HydrogenAudio

Misc. => Off-Topic => Topic started by: qualityequalizer on 2005-03-01 18:29:29

Title: WMA might take over
Post by: qualityequalizer on 2005-03-01 18:29:29
I do not like the attitude in this forum that WMA is some sort of inferior format. In fact if you take a look at the tests (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html), notice how unfair they are.  Notice the average bitrate - wma is 128 while ogg and mpc are 135.
My point is that with wma pro doing much better and Microsoft pushing this format hard and the DM support finding favor with record companies, wma can easily crush the mp3  revolution.

The only way to combat this is to develop OGG to be on equal par with wma (sound quality wise).  pretty soon Microsoft will conduct its own tests (obviously biased) that will make them think wma is best.
- I am basing the above on some problems with OGG
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=18359 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18359)
AND WHAY ARE WE not discussing problems with WMA on this forum?!!!
Are they any problems at all? Sure it might help microsoft a bit but it would show that their format has problems too.


What needs to be done is for fair tests to be made without discrediting wma. Increasing  ogg  support in hardware players would helpt too.
OGG is the only hope for consumers who want to be free from restrictions when ripping their music- and it has to be pushed..

Otherwise we will all be stuck with wma pro ,,,

Just my opinion ... By the way I hate wma simply because of the DRm thing....I'm sure everyone does. And it is ON by default in WMP contrary to what many Microsoft zealots say.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: odious malefactor on 2005-03-01 18:38:37
Quote
OGG is the only hope for consumers who want to be free from restrictions when ripping their music...[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278293"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I feel no restrictions 'ripping' my music to LAME mp3.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-01 18:43:08
Quote
In fact if you take a look at the tests (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html), notice how unfair they are.  Notice the average bitrate - wma is 128 while ogg and mpc are 135.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278293"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I feel like lambasting yet another clueless newbie.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-01 18:59:30
i won't respond 
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: indybrett on 2005-03-01 19:12:33
Another troll. 4 posts and he has the right to question the attitude here 
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: dobz on 2005-03-01 19:14:41
sooo tempting to bite at this one...

but quality is only one of many factors that effects peoples choice of codec, even if wma had transparent quality at 128kbps i wouldnt use it due to its other faults...
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: krmathis on 2005-03-01 20:18:47
WMA is not supported in open-source operating systems (ex. GNU/Linux, *BSD). 
Thats more than enough reason for me to stay away. ..
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Mono on 2005-03-01 20:33:03
Most of this ground has been covered before; use the search. Read this thread (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18690&hl=WMA) and figure out why it's in the garbage. This thread is also enlightening: "No Wma? (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3569&)"
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Sebastian Mares on 2005-03-01 20:42:22
Quote
I do not like the attitude in this forum that WMA is some sort of inferior format. In fact if you take a look at the tests (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html), notice how unfair they are.  Notice the average bitrate - wma is 128 while ogg and mpc are 135.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278293"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I doubt that 7 kbps make such a big difference.

Quote
AND WHAY ARE WE not discussing problems with WMA on this forum?!!!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278293"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Why should we? Vorbis is an open source format so changes can be done by everyone, while only Microsoft has access to the WMA code.

Quote
What needs to be done is for fair tests to be made without discrediting wma.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278293"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What is so unfair in Roberto's test? The 7 kbps more in MPC or Vorbis? Come on... So even if you say that 7 kbps is much, fine, that shows that the encoders were smart enough to assign more bits without having a big impact on the file size.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: JeanLuc on 2005-03-01 21:00:14
WMA (especially 9 Pro) can be a competitive codec (quality-wise and filesize-wise) ... but it still is proprietary.

The biggest problem to me is that even modern DAP's refuse to play back the 9.0 Pro files so WMA is no option for me to use it on my portable.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Duble0Syx on 2005-03-01 21:09:23
While WMA may be a fair competitor in the sense of quality, I have to agree with most that it isn't anything special.  For lossy music I'll use vorbis over WMA.  I think what will eventually kill mp3 off is lossless compression, like FLAC and WavPack.  Lossy WMA doesn't stand much of a chance since mp3 is already more compatible with portable device and operating systems.  Some portables support WMA, but not all.  I think all of them support mp3, I've not seen one that doesn't.  But it's really a matter of choice, some people will use a format regardless of it being better or not.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: beto on 2005-03-01 21:17:30
What a bunch of BS.....

To the thread starter:

Read this (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=20301&hl=) and this (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=21581&hl=) to understand why the bitrate difference is not such a big deal.

The ogg testing page you linked (guruboolez's tests) does not allow us to draw any conclusions away from the classical music genre. Read the test conclusion again....

You might want to investigate things a little further before posting, otherwise you just sound like a troll....
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Busemann on 2005-03-01 21:20:57
Quote
I feel like lambasting yet another clueless newbie.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278301"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Roberto's back with a vengeance 


Title: WMA might take over
Post by: QuantumKnot on 2005-03-01 23:19:29
Quote
WMA is not supported in open-source operating systems (ex. GNU/Linux, *BSD). 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278337"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You can play WMA using mplayer or xmms (with the wma plugin) in Linux.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: xmixahlx on 2005-03-02 03:10:59
also lamip & bmp plugins

and a cli program, wma2wav (written by the xmms-wma author)


later
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: bubka on 2005-03-02 04:16:06
doesnt wma use less battery than mp3 at similar bitrates too?
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Gabriel on 2005-03-02 08:55:39
You know that WmaPro is not the same as Wma standard, in the sense that a wma standard decoder (including the hardware players) is not able to decode WmaPro, don't you?
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: jtclipper on 2005-03-02 09:34:22
wma is a dirty format in many aspects....also it resides inside the asf container which allows scripts to be embedded and run!? from inside a simple audio file, what a piss off.

Also never forget what the W in wma stands for... all of the people I know that use wma do not know what wma is and what an mp3 is...

So unless you work at m$soft stay away from wma and in general from DRM 
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Lev on 2005-03-02 09:48:37
Quote
doesnt wma use less battery than mp3 at similar bitrates too?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278452"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not noticeably on my iRiver.  (In fact I would be inclined to say the opposite)
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: saverio on 2005-03-02 11:28:27
Quote
doesnt wma use less battery than mp3 at similar bitrates too?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278452"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It should be the opposite. WMA is a more complex format, just like AAC, and in the same way AAC drains iPod's battery faster (at the same bitrate) than MP3, so does WMA. I wonder why no portable player exists for MPC, which has so little decoding complexity...

Actually, WMA is very bad to decode, and I have seen many many many pops and artifacts when recordind CDs that I did not hear when listening in the PC. Then I stopped using wma!
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Benjamin Lebsanft on 2005-03-02 11:32:32
Quote
I wonder why no portable player exists for MPC, which has so little decoding complexity...[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278527"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rockbox might add it to the iriver H1xx and h3xx series and neuros is on a good way there too.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: DonP on 2005-03-02 11:39:29
Quote
So unless you work at m$soft stay away from wma and in general from DRM 
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=278500")



[a href="http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,66460,00.html]This from Wired[/url]:
Quote
"About 80 percent of Microsoft employees who have a portable music player have an iPod," said one source, a high-level manager who asked to remain anonymous. "It's pretty staggering."
The source estimated 80 percent of Microsoft employees have a music player -- that translates to 16,000 iPod users among the 25,000 who work at or near Microsoft's corporate campus. "This irks the management team no end," said the source.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-02 11:58:10
Quote
WMA is a more complex format, just like AAC


I wouldn't be so sure about it.

Quote
I wonder why no portable player exists for MPC, which has so little decoding complexity...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278527"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


On portable players with moving parts (CD players, HDD players), the decoding complexity makes nearly no difference on battery consumption. By far, most of the battery is used by servo motors.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Busemann on 2005-03-02 12:32:15
Quote
It should be the opposite. WMA is a more complex format, just like AAC


The decoders can be optimized to give very good battery performance even on these "new" formats.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Busemann on 2005-03-02 12:33:42
Quote
On portable players with moving parts (CD players, HDD players), the decoding complexity makes nearly no difference on battery consumption.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278532"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's what I've said all along, but everyone disagreed. what gives?
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-02 12:43:54
qualityequalizer hasn't even responded back ...
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: westgroveg on 2005-03-02 13:10:55
Quote
Quote
On portable players with moving parts (CD players, HDD players), the decoding complexity makes nearly no difference on battery consumption.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278532"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's what I've said all along, but everyone disagreed. what gives?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278538"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm confused here because I have seen quite a few people saying that they get half as much battery life using OGG instead of MP3, is this true?
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-02 13:21:14
Quote
I'm confused here because I have seen quite a few people saying that they get half as much battery life using OGG instead of MP3, is this true?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278547"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Depends on the device. On solid state iRiver players, I believe that is very possible, specially since the Vorbis library used by them hasn't been extensively optimized.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: indybrett on 2005-03-02 16:24:26
Quote
qualityequalizer hasn't even responded back ...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278541"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Classic troll behavior (by the original poster).
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Jojo on 2005-03-02 19:12:29
Quote
Quote
Quote
On portable players with moving parts (CD players, HDD players), the decoding complexity makes nearly no difference on battery consumption.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278532"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's what I've said all along, but everyone disagreed. what gives?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278538"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm confused here because I have seen quite a few people saying that they get half as much battery life using OGG instead of MP3, is this true?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278547"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

yes, that's true...ogg sucks even more battery than AAC
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-02 19:27:05
Quote
yes, that's true...ogg sucks even more battery than AAC
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278615"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Actually, from what I read, Vorbis decoding complexity is about on par with LC AAC.

What sucks more battery than AAC is tremor, since it's nearly not optimized and the AAC decoding libraries have been extensively optimized.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Gabriel on 2005-03-02 19:31:18
Quote
Actually, from what I read, Vorbis decoding complexity is about on par with LC AAC.

But memory requirements are higher because of the codebooks. It you do not have much fast memory, you might have to handle frequent loads from your bigger slow memory to your tinny fast memory.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: PaleGreen on 2005-03-02 20:39:01
Quote
Quote
I'm confused here because I have seen quite a few people saying that they get half as much battery life using OGG instead of MP3, is this true?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278547"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Depends on the device. On solid state iRiver players, I believe that is very possible, specially since the Vorbis library used by them hasn't been extensively optimized.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278549"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


My girlfriend's portable MP3 CD player definitely chows down batteries at a faster rate with more "complex" encoding. There's a noticable difference between LAME APS and LAME 128 CBR.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: music_man_mpc on 2005-03-02 22:14:57
Quote
My girlfriend's portable MP3 CD player definitely chows down batteries at a faster rate with more "complex" encoding. There's a noticable difference between LAME APS and LAME 128 CBR.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278650"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That isn't at all what they mean by more "complex".  What the other members have been discussing is the complexity of the format, not the size of the files.  On non-solid state devices it is well known that bigger files = more HDD/CD access = more battery drain due to the devices internal motors.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: PaleGreen on 2005-03-02 22:40:33
Quote
Quote
My girlfriend's portable MP3 CD player definitely chows down batteries at a faster rate with more "complex" encoding. There's a noticable difference between LAME APS and LAME 128 CBR.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278650"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That isn't at all what they mean by more "complex".  What the other members have been discussing is the complexity of the format, not the size of the files.  On non-solid state devices it is well known that bigger files = more HDD/CD access = more battery drain due to the devices internal motors.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278687"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Her CD player is always spinning, regardless of whether the media is an audio CD or one containing MP3's. I therefore think the diminished battery life, at least in this case, is entirely due to the additional CPU load of decoding the larger VBR files.

This may be obvious to most, but I think it's worth commenting on. I've seen too many people fail to consider battery life when deciding how to encode music for their portables.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: atici on 2005-03-02 22:47:38
I'd say that's the fault of the player (poor design) and does not have much to do with the codec.

In any case this thread seemed to receive quite some posts. I'd expect it to end up in the Recycle Bin. Or is WMA taking over?? 

WMA ist Death! OGG ist Savior!
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: plunger on 2005-03-03 07:16:50
I'll informally test out my Nokia 6230b's music player with ~128kbps AAC files vs. 128kbps MP3s and see how the battery life is. I've started using AAC files very heavily these days and haven't noticed too much a difference (in regards to battery life) on this device.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: phong on 2005-03-03 18:50:46
Quote
What sucks more battery than AAC is tremor, since it's nearly not optimized and the AAC decoding libraries have been extensively optimized.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278620"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In fact, Rio modified Tremor significantly for the Karma for that very reason - earlier firmwares used standard Tremor and the penalty for playing vorbis was large.  Allegedly, it still sucks a fair amount more battery at similar bitrates compared to mp3, but I haven't personally tested it and I don't know how significant the difference is (I've only looked at my battery life with higher bit-rate vorbis compared to the 15-16 hours it is known to last with 128k mp3.)

When I get mine fixed, I may do a test to find out how big a difference we're talking about.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Lyx on 2005-03-03 19:49:46
- Troll -

Besides, get an own avatar instead of stealing it from other members.

Maybe such obvious threads should be closed automatically by mods (after a report has been sent), the thread-starter warned - and, when repeating it, be banned.

- Lyx
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: ChristianHJW on 2005-03-05 09:12:33
I feel guilty  ! My new smartphone is running Windows Mobile Smartphone Edition 2003, and can only play MP3 and WMA. As i dont have a bigger storage card than the original 32 MB coming with the phone right now, i converted my favourite songs to WMA 64 kbps to at least have some music with me  ....
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kangaroo on 2005-03-05 09:49:13
Some of them here have used words like dirty and all for WMA format
what i say regarding them is that they have not worked on WMA and know's
about WMA.
I am working on WMA and as far as the market is concerned every order
we get includes WMA9 as one of the specs in the PMP segment.
I suggest people to consider WMA coz at 128kbps it provides better compression than MP3.
I think WMA9 is here to stay ......
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-05 11:28:48
Quote
I suggest people to consider WMA coz at 128kbps it provides better compression than MP3.
I think WMA9 is here to stay ......[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=279417")


[a href="http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html]In-deed[/url]

Edit: of course WMA is here to stay, but only because it has all of Microsoft's marketing muscle backing it. If it was backed by a smaller corporation (<cough> Yamaha) or just a group of independent developers, it would be dead already.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: guruboolez on 2005-03-05 11:31:40
Quote
I suggest people to consider WMA coz at 128kbps it provides better compression than MP3.
I think WMA9 is here to stay ......
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279417"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I also suggest you to consider again this statement, by comparing WMA9 with an optimal MP3 encoder (as lame).
It is true that WMA9 is very competitive against poorer (which are often very fast) mp3 implementations. But good mp3 encoders outperforms WMA at 128 kbps. See Roberto's collective listening tests.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: The Irish Man on 2005-03-05 12:16:02
Quote
I suggest people to consider WMA coz at 128kbps it provides better compression than MP3
I think WMA9 is here to stay .......


I have some doubts that WMA9 is here to stay, because I don't think it got here in the first place.
I yet to meet anyone who used it.
I can't see Microsoft continue to flog a dead Horse, when It's easier for them to  continue selling WMA as better than MP3.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Fallen Guru on 2005-03-05 14:25:45
Maybe someone should start some kind of awareness campain? None of my less techy-minded friends even know what an audio codec is. Basically they use whatever their download service or media player (that would be WMP or iTunes) shoves down their throats by default.
If they run into some DRM restriction they just think their computer is malfunctioning, which they dismiss with some kind of "nothing to be done, computers are like that" attitude. If something really bugs them they come to me, but I can't crack WMA either... Conclusion: I'm an idiot
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: moozooh on 2005-03-05 21:02:30
Quote
Her CD player is always spinning, regardless of whether the media is an audio CD or one containing MP3's[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278699"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 
I don't believe it. Are you sure you're not mistaken? AFAIK, if CD player is capable of decoding an MP3s, it has enough cache to not to spin all the time. Or at least, you must shake it constantly to make it spin without a stop.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Jojo on 2005-03-05 21:11:43
Quote
Quote
Her CD player is always spinning, regardless of whether the media is an audio CD or one containing MP3's[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278699"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't believe it. Are you sure you're not mistaken? AFAIK, if CD player is capable of decoding an MP3s, it has enough cache to not to spin all the time. Or at least, you must shake it constantly to make it spin without a stop.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279568"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

yep, the mp3-CD players I've seen so far only spun up every 15 minutes or so...
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: qualityequalizer on 2005-03-10 18:08:12
From what i heard, comparing the two (I will ABX when i have the time) I could pick out the mp3 very easily (up to 320) from the original while the WMA was nearer to the original.. My personal preference is wma for sound quality. But the DRm thing is a problem..

I am not pushing the wma format just trying to be neutral. Obviously many in this forum think that a few listening tests with people who are not aware of mp3 artifacts will prove anything... I can pick out mp3's quite easily but I am not aware of the wma artifacts *which i am sure do exist - i just don't know what they are*

Anyway, all I wanted was a proper discussion of wma artifcacts and quality vs the other formats - (other then the listening tests which i have seen).  Maybe I am new here but i was able to find discussions on mp3, ogg and mpc problems in this board. What about wma? It would be useful, don't you think?


And I don't use wmas much either mainly because of the DRM thing ...
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Busemann on 2005-03-10 18:11:48
Quote
From what i heard, comparing the two (I will ABX when i have the time) I could pick out the mp3 very easily (up to 320) from the original while the WMA was nearer to the original.. My personal preference is wma for sound quality. But the DRm thing is a problem..

I am not pushing the wma format just trying to be neutral. Obviously many in this forum think that a few listening tests with people who are not aware of mp3 artifacts will prove anything... I can pick out mp3's quite easily but I am not aware of the wma artifacts *which i am sure do exist - i just don't know what they are*

Anyway, all I wanted was a proper discussion of wma artifcacts and quality vs the other formats - (other then the listening tests which i have seen).  Maybe I am new here but i was able to find discussions on mp3, ogg and mpc problems in this board. What about wma? It would be useful, don't you think?


And I don't use wmas much either mainly because of the DRM thing ...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281047"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I've seen one proper listening test with 192kbps wma standard (in sound & vision magazine), and they said it was not that much better than iTunes mp3 @192..

In other words, not really great
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: music_man_mpc on 2005-03-10 18:26:27
Quote
From what i heard, comparing the two (I will ABX when i have the time) I could pick out the mp3 very easily (up to 320) from the original while the WMA was nearer to the original.. My personal preference is wma for sound quality. But the DRm thing is a problem..

I am not pushing the wma format just trying to be neutral. Obviously many in this forum think that a few listening tests with people who are not aware of mp3 artifacts will prove anything... I can pick out mp3's quite easily but I am not aware of the wma artifacts *which i am sure do exist - i just don't know what they are*

Anyway, all I wanted was a proper discussion of wma artifcacts and quality vs the other formats - (other then the listening tests which i have seen).  Maybe I am new here but i was able to find discussions on mp3, ogg and mpc problems in this board. What about wma? It would be useful, don't you think?


And I don't use wmas much either mainly because of the DRM thing ...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281047"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you want to be taken seriously at these forums you must first conduct an ABX, or perferrably ABChr, test.  Then provide the test results and the sample you used for testing so that others can verify your results.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: DonP on 2005-03-11 00:18:53
Quote
I am not pushing the wma format just trying to be neutral. Obviously many in this forum think that a few listening tests with people who are not aware of mp3 artifacts will prove anything... I can pick out mp3's quite easily but I am not aware of the wma artifacts *which i am sure do exist - i just don't know what they are*

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281047"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Aside from the depts of the FHG testing lab you might have trouble finding a population better at noticing mp3 artifacts than there is here.  Not everyone, but quite a few who are extreme about it.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: ~*McoreD*~ on 2005-03-11 06:17:35
Quote
Just my opinion ... By the way I hate wma simply because of the DRm thing....I'm sure everyone does. And it is ON by default in WMP contrary to what many Microsoft zealots say.


You haven't obviously tried Windows Media Player 9 or 10. Else you are not stating the real facts.
DRM was on by default in WMP 7.1 and WMP 8 and had no warnings.
DRM was on by default in WMP 9 but warned you prior to your first rip.
WMP 10 does not have it turned on by default.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kotrtim on 2005-03-11 06:44:29
WMA might over...but I really hope this will not happen

M$ will be dominating in every market....
This is bad, other smaller companies cannot compete with M$
There is no more competition then!!!

Anyway WMA has no obvious advantages over other formats...
I really hate the way WMA std encode "guitar"!
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: bubka on 2005-03-11 06:50:31
i like wma on my portable, q25 vbr is decent file size quality ratio for portable
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: CSMR on 2005-03-11 08:39:05
Quote
I doubt that 7 kbps make such a big difference.

Quite a lot I should think at such a low starting point. Massive difference between 128 and 160 for instance, which is only four or five times the difference. Whereas the difference between codecs at the same bit rate is much less, so in a comparison the 7kbs difference can be expected to be significant.
Not that I care.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-11 12:50:12
Quote
WMA might over...but I really hope this will not happen

M$ will be dominating in every market....
This is bad, other smaller companies cannot compete with M$
There is no more competition then!!!

Anyway WMA has no obvious advantages over other formats...
I really hate the way WMA std encode "guitar"!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281163"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

AMEN ... THIS is the major problem the people DON'T see ... the clearest example is webmail ... hotmail was offering a paltry 2MB ... yahoo went from 6MB to 4MB ... than gmail started offering 1000 MB ... 500x what hotmail was offering ... (lets read the last frase again: five hundred times what hotmail was offering) ... after that, hotmail moved to 100MB ... yahoo to 250MB ... and again hotmail to 250MB ... as it is obviously seen COMPETITION IS GOOD ... problem is that microsoft KILLS competition ... if microsoft where to gain the music market, they would stop developing WMA for sure, only adding more DRM if needed ... look what happened wiht IE ... while they where the underdogs, they keep getting new versions, bundling it with windows, the works ... when they secured the 90% market share, they stoped developing IE. but PEOPLE JUST DONT SEE IT. 
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: flipik on 2005-03-11 16:10:00
[/quote]
AMEN ... THIS is the major problem the people DON'T see ... the clearest example is webmail ... hotmail was offering a paltry 2MB ... yahoo went from 6MB to 4MB ... than gmail started offering 1000 MB ... 500x what hotmail was offering ... (lets read the last frase again: five hundred times what hotmail was offering) ... after that, hotmail moved to 100MB ... yahoo to 250MB ... and again hotmail to 250MB ... as it is obviously seen COMPETITION IS GOOD ... problem is that microsoft KILLS competition ... if microsoft where to gain the music market, they would stop developing WMA for sure, only adding more DRM if needed ... look what happened wiht IE ... while they where the underdogs, they keep getting new versions, bundling it with windows, the works ... when they secured the 90% market share, they stoped developing IE. but PEOPLE JUST DONT SEE IT. 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281234"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

nothing's forever    if you've got something to eat, place to sleep and warm shower to use.. just relax, life is too short to worry about every monopoly that comes around 
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-11 16:22:21
Quote
nothing's forever    if you've got something to eat, place to sleep and warm shower to use.. just relax, life is too short to worry about every monopoly that comes around 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281266"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Wow. So there is actually someone here that doesn't get stressed at each move Bill Gates does.

That's a great attitude, flipik. Way to go.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-11 17:15:06
Quote
nothing's forever    if you've got something to eat, place to sleep and warm shower to use.. just relax, life is too short to worry about every monopoly that comes around 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281266"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Title: WMA might take over
Post by: music_man_mpc on 2005-03-11 18:24:03
Quote
Quote
nothing's forever    if you've got something to eat, place to sleep and warm shower to use.. just relax, life is too short to worry about every monopoly that comes around 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281266"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281285"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[rant]
He has got a point.  Microsoft's monopoly is not nearly as important as say global warming or the AIDS pandemic in africa or the huge pollution problems in China or the people who are still suffering as a result of Asian tsunami or the hundreds of thousands who starve to death around the world every day.  Compared to these things, who really gives a f**k about m$?  I think the answer is pretty simple:  We do.  Should we care about things like the best lossy codec, the fastest decoding lossless codec, the speed of our computers, the m*****-f***ing 1337ness of our software?????  NO!  We shouldn't care, but we; and even flipik, obviously do care or else we wouldn't be hear wasting our time talking about such inane things.
[/rant]
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-11 18:47:32
well, actually, in a perfect world, we would all be doing something so that there are no 5billon millonaire, while there are people dying without food, but sadly, "madre teresa de calcuta", are few ... so i give money to greenpeace monthly, and try to convince people to not promote monopolies
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: ddrawley on 2005-03-11 18:48:20
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

I shall not be assimilated. 
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: beej on 2005-03-11 18:56:40
Why would you support a company that does their best to deny
you to use your music as you wish with their DRM crap.
And make no mistake about it, they don't care about producing
the very best audio format they can, it's rather all about  the
market share they can gain. Even if it means screwing over their
own customers.
Support some of the open formats instead.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-11 21:01:05
Quote
And make no mistake about it, they don't care about producing the very best audio format they can
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281307"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Might not, but they at least try to produce a format better than what the MPEG is producing (so far, they are failing).

It's all about competition.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: WarChild on 2005-03-11 21:16:51
I know more people who are curious about ogg than they are about wmp. The more M$ tries to shove it down peoples throats the more they rebel. See how many people are buying wmp files compared to acc.
I know a couple of people who loaded up on napster and were keen on it for a while until they realized a heavy increase in listenr fatigue listening to 128 wma.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: beej on 2005-03-11 22:32:25
Quote
Might not, but they at least try to produce a format better than what the MPEG is producing (so far, they are failing).

It's all about competition.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281334"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, it's about competition, but not on equal terms.
They are using one monopoly to gain another, that's what's wrong.

I wonder how many people got their music unintensionally DRM'ed just
because they were not aware that it was on by default in WMP7.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-11 22:43:10
Quote
They are using one monopoly to gain another, that's what's wrong.


If I were in BG's position I would do the same. Pretty much everyone around here would so the same too, even though several would be hypocrite and claim they wouldn't, no, never.

Scream at the american government for not taking measures to break Microsoft's monopoly. Don't blame Microsoft for taking advantage of a situation that's highly favourable to them.

Quote
I wonder how many people got their music unintensionally DRM'ed just
because they were not aware that it was on by default in WMP7.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281358"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Several for sure. But what's the point of whining so much? Is Microsoft profitting in any way from that? Surely not, quite the opposite: people that got their music locked after a system reinstall are probably hating Microsoft now.

I can't see any advantage whatsoever to them on turning on DRM by default. I can only see that as pressure from the RIAA & crew. So stop hating Microsoft and start hating the RIAA, if you badly need someone to hate.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-11 23:30:17
well ... i agree in parts ... is like saying don't hate the drug producers, hate the goverment for not stoping them ... govertment tries (not very eficiently) to stop them ... the same can be said about the govertment trying to stop MS ... either way, both, drug producers, and MS, are doing wrong.

EDIT: if even if being ILEGAL, de goverment couldn't arrest you, because of some incompetence, would you thief?
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-11 23:35:35
Quote
well ... i agree in parts ... is like saying don't hate the drug producers, hate the goverment for not stoping them ... govertment tries (not very eficiently) to stop them ... the same can be said about the govertment trying to stop MS ... either way, both, drug producers, and MS, are doing wrong.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281369"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


But the drug producers are obviously breaking the law, and doing very big harm to society.

I don't know if Microsoft is breaking the law or not, but they are not doing anything blatantly illegal like selling drugs (as far as we know  ), and I don't think they are particularly harmful. Some of their practices are harmful, others aren't, and you can say the same about pretty much every big corporation.

Quote
EDIT: if even if being ILEGAL, de goverment couldn't arrest you, because of some incompetence, would you thief?


That is a very pernicious question because, in my current situation, I don't need to thieve, so it's very easy for me to say I wouldn't.

If I was in hunger, or badly needing money because of some emergency, God only knows how my rationalization processes would work. In that situation, I might consider thievery an attractive option.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: beej on 2005-03-11 23:38:00
Quote
If I were in BG's position I would do the same. Pretty much everyone around here would so the same too, even though several would be hypocrite and claim they wouldn't, no, never.

Scream at the american government for not taking measures to break Microsoft's monopoly. Don't blame Microsoft for taking advantage of a situation that's highly favourable to them.

I'm not screaming, where did you get that from?
I'm just saying that that's one reason you shouldn't use wma.

Not to speak about what you are going to do with your music
ten years from now when a wma decoder isn't available any more.
With open formats you can be reasonably sure that you will still
be able to listen to it.

People have a choice of what they want to use, they should just be
made aware of the implications of their choice.

Quote
Quote
I wonder how many people got their music unintensionally DRM'ed just
because they were not aware that it was on by default in WMP7.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281358"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Several for sure. But what's the point of whining so much? Is Microsoft profitting in any way from that? Surely not, quite the opposite: people that got their music locked after a system reinstall are probably hating Microsoft now.

I can't see any advantage whatsoever to them on turning on DRM by default. I can only see that as pressure from the RIAA & crew. So stop hating Microsoft and start hating the RIAA, if you badly need someone to hate.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281361"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, they are probably a lot more loyal to the RIAA than to their customers.
I despise any company that are so completely void of any business ethics or morals, yes.

But i don't lie awake at night thinking about it :-)
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-11 23:42:57
Quote
I'm not screaming, where did you get that from?


I just said you SHOULD scream. Would make easier to control all that pent up anger

Quote
Not to speak about what you are going to do with your music
ten years from now when a wma decoder isn't available any more.


How can you be so sure about that? Nostradamus, are you?

Quote
With open formats you can be reasonably sure that you will still be able to listen to it.


There is already an open source WMA Std. decoder. And a fella just showed us the power of reverse engineering.

Quote
People have a choice of what they want to use, they should just be
made aware of the implications of their choice.


Right. And that's applicable to pretty much every situation.

That is, you just gave us a glimpe of the obvious. :B

Quote
Yes, they are probably a lot more loyal to the RIAA than to their customers.
I despise any company that are so completely void of any business ethics or morals, yes.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281372"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's not about loyalty. Did the consumers made pressure on them to keep DRM disabled?

Shit, if they were so loyal to RIAA, you wouldn't be able to disable DRM and they wouldn't have disabled it as default on WMP 10.

Get a grip, man. And what's with mixing ethics to this discussion? Do you even know how is their ethos? It is probably different than yours - and not any less valid because of that.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: beej on 2005-03-12 00:12:06
Quote
Quote
Not to speak about what you are going to do with your music
ten years from now when a wma decoder isn't available any more.


How can you be so sure about that? Nostradamus, are you?


OK if I change it to "if a wma decoder isn't available", is it then more clear to you what I meant?
Quote
Quote
With open formats you can be reasonably sure that you will still be able to listen to it.


There is already an open source WMA Std. decoder. And a fella just showed us the power of reverse engineering.

But why go through the trouble of reverse engineering something when there are loads of other open formats?
Quote
Quote
People have a choice of what they want to use, they should just be
made aware of the implications of their choice.


Right. And that's appliable to pretty much situation.

That is, you just gave us a glimpe of the obvious. :B

People have a choice but they don't necessarily know about it, that's what I'm trying to say.

