How come theres no wma section in this forum.
Yeah come to think of it, why not?
I guess, this forum is about high quality audio.
So WMA doeasn't qualify.
I guess, this forum is about high quality audio.
So WMA doeasn't qualify.
yaman!
or is it because its by microsoft?
WMA quality is bad, it does not work on non-windows platform...
PS. Bill G. paid for Windows Media 9 c.a. 500 000 000$
- Earlier versions of WMA were not suitable for near-transparent encoding (maybe that has changed with v9; there is a lossless mode now)
- There's no RealAudio forum either
- It's quite proprietary
- The filthy 64kbit = cd-quality lie
And don't forget the whole DRM issue.
Good point why not?
Bill G is committed to Take_Over_all_Formats, and he puts his bucks down constantly year in, year out. You might laugh but, WMA could be the format to beat, look what happened to netscape vs IE. A well funded development should always come out on top.
Put it this way, if WMA was the OpenSource format, with its quality of WMA2, 7, 8, 9 there would have been a section opened on it...
>'it does not work on non-windows platform'
It does, for portable mp3 players it is the most supported format next to mp3...
Well the vast majority of users of WMA prior to 9 would be hardly likely to have found their way to a forum like this, would they? WMA 9 does look quite promising, but the output from previous versions and the words 'high quality' were mutually exclusive!
Look at this poll. (http://www.audio-illumination.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=2404)
might be coincidence, but for each category there's at least one codec dev lurking or posting on this forum. i just can't see this happening with WMA..
You mean there are actually people who work on WMA?
With its quality, I would have thought it just popped up at random, like as if somebody's cat decided to lie down on the keyboard.
You mean there are actually people who work on WMA?
dunno. i was guessing wildly.
Theres no WMA section for the following reasons:
1. It's non-cross platform. This means, you can't get encoders and tools for other platforms to create and manipulate WMA files. Sure, it plays on some portables but that's only half of the equation.
2. It's not high quality. AFAIC it sucks at both low and high bitrates. Hydrogenaudio is mainly for the discussion of high quality audio. Streaming formats are not a major focus here. That doesn't mean that some people aren't interested or that discussions of this can't take place here, but it's not a primary focus of the forum or of most of the users. Maybe this will change in the future.. it mostly depends on interest.
3. WMA resides in the domain of all of this DRM, "copy protection", etc, mess. I can't in good conscience recommend that people use a format which cripples their usage, especially one which also features some of the worst quality of any major audio format. This site, and my intentions for such a resource, include a very large focus on open source or free codecs and utilities. The idea is to give users more options and educate them about more possibilities. WMA doesn't follow this philosophy in any sense that I can imagine.
4. Aside from all this, it appears that there are so few users interested that even if there were no other issues, it's not really worth having a seperate forum for.
5. There's really no community behind WMA as far as I can tell.. and surely not any sort of end-user oriented development community. This is also a very big part of hydrogenaudio.org -- bringing developers and users closer together to increase knowledge and awareness and to help create better software for everyone.
Even if WMA 9 was decent, it's not going to get any love around here ... which is odd considering WMA, with Microsoft's suffocating marketing tactics, could some day even up the playing field or even usurp MP3 as the "everyday person's" audio codec. Not that this forum is focused toward the "everyday person".
2. It's not high quality.
Lie!!
It produces CD-quality at 64 kbit - Billy told me B)
maybe not
>3. WMA resides in the domain of all of this DRM, "copy protection", etc, mess.
That is only half the arguement, MS are trying to tempt the Music Industry onto the internet, which it is not going to do in the short term without DRM, the reason MS is doing this is to try to dominate that market.
Yes WMP 8/9 default protects any files ripped, which I think is absoutely stupid, if it was not on by default you would not be talking about DRM as it would only be for promo/downloads.
Don't blame a format just because it has the technology to DRM files, it is just a on/off switch, it is easy to create files that are not DRM protected.
Don't blame a format just because it has the technology to DRM files, it is just a on/off switch, it is easy to create files that are not DRM protected.
If DRM was the only flaw of WMA, it wouldn't be such a big deal, though I do think that a format which
encourages the use of DRM (it does this if it uses DRM by default, whether or not it may be turned off is another issue) still doesn't fit in very well with the ideology of this place as I already pointed out.
DRM restricts accessability and usability, plain and simple. Hydrogenaudio works to make high quality audio codecs
more accessable, and
more usable by gathering valuable tips and information from knowlegable users, and by helping to foster development of free audio manipulation utilities for the good of everyone.
