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 support discussion (Read 45559 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WMA support discussion

Reply #25 –
A WMA component with MMS streaming support would be awesome  all my favourite internet radio stations are streaming in WMA9 also (32-64-170kbps, 170kbps radio streaming is actually very good quality i think, much better than FM or the crappy DAB format).
myspace.com/borgei - last.fm/user/borgei

WMA support discussion

Reply #26 –
I greatly anticipate a wma plugin! Would come in handy as I'm even unable to tag files with the wma tag.

WMA support discussion

Reply #27 –
I'm a little bit disappointed too about this fact that there is missing a WMA-Plugin.

On one hand I think WMA is crap, but on the other hand I used to recommend foobar2000 0.8.3-special to friends as an audioplayer playing almost every file u can get. I was hoping, with using foobar my friends learn to love it and bit by bit free codecs as well. So i'm afraid that few friends, having WMA-files, will maybe switch to other well known players now and rest with WMA and according horrible players.

New users can only find v0.9 on the homepage of foobar, without a way to support WMA at least non-native. This is a bit pity for me.

Of course I don't need WMA, I love foobar and I'll use it, because it supports everything I need myself. But I really would like to see, that foobar takes care for less audiophil fans of higly economical and functional audioplayers. This would help making foobar and free codecs more popular, I think.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wenn jemand Mitgefühl braucht - ich kann's vorheucheln

WMA support discussion

Reply #28 –
Quote from: GrauerWolf on
But I really would like to see, that foobar takes care for less audiophil fans of higly economical and functional audioplayers.

WMA supports lossless and is playable on every current XP system without additional software. Thats why i use it.

Of course i'm using foobar for myself so having no WMA playback currently is really a downer for me.

WMA support discussion

Reply #29 –
was there a wma-plugin for 8.3?

WMA support discussion

Reply #32 –
So no news of a foobar 0.9 WMA plugin? I would have thought one would be done by now.

WMA support discussion

Reply #33 –
foobar2000 v0.9.1 beta 1 plays WMA 

WMA support discussion

Reply #34 –
great news!
thanks, upstairs

WMA support discussion

Reply #35 –
Unfortunately, WMA encoded with ACEPL is still not supported.
• Join our efforts to make Helix MP3 encoder great again
• Opus complexity & qAAC dependence on Apple is an aberration from Vorbis & Musepack breakthroughs
• Let's pray that D. Bryant improve WavPack hybrid, C. Helmrich update FSLAC, M. van Beurden teach FLAC to handle non-audio data

WMA support discussion

Reply #36 –
WMA-ACELP is supported with final release of 0.91.
Peter & Co: thank you!
• Join our efforts to make Helix MP3 encoder great again
• Opus complexity & qAAC dependence on Apple is an aberration from Vorbis & Musepack breakthroughs
• Let's pray that D. Bryant improve WavPack hybrid, C. Helmrich update FSLAC, M. van Beurden teach FLAC to handle non-audio data

WMA support discussion

Reply #37 –
About the 2-pass wrong bitrate indication (still present with 0.9.1), I've posted a short encoding as example:

http://audiotests.free.fr/temp/2pass_bug.wma

foobar2000 reports "172 kbps" as bitrate.
I don't know if it may help, but I made screenshot of information available through Winamp:

http://audiotests.free.fr/temp/Clipboard01.png
http://audiotests.free.fr/temp/Clipboard02.png

There's a field called bitrate which indicates 172624 [bytes]; it's apparently what foobar2000 reports. There are also other fields called CurrentBitrate and OptimalBitrate and both are corresponding to the true audio bitrate of the file (128594 [bytes]).

WMA support discussion

Reply #38 –
But I have still a problem: The WMA doesnt work if there are no "Windows Media runtime libraries" installed. But I'ive didnt found any possibility to install them, because they are only available to WinXP, and I'm an user of Win2k...

WMA support discussion

Reply #39 –
Quote from: ronizzel on
But I have still a problem: The WMA doesnt work if there are no "Windows Media runtime libraries" installed. But I'ive didnt found any possibility to install them, because they are only available to WinXP, and I'm an user of Win2k...

Try the v9 System Codecs from dBpowerAMP. If that fails you can install foobar 0.8.3 special and check WMA support during setup (which should install the runtime library).

WMA support discussion

Reply #40 –
I'm running xp pro have all the current media codecs for media 10 player and I can't get any wma file to play in Foobar 9.1. What am I doing wrong? I have 
installed 8.3 special in the past. I should have all current runtimes, Windows Media Format Runtime etc.

WMA support discussion

Reply #41 –
What does the console throw up when you try to play .wma? (View > Console)

WMA support discussion

Reply #42 –
I'm getting:

could not enumerate tracks (Unsupported file format) on: file name

WMA support discussion

Reply #43 –
Quote from: Mangix on
IIRC, other lossy formats also produce better quality than WMA. Also, i've seen some wma files in Shareaza which need a license to play. but that's just a way to install spyware to your comp.

in other words, WMA is crap.

Blah, blah, blah.

Where's your "I hate Microsoft" banner sig?
WMA lossless is a valid, useful, widespread format.
Spyware indeed.

WMA support discussion

Reply #44 –
Quote from: GHammer on
Blah, blah, blah.

Where's your "I hate Microsoft" banner sig?
WMA lossless is a valid, useful, widespread format.
Spyware indeed.



I believed in some cases WMA is crap, but WMA also is one of the mainstream formats, so even if you hate it, you have to face the fact: Out there on the Internet, there still some resources available only in WMA. and nearly all nowadays portable players plays MP3 and WMA natively (please don't mention ipods).

WMA support discussion

Reply #45 –
hello there! that´s my first post... HOORAY!

i´m using foobar for quite a while now and i love it. sound is perfect.

BUT: the new foobar decodes wma, it´s nice, since i stored my lossless music in WMA-Professional. yeah, i can hear you right now "WMA is crap, it´s from microsoft, it´s commercial... blablabla".

i use it, because WMA-Professional is simply the best lossy compressor i know. the normal WMA is crap, that´s true. it´s the worst. but WMA-Professional is very good, even better than AAC.

so, i´m doing upsampling with adobe audition and remastering with SoundForge and WaveLab, and i store the music in WMA-Professinal (24 Bit / 48 kHz or 24 Bit / 96 kHz, always with variable bitrate and 2-pass-encoding). it sounds like the original (blind comparison).

but now, foobar doesn´t fully support WMA-Professional. 24 Bit / 96 kHz are interepreted as 24 Bit / 48 kHz. i know that these additional sampling is something like an add-on and it really is 48 kHz, but i would very much like to have 96 kHz again.

only a suggestion...
marlene-d.blogspot.com
 

WMA support discussion

Reply #46 –
Quote from: Cavaille on
i use it, because WMA-Professional is simply the best lossy compressor i know. the normal WMA is crap, that´s true. it´s the worst. but WMA-Professional is very good, even better than AAC.
Welcome to the forum. I assume you only know very few lossy codecs or haven't read the Terms of Service carefully enough, in particular #8. If you make a claim regarding the quality of something, you must present data to back your claim. If you wish to express your personal preference, you should mark it as such, for example by using "I like..." or "I prefer...".

WMA support discussion

Reply #47 –
Quote from: Cavaille on
so, i´m doing upsampling with adobe audition and remastering with SoundForge and WaveLab, and i store the music in WMA-Professinal (24 Bit / 48 kHz or 24 Bit / 96 kHz, always with variable bitrate and 2-pass-encoding). it sounds like the original (blind comparison).

Welcome to the HA forums Cavaille.

- Upsampling does not improve perceived sound quality.  Beware the placebo effect.

- 2-pass encoding is moot if you're using VBR.

- Read up on ABX testing.  Try it with the encoder of your choice (WMA) versus the uncompressed original and then a compression format that you think is inferior (say, AAC) versus the uncompressed original.  You might surprise yourself.

Read around these forums (and especially the wiki), you'll learn a lot about digital audio & compression.  I did! 

edit: grammar

WMA support discussion

Reply #48 –
oh sorry, i didn´t read the terms of service that carefully. sorry for that. i will post some samples in the near future, comparing the different lossy encoders. i know, that this is already done (i don´t know on which site i read this), and AAC & WMA Pro stands regarding to these tests at the same level.

my experience in this field (and i have quite a lot) shows me, that if i open an AAC-file with winamp, that formerly was 24/96, then it will be played back by winamp with 16/96. try that for yourself. WMA-Pro stays 24/96. 

and in my ears i prefer WMA-Pro because of the better sound. so, i was just describing my own personal experience. sorry, if i wasn´t clear enough on that 

OFF TOPIC: and resampling CAN improve the quality, because you move the anti-alias-cutoff out the hearing-range of the ear, you know... and i do it mostly for better impulse-recovering. as jack renner (or was it the other one?) from TELARC said in 1998: "the recording is not flawed, the playback is."
marlene-d.blogspot.com

WMA support discussion

Reply #49 –
Quote from: Cavaille on
my experience in this field (and i have quite a lot) shows me, that if i open an AAC-file with winamp, that formerly was 24/96, then it will be played back by winamp with 16/96. try that for yourself. WMA-Pro stays 24/96. 
AAC is a lossy format. If Winamp decodes it to 16 bits per sample, then that is a property of the Winamp decoder, not the format. foobar2000 will decode AAC to floating point like it does with all other formats.

Quote from: Cavaille on
OFF TOPIC: and resampling CAN improve the quality, because you move the anti-alias-cutoff out the hearing-range of the ear, you know... and i do it mostly for better impulse-recovering. as jack renner (or was it the other one?) from TELARC said in 1998: "the recording is not flawed, the playback is."
A software resampler generally does not improve quality, it may however prevent quality degradation resulting from low quality resampling in the audio hardware.