Quote
Get a grip, man. And what's with mixing ethics to this discussion? Do you even know how is their ethos? It is probably different than yours - and not any less valid because of that.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281374"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have a grip I assure you :-)
It seems you don't know a lot about MS' history, you should really read up on that.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-12 00:26:45
Quote
OK if I change it to "if a wma decoder isn't available", is it then more clear to you what I meant?


Oh, it was clear enough at first time, thank-you.

The problem is that I believe your claim that a decoder might not be available is bullshit. First, because there is already an open source decoder. Second, because that unavailability would imply Microsoft gave up their windows media business and... heh.

Quote
But why go through the trouble of reverse engineering something when there are loads of other open formats?


I doubt that anybody will ever need to reverse engineer WMA because Microsoft stopped supporting the format. But, in the very unlikely case that it happens, reverse engineering is a solution.

My point is, possibility of lack of support in the future isn't a good justification to ignore WMA. I defy you to give an example of a popular audio storage format that can't be played anymore. Do you know that wax cylinders can still be played?

Quote
People have a choice but they don't necessarily know about it, that's what I'm trying to say.


Then let's educate them. And in an unbiased fashion, not claiming Microsoft is an evil monopoly that wants to bring forth apocalypse.

Quote
It seems you don't know a lot about MS' history, you should really read up on that.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281381"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ohh, I do know. I know they are blood thirsty bastards that want a monopoly on everything. And my question is: who doesn't?

I admit I envy them for getting there. Wish the same could happen to me.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-12 00:27:49
Quote
That is a very pernicious question because, in my current situation, I don't need to thieve, so it's very easy for me to say I wouldn't.

If I was in hunger, or badly needing money because of some emergency, God only knows how my rationalization processes would work. In that situation, I might consider thievery an attractive option.

but that is another situation ... i don't think BG/MS is in a "hungry situation" ...

The important thing here is that MONOPOLYS are bad for all but themselves, whoever the monopoly is .... MICROSOFT, AT&T, SONY, RIA, any MONOPOLY is bad for consumers ... THIS IS THE ONLY IMPORTANT thing to stop.

MONOPOLIES ARE ILIGAL. PERIOD. AND THEY KNOW IT.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-12 00:31:18
Quote
The important thing here is that MONOPOLYS are bad for all but themselves, whoever the monopoly is .... MICROSOFT, AT&T, SONY, RIA, any MONOPOLY is bad for consumers ... THIS IS THE ONLY IMPORTANT thing to stop.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281385"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Agreed. But I definitely won't blame Microsoft for wanting monopolies. That's called ambition, and it's one of the healthiest things a person or company can have, I guarantee you.

When the ambition starts getting out of hand (that's obviously the case with MS), you can't really expect them to see Buddha dancing on their desktops and decide to give peace a chance. The government should step in and force them to take a cold shower. Now, where is the american government?

Quote
MONOPOLIES ARE ILIGAL. PERIOD.


Are they? I thought only situations where the consumer is prejudiced are actually illegal. In some situations, the government actually encourages monopolies (mergers, etc.) in order to create strong companies that can compete as multinationals.

Good luck proving Microsoft is prejudicing consumers.

And good luck reading on law. Monopolies aren't necessarily illegal or harmful. They only become illegal once their situation starts to cause harm to consumers.



Also, you have some bad misconceptions. I'm having a hard time finding an area where Sony has a monopoly. MiniDisc? heh.

And the RIAA isn't a monopoly since it isn't a corporation. It's an association of big corporations, but since the individual members retain their financial, legal and determination independency, it can't be considered a syndication or trust.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: beej on 2005-03-12 00:46:40
Quote
I admit I envy them for getting there. Wish the same could happen to me.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281383"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't, since i don't subscribe to the philosophy of "win, no matter what".
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-12 00:50:22
Quote
I don't, since i don't subscribe to the philosophy of "win, no matter what".
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281388"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Corporate America is a tough world. Only the immoral survive. 
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-12 00:50:32
Quote
Agreed. But I definitely won't blame Microsoft for wanting monopolies. That's called ambition, and it's one of the healthiest things a person or company can have, I guarantee you.

we can conclude then that hitler was a good person then! just a very ambitious one

Quote
When the ambition starts getting out of hand (that's obviously the case with MS), you can't really expect them to see Buddha dancing on their desktops and decide to give peace a chance. The government should step in and force them to take a cold shower. Now, where is the american government?

the problem is that most of the times, politics are worst than the monopolies themselves ... and bush is still trying to catch osama :|

Quote
Are they? I thought only situations where the consumer is prejudiced are actually illegal. In some situations, the government actually encourages monopolies (mergers, etc.) in order to create strong companies that can compete as multinationals.

very uncommon cases

Quote
Good luck proving Microsoft is prejudicing consumers. And good luck reading on law. Monopolies aren't necessarily illegal

monopolies are ilegal when they harm competition, not only customers.

Quote
Also, you have some bad misconceptions. I'm having a hard time finding an area where Sony has a monopoly. MiniDisc? heh.

i mean any company that has a monopoly would be bad, not that sony is ...

Quote
And the RIAA isn't a monopoly since it isn't a corporation. It's an association of big corporations, but since the individual members retain their financial, legal and determination independency, it can't be considered a syndication or trust.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281386"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

we can argue that they are really a couple of companies that agreed on not competing with each other, have fixated prices, etc, so they are virtually a large monopoly corporation.

EDIT: i allways enjoy arguin with you, being by the forum, or by chat
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-12 00:58:44
Quote
we can conclude then that hitler was a good person then! just a very ambitious one


Ambition has nothing to do with being good, dude. Where did you come out with that from?

I claimed ambition is healthy. The use you make with this ambition can be good or bad.

Quote
the problem is that most of the times, politics are worst than the monopolies themselves ... and bush is still trying to catch osama :|


Right. So you have a difficult situation, where everyone is to blame but there's nothing to be done

If there was a public outcry about Microsoft being a bad thing, the politics would be forced to take some action. The way it is now, they prefer to have Microsoft donating to their campaigns.

Quote
very uncommon cases


Boeing / McDonnel Douglas is the most famous one. But there have been several, specially in the banking arena.

Quote
monopolies are ilegal when they harm competition, not only customers.


But it's hard to link monopolies with competition harm. Microsoft can claim that the competition got bankrupt because they were doing a bad job or were unefficient, not because Microsoft was screwing them in the background. You see, the relation of causality is very hard to determine in that case.

Quote
i mean any company that has a monopoly would be bad, not that sony is ...


Ah, OK.

Quote
we can argue that they are really a couple of companies that agreed on not competing with each other, have fixated prices, etc, so they are virtually a large monopoly corporation.


Yes, a trust. But then the companies need to be blamed in group, and not blame the association, since it officially has no influence on its associates.

Quote
EDIT: i allways enjoy arguin with you, being by the forum, or by chat
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281392"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's in the blood.

Brazilians vs. Argentinians...
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-12 01:18:57
Quote
It's in the blood.
Brazilians vs. Argentinians...

... i just happened to be with a friend of mine that came to argentina, from san pablo from some days ... we would be going out tomorrow with her boyfriend an my wife
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: flipik on 2005-03-12 13:53:22
Quote
hate the drug producers, hate the goverment for not stoping them [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281369"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


don't hate anyone as long as you've got a choice not to take it 
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Borisz on 2005-03-12 14:20:18
Quote
If there was a public outcry about Microsoft being a bad thing, the politics would be forced to take some action. The way it is now, they prefer to have Microsoft donating to their campaigns.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281398"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

afaik it wasn't a public outcry, but the EU council forced Microsoft to release a version of Windows without Windows Media Player and crap like those as it was an abuse of their monopoly to get support in the media player scene. or something like that. Like when they added IE by default to Windows, and they got sued as it was an unfare move in the fight against Netscape.

Thus now we have Windows XP Reduced Media Edition now, which is the best version of XP so far as I recall.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Jojo on 2005-03-12 20:13:52
how come that people hold Microsoft responsible for all that DRM crap but let Apple get away with it? As far as I know, Apple sells much more DRM protected music files than Microsoft...besides that, MS just developed WMA but does not have a Music Store...Apple not just developed their DRM AAC implementation but is also selling that DRM crap in their music store...if there is a threat from any company it's rather Apple and not Microsoft...I'd say it's the RIAA though...
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: sehested on 2005-03-12 20:44:17
IMHO for WMA to take over as the compression format of choice it would have to overcome major problems, one technical and the others political.

Technical:

WMA Pro has to be made the default choice of WMP as well as stores selling WMA downloads and portable players supporting WMA.


Political:

M$ have made a number of mistakes and made numerous annoyed customers by chosing to:
- Require DRM in prior versions of WMP on the CD you own
- Require user to contact M$ in case they wanted to play their ripped music from another computer
- Requiring unaware users to re-rip their CD's if they failed to joggle the licenses after a computer fresh install
- Stating the WMA std. 64 kbps was CD quality causing many users perform less than optimal rips of their CD's
- Providing inferior MP3 encoding even when purchasing MP3 plugins at $20

New users with no prior experience with WMA should not have a problem with any of the political issues. Furthermore newbies don't care about the difference between WMA std. and WMA pro. So M$ should have no problem becoming the preferred solutions of newbies. 

As for those wanting a high quality compression format M$ will have to overcome the technical issue. 

If they then add gapless playback to WMP they would become a stong contender for the preferred compression format.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-13 00:11:50
Quote
how come that people hold Microsoft responsible for all that DRM crap but let Apple get away with it?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281607"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Apple never set DRM as default on their ripping software...
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-13 05:14:26
Quote
Quote
how come that people hold Microsoft responsible for all that DRM crap but let Apple get away with it?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281607"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Apple never set DRM as default on their ripping software...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281664"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

and apple is probaly using DRM because of the RIA presure, not because they think is good (AFAIK OSX doesn't have the orrendus XP's activation issues).
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Danimal on 2005-03-14 03:26:58
Quote
how come that people hold Microsoft responsible for all that DRM crap but let Apple get away with it? As far as I know, Apple sells much more DRM protected music files than Microsoft...besides that, MS just developed WMA but does not have a Music Store...Apple not just developed their DRM AAC implementation but is also selling that DRM crap in their music store...if there is a threat from any company it's rather Apple and not Microsoft...I'd say it's the RIAA though...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281607"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think it's a very safe bet that without that "DRM crap" Apple wouldn't have the licenses to sell the music in the first place. 

I believe that MS owns the MSN music store.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: tev777 on 2005-03-14 17:38:16
First of all, its spelled Microsoft. If that's too complicated please just say 'MS'. Anything else is akin to calling someone a poopy-head. Really childish.

I usually refrain from posting in threads such as this, but I'm seeing some idiotic comments from people whose opinions I (in some cases) value above my own. What does Hitler have to do with this conversation? Is Bill Gates rounding up developers of other platforms and putting them in gas chambers? I've known many drug dealers in my days and none of them have ever forced me to use anything. Some have actually lied and said they weren’t holding when they were!

The monopoly talk got old a long time ago. No one is forced to use Windows outside of the work environment (and the company you work for is responsible for that). When Microsoft develops a hard drive that cannot be formatted and forces ALL of the PC manufacturers to use this hard drive then there would be something to complain about. Bottom line? If you're an unhappy Windows user head over to DistroWatch and find something else.

How many users in this community actually use WMA? I would bet they would be in the minority. And even those users are not forced to do so. Blaming Microsoft because the average user doesn't bother to investigate the options is not a valid argument. Got screwed because Media Player DRMed your rips? Your fault! Your portable player only supports WMA? Your fault!

If anyone is to blame for people being locked in to Windows I would have to say it's the third-party software developers that are responsible for it. The majority of the kick-ass software is only available for Windows (see VirtualDub, etc.). I could be a hard ass and say that's our faulty too, we should learn how to program, but I know I could not make anything anywhere near those 'killer apps'!

To make a long story short... there are always options. ALWAYS! No one has ever come to my house and said "You are trying too many distros! Knock it off and re-install Windows!" I have Windows 2000 on one of my desktops and Windows XP on my laptop. I tried wma and decided against it. Does that mean I don't have any music on my computer? Of course I do, because I am free to choose.

One more thing before I get off my soapbox... Waiting for your Uncle Sam to step in is pointless. If they wont protect you from the tobacco companies you should know that you are on your own! If they thought Microsoft was that bad for you they would put any extra tax on it and say 'don't use it'.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: sehested on 2005-03-14 19:07:51
Quote
First of all, its spelled Microsoft. If that's too complicated please just say 'MS'. Anything else is akin to calling someone a poopy-head. Really childish.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=282158"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Some people on this forum seems to be sensitive to the M$ acronym for Microsoft.

I enjoy using the M$ acronym for Microsoft as a negative to underline the fact that they muscle their competition and that they are more focused on making money than providing proper guidance to users.

All big companies are in the game to make $$$, but some tend to enlighten their customers and to compete by superior products, rather than marketing and company buy outs.

As I notice the M$ name calling may take away some of the other points I'm trying to make I will consider to refrain from using it.


Quote
How many users in this community actually use WMA? I would bet they would be in the minority. And even those users are not forced to do so. Blaming Microsoft because the average user doesn't bother to investigate the options is not a valid argument. Got screwed because Media Player DRMed your rips? Your fault! Your portable player only supports WMA? Your fault!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=282158"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Personally I couldn't care less how many uses WMA. I tested it before deciding which encoder to use and was horrified by the sound, so I choose NOT to use WMA.

However as I pointed out, if MS wants to become the preferred audio compression format they have to overcome both technical and political issues.

What do you think newbies will think about MS when they discover MS have screwed them?

I would be suprised if they just said, "to bad, my fault, I could just have chosen not to beleive in MS and made another choice. What the heck, this is a good opportunity to rip my entire CD collection again".
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-14 19:12:16
Quote
Some people on this forum seems to be sensitive to the M$ acronym for Microsoft.


People are not sensitive to saying "M$". I am not at least. You can call Bill Gates satan for all that I care. But it's damn childish neverthless, for sure.

Quote
What do you think newbies will think about MS when they discover MS have screwed them?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=282198"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


They will be righteously infuriated. Or they will never notice Microsoft screwed them. Anyway, it's up to them to hate microsoft for that. Microsoft didn't screw me with WMA, so I don't think I have the right to hate them.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: spoon on 2005-03-14 19:23:45
>(AFAIK OSX doesn't have the orrendus XP's activation issues).

That is because you have to buy an Apple computer to run it, the potential pirates almost don't exist (those with older machines which will not run later versions well).
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: phong on 2005-03-14 20:39:17
Quote
Microsoft didn't screw me with WMA, so I don't think I have the right to hate them.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=282200"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But they did screw you, and everyone else.  We still don't have the ability to purchase music online with the fidelity and selection you have at an ordinary music store.  There's no technical reason why buying music online should still be inferior to brick-and-mortar.  Why are these our only choices?

1) A decent, standard format at an iffy bitrate with proprietary DRM that only works on one DAP (Apple)
2) A crummy, proprietary format at an iffy bitrate with proprietary DRM that doesn't work on the most popular DAP (WMA from other vendors)
3) An illegal outfit like allofmp3.com
4) Download illegally from p2p, IRC, usenet, etc. and get who-knows-what
5) Going to the store to buy a CD and ripping it to the format of your choice and doing whatever you want with it

This is not a choice:
6) Buying music online in a high-quality format of your choice that you can use how you want

The current situation punishes innovation and punishes consumers.  WMA, in all its crappiness, contributes to this stupid logjam.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-14 20:46:51
Quote
>(AFAIK OSX doesn't have the orrendus XP's activation issues).

That is because you have to buy an Apple computer to run it, the potential pirates almost don't exist (those with older machines which will not run later versions well).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=282210"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

almost the same can be said about XP ... you can't buy a tier one machine without windows ...
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: sehested on 2005-03-14 20:48:59
Quote
Why are these our only choices?

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=282229"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Because the record companies controls what choices we will have for purchasing music.

MS has nothing to do with the limited choices you list. WMA allows higher bit rates than the Napster 128 kbps. MusicMatch used 160 kbps and other stores could chose to go higher.

Another sad story is the lack of a common DRM standard and audio format that would allow you to exercise your fair rights of use of downloaded music across computer platforms and what have you.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-14 22:49:55
Quote
Why are these our only choices?


Well, I don't even have a choice. Modern commodities such as "Onlime Music Stores" still didn't arrive here at the tropics

Quote
MS has nothing to do with the limited choices you list.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=282232"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Exactly.

That's my point for the whole thread. Microsoft is despicable, but when we're talking about DRM and crappy online stores, you should hate RIAA, not Microsoft.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-15 03:18:18
Quote
That's my point for the whole thread. Microsoft is despicable, but when we're talking about DRM and crappy online stores, you should hate RIAA, not Microsoft.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=282264"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

correct. i hate:

1) RIA/MPA for being so much greedy.
2) MICROSOFT for being so much greedy.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: sehested on 2005-03-15 07:54:16
Some companies already beleive that WMA has taken over the world:

From interview with CEO Chris Gorog of Napster:

Quote
Many analysts believe that the online music marketplace won’t truly flourish until a lot of the digital handcuffs that are placed on consumers today are removed. What’s your view of what needs to change in the world of DRM?

If you had asked me a year ago, I would have said that the DRM landscape is a mess and needs to be cleaned up. But I’m feeling much more positive about where we are right now.

I think this is a Windows Media Audio world. I don’t think there’s any question about that. WMA already dominates MP3 players globally. Even in the United States with flash memory players, the WMA format dominates the set-top box, and digital media adapter technologies — enormous corporations like Comcast, Sky, SBC, Murdoch’s operations, are all designing their entry into the living room with digital media based on the Microsoft platform. So I think there’s zero question that Windows Media Audio will be the prevailing technology for all platforms, hardware and software. That’s why we’ve built our foundational technology around WMA.

I think the WMA DRM now is actually very good. In terms of digital handcuffs, right now with the Napster subscription you can download your content to three PCs and three MP3 players, which we think is very liberal. You can have one in your office, one in your home office, one down the hall in your kids’ room. That’s a lot of value for $10 or $14.95 a month. If you want to burn a track to CD, that’s 99 cents. So I think we’re getting to a very good place.


My underlining.

Engadget interview with CEO Chris Gorog of Napster (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000210035724/)
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-15 12:50:54
well ... it is what they sell ... ask apple
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: seanyseansean on 2005-03-15 13:09:13
Quote
This is not a choice:
6) Buying music online in a high-quality format of your choice that you can use how you want
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=282229"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It is. You can buy lossless albums from allofmp3 right now. Whether it is legal or not is another issue. If only the majors were that clued up.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: woody_woodward on 2005-03-15 18:04:36
Well, I have been sitting quietly reading everyone's opinions for some time.  The quote from Chris Gorog of Napster has pushed me over the edge.  "WMA already dominates MP3 players globally."  Aside from my computer I have three portable music players:  A memory based uint, hard disk, and MP3 CD.  None of these will play WMA (protected or not).  The format that dominates MP3 players is MP3.  When one considers the pervasivness of the Apple iPod, who could possibly believe Mr. Gorog?

At this point in time, I am reminded of the first and second rule of marketing.  Number one:  Give the consumers what they want.  Number two: If you don't have what they want, make them want what you have.  Microsoft should make WMA desirable by making it the best choice, not the only choice.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: music_man_mpc on 2005-03-15 22:42:18
Quote
Microsoft should make WMA desirable by making it the best choice, not the only choice.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=282465"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The mass market couldn't care less whether its the best choice or the worst, so long as it will play the way they expect it will.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: moi on 2005-03-19 18:11:36
Quote
OGG is the only hope for consumers who want to be free from restrictions when ripping their music- and it has to be pushed..

Otherwise we will all be stuck with wma pro ,,,

Just my opinion ... By the way I hate wma simply because of the DRm thing....I'm sure everyone does. And it is ON by default in WMP contrary to what many Microsoft zealots say.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278293"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This is nonsense. I have ripped CDs with both MP3 and WMA, and had no restrictions from it. What "restrictions" are there from ripping a CD with WMA or MP3? Why is OGG the "only hope for consumers who want to be free from restrictions when ripping their music"? That's a nonsensical statement.

If you "hate DRM", then don't buy music from the online services. I don't-- I prefer to buy CDs, and rip them for portable use. I don't know what you mean by DRM being "On by Default" in Windows Media Player. If you are playing back a DRM song, of course DRM is on, but playing back a non-DRM song has nothing to do with DRM. Or, if you mean that if you rip a CD with WMP, it adds DRM to the songs, I don't see how that could be the case. (I don't rip or play back with WMP myself , but AFAIK DRM only exists in songs purchased from online services.)

(By the way, the reason that the online services use DRM is not that the "evil Microsoft" has forced it on them. The recording industry insists on DRM for these download services. There are only two current choices for DRM--AAC (only from Itunes store, as Apple does not allow others to use their proprietary AAC-DRM), and WMA-DRM, which is available to all.)
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: moi on 2005-03-19 18:22:46
Quote
Microsoft should make WMA desirable by making it the best choice, not the only choice.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=282465"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


How is WMA "the only choice"?

As one can read about on this forum, there are many choices for compressing music.

For buying from online download services, there are two choices--AAC and WMA. That is because the recording industry demands DRM for such services, and those are the only two formats that support DRM.

The largest, most popular online music download service, Itunes, uses AAC. All the others use WMA. Not due to any evil maneuvering by Microsoft, but due to the fact that Apple will not allow any other service but their Itunes to use their proprietary AAC-DRM, while Microsoft allows everyone to use the WMA-DRM.

If you don't want to have DRM, of course you have the choice of not using these services, and instead buying the CDs you want (as I do). Then you have the music completely uncompressed, and you can compress it as you wish yourself (with a multitude of choices) to use on portable devices, etc.

So--I don't see how Microsoft has "made WMA the only choice"?
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: moi on 2005-03-19 18:26:31
Quote
I know more people who are curious about ogg than they are about wmp. The more M$ tries to shove it down peoples throats the more they rebel. See how many people are buying wmp files compared to acc.
I know a couple of people who loaded up on napster and were keen on it for a while until they realized a heavy increase in listenr fatigue listening to 128 wma.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281339"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Could you please explain how anyone has "shoved a music compression format down your throat"?
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: moi on 2005-03-19 18:29:55
Quote
I feel guilty  ! My new smartphone is running Windows Mobile Smartphone Edition 2003, and can only play MP3 and WMA. As i dont have a bigger storage card than the original 32 MB coming with the phone right now, i converted my favourite songs to WMA 64 kbps to at least have some music with me  ....
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279409"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Why should you feel guilty? 

Does the music ripped at WMA 64kbps sound "terrible" to you, as some would claim?
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Cerbie on 2005-03-20 04:46:05
Quote
Quote

OGG is the only hope for consumers who want to be free from restrictions when ripping their music- and it has to be pushed..

Otherwise we will all be stuck with wma pro ,,,

Just my opinion ... By the way I hate wma simply because of the DRm thing....I'm sure everyone does. And it is ON by default in WMP contrary to what many Microsoft zealots say.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278293"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This is nonsense. I have ripped CDs with both MP3 and WMA, and had no restrictions from it. What "restrictions" are there from ripping a CD with WMA or MP3? Why is OGG the "only hope for consumers who want to be free from restrictions when ripping their music"? That's a nonsensical statement.

If you "hate DRM", then don't buy music from the online services. I don't-- I prefer to buy CDs, and rip them for portable use. I don't know what you mean by DRM being "On by Default" in Windows Media Player. If you are playing back a DRM song, of course DRM is on, but playing back a non-DRM song has nothing to do with DRM. Or, if you mean that if you rip a CD with WMP, it adds DRM to the songs, I don't see how that could be the case. (I don't rip or play back with WMP myself , but AFAIK DRM only exists in songs purchased from online services.)

(By the way, the reason that the online services use DRM is not that the "evil Microsoft" has forced it on them. The recording industry insists on DRM for these download services. There are only two current choices for DRM--AAC (only from Itunes store, as Apple does not allow others to use their proprietary AAC-DRM), and WMA-DRM, which is available to all.)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=283622"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Also, if you don't like DRM, you RETURN factory-damaged CDs, and don't use compressed formats that even SUPPORT restrictions on your use. CDDA, FLAC, MP3, MPC (IIRC), and Ogg anything easily fit the bill, offering portability, good transparency for hardware players (in the case of MP3 & Ogg), and public ontrol.
Then you buy from non-RIAA labels when possible, and ignore DRM-enabled online music stores.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-21 19:58:22
It works like this.

MS blundles WMA with Windows.
90% of desktops use Windows.
90% of the Windows users use watever comes with Windows.
81% of the market ends up using WMA.
Hardware player makers get incentive (money) from MS to implement WMA, and as 81%+ of the market already uses it, is a non brainer.
=
WMA being the only option
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: moi on 2005-03-23 14:15:53
Quote
It works like this.

MS blundles WMA with Windows.
90% of desktops use Windows.
90% of the Windows users use watever comes with Windows.
81% of the market ends up using WMA.
Hardware player makers get incentive (money) from MS to implement WMA, and as 81%+ of the market already uses it, is a non brainer.
=
WMA being the only option
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284251"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Partially true-- (certainly for other apps such as browsers, although now Firefox is getting a foothold).

However--through clever marketing, the Ipod is by far the most popular portable digital music player, and the Itunes store is the only one that will work with Ipod. Therefore, I would guess that more people use AAC than WMA, as Itunes is the most successful online service. All the other services use WMA, but Itunes is much bigger than any of them. So I doubt the figure above about 81% WMA. Where did you get that statistic? Regardess of 90% of desktops running WIndows, the largest seller of portable music deviceds is Apple, and people who have an Ipod and wish to buy from an online service, buy from Itunes.

For people who do their own ripping, I would guess that MP3 is still the most used format.

Why do all the other services (besides Itunes) use WMA? The recording industry insists on DRM. THere are only two forms of DRM available--WMA and AAC.  Apple will not allow any services other than Itunes to use its proprietary AAC-DRM. Microsoft allows anyone to use WMA-DRM.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: kwanbis on 2005-03-23 21:00:51
Quote
However--through clever marketing, the Ipod is by far the most popular portable digital music player, and the Itunes store is the only one that will work with Ipod. Therefore, I would guess that more people use AAC than WMA, as Itunes is the most successful online service. All the other services use WMA, but Itunes is much bigger than any of them. So I doubt the figure above about 81% WMA. Where did you get that statistic? Regardess of 90% of desktops running WIndows, the largest seller of portable music deviceds is Apple, and people who have an Ipod and wish to buy from an online service, buy from Itunes.

it was an example on HOW COULD HAPPEN, thanks god it hasn't, and it won't.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Woodinville on 2005-03-28 17:37:26
Quote
wma is a dirty format in many aspects....also it resides inside the asf container which allows scripts to be embedded and run!? from inside a simple audio file, what a piss off.

An interesting statement, indeed. You are asserting that the .wma files on my computer are using asf formatting inside them? Would you mind checking on this particular issue and reporting back to us?
Quote
Also never forget what the W in wma stands for... all of the people I know that use wma do not know what wma is and what an mp3 is...

You wouldn't mind showing us your population sample, your statistics, and your evidence that you've exhausted everyone you "know" in this regard, would you?
Quote
So unless you work at m$soft stay away from wma and in general from DRM 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=278500"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Why? Could you offer some verifiable, testable, confirmable evidence?
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Busemann on 2005-03-28 17:49:13
Quote
Also never forget what the W in wma stands for... all of the people I know that use wma do not know what wma is and what an mp3 is...

Quote
You wouldn't mind showing us your population sample, your statistics, and your evidence that you've exhausted everyone you "know" in this regard, would you?


Considering WMA is proprietary, not as good quality as mp3 and enjoys only limited software/hardware support, I can very well see why acquainted people shy away. That WMA Pro doesn't play on WMA players surely pisses off some of the closest followers as well. Since Microsoft made mp3 the default in WMP, I think wma's user-base will shrink quite heavily (let's get real here, the majority of wma users have been those who just pop in their cd's and press "import").

Neither the "plays-for-sure" wma music stores or DAP's do very well either, it seems..
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Latexxx on 2005-03-28 18:03:11
Quote
An interesting statement, indeed. You are asserting that the .wma files on my computer are using asf formatting inside them? Would you mind checking on this particular issue and reporting back to us?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=286392")


.wma files are asf indeed.

[a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/format/robust.aspx]http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...mat/robust.aspx[/url]

Quote
.WMA for files that include audio compressed with the Windows Media Audio codec, or
.WMV for files that include both audio and video compressed with Windows Media Audio and Windows Media Video codecs.
Content compressed with other codecs should be stored in file and use the .ASF extension.

--

By using separate extensions, users can install multiple players on their system some which may play only audio, and associate with the .WMA extension, and different players that play both audio and video, and associate with the .WMV extension.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Woodinville on 2005-03-30 20:23:48
Quote
The important thing here is that MONOPOLYS are bad for all but themselves, whoever the monopoly is .... ..., AT&T, ..., any MONOPOLY is bad for consumers ... THIS
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281385"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, without Bell Labs (in the AT&T days) you wouldn't have MP3, AAC, PAC, muLaw, most of the CELP coding, electret microphones, speakerphones, or transistors.

Do you really want to go there?

P.S. This is abysmally off topic. I think that the OT works to prejudice the original subject in the thread.  This thread should be split into the audio issues (in a coding forum) and this silly complaining about success (which should be deep 6'ed)
.
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Woodinville on 2005-03-30 20:26:26
Quote
Considering WMA is proprietary, not as good quality as mp3 and enjoys only limited software/hardware support, I can very well see why acquainted people shy away. That WMA Pro doesn't play on WMA players surely pisses off some of the closest followers as well. Since Microsoft made mp3 the default in WMP, I think wma's user-base will shrink quite heavily (let's get real here, the majority of wma users have been those who just pop in their cd's and press "import").

Neither the "plays-for-sure" wma music stores or DAP's do very well either, it seems..
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=286399"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


In other words, you have no testable, verifiable evidence, only hearsay and a heartfelt desire.

Would you like to offer evidence regarding current WMA (10) vs. MP3?
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Woodinville on 2005-03-30 20:28:12
Quote
Quote
.WMA for files that include audio compressed with the Windows Media Audio codec, or
.WMV for files that include both audio and video compressed with Windows Media Audio and Windows Media Video codecs.
Content compressed with other codecs should be stored in file and use the .ASF extension.

--

By using separate extensions, users can install multiple players on their system some which may play only audio, and associate with the .WMA extension, and different players that play both audio and video, and associate with the .WMV extension.

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=286403"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


In other words, you can put WMA inside of an ASF file.  Do you mean to claim that this means that WMA is ASF?

Is everything else you can put inside an ASF file also 'ASF'? 

Are you confusing the stream with the container, perchance?
Title: WMA might take over
Post by: Latexxx on 2005-03-30 20:48:45
No. I'm afraid that you are considering the container and codec. ASF holds video, audio etc. And Windows Media Player and Windows Media Encoder do always put wma in asf.
Wma isn't asf but .wma is asf.