsoft anything when it comes to IPRs - at least not for a "fair and reasonable" price.  This means that including many perceptual tools found in, say, HE-AAC v2 - would need cross-licensing and tough negotiations with many parties.

That would potentially drive up the price of WMA licensing, probably to the extent Microsoft would not desire.  And therefore - before adding anything too advanced and new, they most likely have to go through many negotiations and legal steps.

Sometimes being open has more advantages

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #48
Quote
Quote
I keep hearing that WMA is a bad codec... how true is this? 

rjamorim's 128kbps comparison results:


[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315278"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Well, yeah, how about using a new WMA-Pro encoder and trying that again?

Or even a V10 WMA encoder. Let's know exactly what apples we're comparing here, what say?
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #49
Quote
Quote
Quote
does anyone need to say more? 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315278"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

All codecs except wma have evolved since that test.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315281"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


well, every one except atrac3...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331068"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


And, WMA has evolved. Time for a visit to your friendly power tools site.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston