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 8 @192kBps: Question (Read 3043 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WMA 8 @192kBps: Question

Hey all. . .  :crystal:

I've been ghosting these boards for about a month now and I realize that asking a WMA 8 question will probably put me on the wrong side of the tracks with most people here  , but I have a question about WMA 8 @ 192k:

ยป it's a Microsoft product, but I haven't run across much technical analysis with the higher end WMA bit-rates.

Any help would be great. Thanks for your time and thoughts.
...:: Kas ::...

WMA 8 @192kBps: Question

Reply #1
I have been known to defend WMA when it comes to low bitrates for existing portable mp3/wma players, but for high bit rates - Lame at 320Kbps on most music should give indistinguishable results to an original CD (all things being equal). I also think the majority of people could detect a 196Kbps WMA file as being WMA...

Not scientific, I know.

WMA 8 @192kBps: Question

Reply #2
wma 8?  LOL

seriously though... I'd choose -alt-preset standard over wma at it's highest bitrate anyday.  It was made for lowbitrates and lowbitrates only.  And even at 64kbps, I'd rather go with OGG which I think KILLS wma.

wma 8 is worthless now.

wma 9 on the other hand sounds promising...  can't wait to try that sucka out.  hope it doesn't suck.

WMA 8 @192kBps: Question

Reply #3
Hmmmm....
...:: Kas ::...

WMA 8 @192kBps: Question

Reply #4
I'd use LAME simply because it is more stable and certain than WMA8. LAME --aps has been specially tuned to handle some normally difficult samples. And let's face it, MP3 is completely ubiquitous; not so for WMA.

WMA 8 @192kBps: Question

Reply #5
Cool. Thanks for all the replies.

Does anyone know of a WMA forum where I might get some answers to my technical questions (where frequencies cut off)?

Thanks.
...:: Kas ::...

WMA 8 @192kBps: Question

Reply #6
Quote
Originally posted by SNYder
wma 9 on the other hand sounds promising...  can't wait to try that sucka out.  hope it doesn't suck.


I tried WMA9 on one of the test samples ff123 provided.  Thear I think it was.  Anyway, it sounded a good deal worse than whatever version was used in the test (both via WMP and Winamp)... heh.  I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021