You are right that I am kind of blurring the distinction between DRM and the format itself. However, since DRM is one of the main points Microsoft is pushing in their WMA compaign, it's pretty obvious to me that it's at the core philosophy of the codec design. In looking at it from that perspective, one needs to consider the DRM issue whenever they consider WMA if they are to truly understand what the codec represents -- at least according to the intentions of it's developers.
And at the end of the day, there's also just the issue that vehemently disagree with DRM on a more personal note. I very much disagree with the idea of restricting our rights to use our own media, which we pay for quite fairly, just so these companies can make a few more bucks off us. This is just wrong on so many levels. Since I have the power to actively stand against this type of thing, I choose to use that by showing no interest in WMA, by not supporting in refusing to create a forum for discussion, and by actively steering users away from the format if I can.
It is highly likely that there will never be a WMA forum on Hydrogenaudio unless there are overwhelmingly good reasons for such a thing. Right now, I can't see any. WMA isn't cross-platform. WMA isn't open source. WMA doesn't have a community of concerned listeners. WMA doesn't have a community of end-user oriented developers or any sort of grass roots type projects going on. Rather, the developers of WMA would choose to deceive listeners with so called "objective" tests consisting of spectrogram comparisons, etc. They aren't concerned about quality or making things better for their users. WMA isn't high quality, and doesn't even sound better than MP3. Instead, what we get from WMA is a copy-protected, low quality, closed, proprietery codec whose developers don't really care about audio compression but rather about Microsofts bottom line.
Is this something you want to support?
A well funded development should always come out on top.
What about Ogg Vorbis vs Mp3pro?
MPC vs... just about any other lossy codec?
LAME vs Fhg?
Monkey's Audio vs other non-free Lossless encoders?
Now lets look at the well funded projects:
- WMA (not better than any of the high quality free codecs)
- AC3 (probably the most popular and widely used lossy psychoacoustic encoder, not even as good sounding as mp3)
- AAC (Very advanced but none of the available implementations appear to be better than MPC at average bitrates, nor as good as ogg vorbis or mp3pro at lower bitrates. Yes, this should change with AAC with SBR, but it's not here yet)
Being well funded doesn't automatically mean a better product, certainly not with audio codecs, and not even necessarily in other areas.
A well funded development should always come out on top.
Being well funded doesn't automatically mean a better product, certainly not with audio codecs, and not even necessarily in other areas.
True. However, there's a difference between being better and coming out on top.
A well funded development should always come out on top.
Being well funded doesn't automatically mean a better product, certainly not with audio codecs, and not even necessarily in other areas.
True. However, there's a difference between being better and coming out on top.
This is true, but by:
"You might laugh but, WMA could be the format to beat, look what happened to netscape vs IE."
I assume that he meant with the "format to beat" part and the reference to netscape vs IE, that WMA would pull ahead because of it being a technically superior product.
Of course, it could come out on top otherwise, but then it wouldn't really be the format to beat (it would already be beaten), at least in anything other than popularity.
WMA quality is bad, it does not work on non-windows platform...
There's Windows Media Player for Mac OS.....
Dibrom took the words out of my mouth in regards to wma! One additional thing to think about is this: did Microsoft come up with wma out of genuine concern and interest for users of compressed audio, or did it create the format as another way of sticking its foot in the door in yet another area? Look at Windows XP (which I unforunately own).....it tries to be everything to everybody.....
There's a crappy internet firewall, a crappy Zip decompressor, a crappy and bloated Media Player using inferior video and audio codecs whose only purpose is to strengthen Redmond's grip on its users, crappy video compression software (Movie Maker), and crappy e-mail and internet clients. A company cannot be everything to everybody. In trying to be 10294354 things to the billions of PC's in the world, MS continues to put out diluted, inferior products that are nowhere near as good as its competitors, but because they are bundled with Windows, users adopt them.
You want quality at low bitrates? Use Ogg Vorbis. You want quality at high bitrates? Use MPC. You want portable compatibilty and good quality? Use LAME. There's no reason to talk about wma becasue it is useless when considering the aformentioned choices!
Dibrom said :
DRM restricts accessability and usability, plain and simple
You said it .
Well gee...I guess someone should tell Peter Gabriel that WMA sucks so bad:
-> Peter Gabriel's Windows Media 9 gig (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-959156.html?tag=fd_top)
Butt hay...who's Peter Gabriel anyway...it's not like his discs ever sounded good. I'm sure he really wanted to us MPC or OGG...I wonder why he didn't? Someone should probably write him, ne?
Hmmm...very surprising...
Blahblahblah SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad.
Sometimes I think it's more MS business practises that make WMA sound badder than it is, not the actual codec.
Blahblahblah SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad.
Sometimes I think it's more MS business practises that make WMA sound badder than it is, not the actual codec.
Heh.. I'm willing to back up my claims with listening tests.
Are you?
Well, you could say M$ business practices contain bad artifacts that are easily smelled...
Well gee...I guess someone should tell Peter Gabriel that WMA sucks so bad:
-> Peter Gabriel's Windows Media 9 gig (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-959156.html?tag=fd_top)
Butt hay...who's Peter Gabriel anyway...it's not like his discs ever sounded good. I'm sure he really wanted to us MPC or OGG...I wonder why he didn't? Someone should probably write him, ne?
Hmmm...very surprising...
DRM, plus I don't think Peter Gabriel is as keen on the various codecs as this forum's users.
It is the case that WMA9 can't beat Ogg at lowbitrates, but I can't it being apparently SOOO bad at high bitrates isn't.
You people have no idea how infintile you make your selves look when pathologically bashing Microsoft.
Personally, I might be interested in trying a wma9 encoder since I have $400 of equipment that play these files; and the quality might be better than mp3. IF so, I'm in. A little evil or wickedness never hurt anyone :-)
So is there a wma9 encoder outside media player? Which I would like to avoid.
You people have no idea how infintile you make your selves look when pathologically bashing Microsoft.
Personally, I might be interested in trying a wma9 encoder since I have $400 of equipment that play these files; and the quality might be better than mp3. IF so, I'm in. A little evil or wickedness never hurt anyone :-)
So is there a wma9 encoder outside media player? Which I would like to avoid.
Try here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...ies/default.asp (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/default.asp)
It is the case that WMA9 can't beat Ogg at lowbitrates, but I can't it being apparently SOOO bad at high bitrates isn't.
Considering that WMA was tuned and targetted for low bitrates, I don't think it is going to do very well for the high bitrates.
and the quality might be better than mp3.
Ogg Vorbis, MPC and AAC have quality which is definitely better than MP3, and WMA only "might be better"? No wonder no one uses WMA.
Actually i heard the comparison between WMA and MP3 from Microsoft's site the day WMA9 came out, i was astounded they even included that comparison since WMA CLREARLY sounded inferior than MP3. I thought to myself "what the hell?? is this a joke??" WMA is just a shitty format that cuts high frequencies at a ridiculously low place, like maybe 17khz.
Hmm now i see, the WMA only is 5.1 channels and the MP3's are 2 channels. Well anyway, they probably used an old low quality MP3 encoder as well, they never even said which one.
First install WMA9 codec!
http://nic.dnsalias.com/WMNicEnc/wmfdist.exe (http://nic.dnsalias.com/WMNicEnc/wmfdist.exe)
>Ogg Vorbis, MPC and AAC have quality which is definitely better than MP3, and WMA only "might be better"? No wonder no one uses WMA.
I tried wma about one year ago. Was that wma8? Clearly wma 96 and wma 128 was better than cbr lame 128 and 96. The highs blew lame away.
Yet I chose to encode the next 600 albums at lame r3mix settings. Because, while wma sounded more eq'd like the original, they didn't have the lame kick.
However mpc, vorbis and aac sound horrible, as of now on all my portables :-( They might be more transparent on my computer, but the worst in my car, in the garden, at the gym. :-( Guess up to iriver to help out .
Sooner ogg get into the portables, the better chance it wont be blotted out by mp4, and considered a tiny fringe codec at best that few care about--as is linux to windows.
One person wrote that wma wasn't a forum here because wma is not a high quality format? HuH?
Pardon me, but 128 wma > 128 cbr mp3. Pardon me, but isn't sbr discussed here. Pardon me, but isn't mp3 pro and streaming discussed here? Pardon me, but isn't ogg < 96 nominal discussed here? Pardon me, but could there be any thinner disguise for anti wma bias based on who makes it?
Another thing, if ogg were a company, ran with Sucess in mind, they would negociate, asap yesterday, to get an optional pay encoder to add sbr to low end ogg files (decoding would need to be free) I can certainly hear artifacts at <96 and any improvement is greatly needed. One review on cnet for or against ogg/mp4 could sway the whole out come.
Also Ogg needs a bit of work to match mpc.
One person wrote that wma wasn't a forum here because wma is not a high quality format? HuH?
That's not really the reason. WMA is useless to talk about on this forum, as there is no way to influence the development of the format. MP3, Vorbis, MPC, AAC -- in all these cases, we have people directly involved in the development and tuning of encoders and decoders for these formats (AAC is a bit of a side case here, as the AAC format is very heavily policed, so making open AAC encoder development very hard). What would be the point of a seperate WMA section? All we would have would be people asking how they should install the codec on their system.
Degarb, you really should tone down the tone of righteous anger. You have very little idea what you are talking about, and if you continue the way you are you'll harm your causes more than you will help them.
>Degarb, you really should tone down the tone of righteous anger.
No, I am neither against nor for MS or Linux, mp4 or ogg. I am just amazed at the bias here. That's all.
At first, I was all excited about ogg, but am disillusioned, because of the obvious biases/ ms bashing and all comercial product bashing.
Now, if the reason no wma discussions is because of development swaying, then I will buy that. I just was under the impression HA was about the use and balanced comparisons of the technologies. But better development ideas can only help the consumers.
Furthermore, this is one of the rudest forums I have ever been on. Even on part of the senior members and moderators.
The test:
Especially, if you say something against the dogma that is in wide circulation. Since I can easily prove this with less than 2 megs, here goes: Lame 256 IS NOT and has NEVER BEEN CD[perfect] Quality. Here is the test you can do at home: 1. get a pro turn table and highest end cartrige 2. an old worn high quality LP 3. Pull to wav, boosting highs. 4 clean up as desired, boost highs again 5. rip to 256 or 320 and compare with wav on HEADPHONES $50 or greater. You will automatically notice NR and pops more in the Lame, not to mention a subtle shift in eq when listening with win amp 2. (possible reasons for result other than fault of Lame=winamp changing eq with decoder?) (Ogg reproduces wav more faithfully.)
Now go ahead and call me a troll or idiot. But if you do this, it is obvious (unless winamp re eq issue.), and you can only scratch ones head and ask "are they doing test on speakers or headphones? Lame 256 is NOT cd perfect.
Concessions: the lame 256 will sound as good on 99% of the track as 320 lame; the lame file sounds great other than exaggerated clicks and pops.
I see several more missinformation because of anti commercialism bias, but first test this.
Furthermore, this is one of the rudest forums I have ever been on. Even on part of the senior members and moderators.
The test:
Especially, if you say something against the dogma that is in wide circulation. Since I can easily prove this with less than 2 megs, here goes: Lame 256 IS NOT and has NEVER BEEN CD[perfect] Quality. Here is the test you can do at home: 1. get a pro turn table and highest end cartrige 2. an old worn high quality LP 3. Pull to wav, boosting highs. 4 clean up as desired, boost highs again 5. rip to 256 or 320 and compare with wav on HEADPHONES $50 or greater. You will automatically notice NR and pops more in the Lame, not to mention a subtle shift in eq when listening with win amp 2. (possible reasons for result other than fault of Lame=winamp changing eq with decoder?) (Ogg reproduces wav more faithfully.)
Now go ahead and call me a troll or idiot. But if you do this, it is obvious (unless winamp re eq issue.), and you can only scratch ones head and ask "are they doing test on speakers or headphones? Lame 256 is NOT cd perfect.
Concessions: the lame 256 will sound as good on 99% of the track as 320 lame; the lame file sounds great other than exaggerated clicks and pops.
I see several more missinformation because of anti commercialism bias, but first test this.
I never heard this 256 kbit MP3 = CD here at hydrogen audio. Maybe you refer to r3mix.net where I seen it?
Pardon me, but isn't sbr discussed here.
It sure has been discussed in the past.
Pardon me, but isn't mp3 pro and streaming discussed here?
mp3Pro is a totally closed format - closed formats is not exactly what this board is about. Still it has been discussed here fairly often. Look up the threads regarding the upcoming release of Vorbis 1.0 for example, or ff123's (http://ff123.net) 64kps listening test.
Pardon me, but isn't ogg < 96 nominal discussed here?
Has been to great extent. Again, look up the threads regarding Vorbis 1.0 and the 64kbps listening test.
Pardon me, but could there be any thinner disguise for anti wma bias based on who makes it?
Had you bothered to read this thread, you would have noticed that there are different reasons why this board has no WMA section and we're generally not interested in it. This board is about cross-format, cross-platform audio compression, as the logo states - WMA is in no way cross-platform. And - relying on Dibrom here, as I have never bothered to do listening tests with WMA - the sound quality isn't exactly good either.
At first, I was all excited about ogg, but am disillusioned, because of the obvious biases/ ms bashing and all comercial product bashing.
What the hell does that have to do with Ogg Vorbis as a format?!
Have you got any *real* arguments against Vorbis? Except for the fact that Vorbisgain doesn't offer any options for you to abuse it?
Instead of polluting this board with your stupid senseless posts, why don't you go read some threads. You have read perhaps 100-150, if that, of the 40.000 posts made on these boards. That's hardly a good basis for making judgements like "this board is totally biased".
CU
Dominic
If you read my posts: I did find a way of making things considerably louder with vorbis gain and winvorbis id3 editor. If making music that peaks at %68 then peak at 100% on portables is abuse, then let me hang with the self abusing masses. People want to hear their music. Just the likely unempathetic people that sit in front of their computers all day, cannot imagine that almost all (including 12mw units) portables would need such a feature.
Only argument against vorbis, is that they need to get rid of sub 96 kps artifacts (plaguingly apparent in dirty lps ), and mpc 201 sounds more faithful than a similarly sized ogg. Hoping this will be fixed with tuning on the fixed piont version. I noted mp4s had a much wider flex as did the lame. I also suspect mp4s would sound more interesting at a smaller size to the masses due to a slight default gain and some subtle shift in sound that is hard to put finger upon (while remaining very clear.)
I am not sure I buy the cross platform argument. Perhaps you are correct. But with wine, you cannot listen to or decode wma's? Nothing ported at all?
Don't get me wrong I wish too that wma would go away. Too many formats and if it cant compete with mpc, mp4 or ogg, then good riddens. My only interest with mp4 is it is likely the future unless all people with portable lobby their Sony/iriver/etc and get ogg support BEFORE mp4. This order is very important. If mp4 get out first, ogg is history. And I think a defeated format is very good reason to argue against it. So at the moment, I am pulling for ogg for its versatility and free status. But we all will go with the prevailing format, if not happily.
I think all you said, degarb, makes completely no sense.
I have no idea why you use the term "defeated format", And say it's a very good reason to argue against it... I think Ogg has only positive things possible for it, no negative. And it definately will not be "history". It will however be history in the good sense. The future can only be better.
AAC is really good, so is MPC, and Ogg.. And each has different disadvantages.
I am not sure I buy the cross platform argument. Perhaps you are correct. But with wine, you cannot listen to or decode wma's? Nothing ported at all?
You don't "buy the argument"?..
Wine is definately not a good solution.. And i don't think that's possible. And i certainly wouldn't call it "ported"..
y only interest with mp4 is it is likely the future unless all people with portable lobby their Sony/iriver/etc and get ogg support BEFORE mp4. This order is very important. If mp4 get out first, ogg is history.
According to you, Ogg is already history then.. Since i don't think you know, AAC (MP4) support in portable players is already out for quite some time. And i don't see it hurting Ogg.
But we all will go with the prevailing format, if not happily.
I certainly disagree...
Maybe you will. But i prefer MPC and will stick with it, and for lower bitrates i'll stick with Ogg.
Only argument against vorbis, is that they need to get rid of sub 96 kps artifacts (plaguingly apparent in dirty lps ), and mpc 201 sounds more faithful than a similarly sized ogg. Hoping this will be fixed with tuning on the fixed piont version. I noted mp4s had a much wider flex as did the lame. I also suspect mp4s would sound more interesting at a smaller size to the masses due to a slight default gain and some subtle shift in sound that is hard to put finger upon (while remaining very clear.)
Here, i have completely no idea what you're saying.....if you explained better it would be nice.
Replying to degarb's previous post first...
Furthermore, this is one of the rudest forums I have ever been on. Even on part of the senior members and moderators.
That is simply
outrageous. I was actually surprised to see such mild reactions to your senseless posts and wild claims.
Especially, if you say something against the dogma that is in wide circulation.
Well... as opposed to the claims you made, the information circulating on these boards is based on facts, it is
proven. You have yet to prove your viewpoints. (I doubt it's ever going to happen...)
Since I can easily prove this with less than 2 megs, here goes: Lame 256 IS NOT and has NEVER BEEN CD[perfect] Quality.
Nobody here claims that LAME @ 256 provides transparent quality on all samples, I have no idea where you got that from.
But anyway - artificially altering sounds to make it sound particularly bad with LAME isn't really the way to go. If you encode artificial samples, you can probably beat any psychoacoustic format, even MPC. With real music, which is what all these formats are being tuned with, it's somewhat different. Have a look at ff123's Samples page.
are they doing test on speakers or headphones?
You must think we're all stupid here... of course we use headphones!
I see several more missinformation because of anti commercialism bias
Please go ahead and give us some examples.
Apart from that... what does all this have to do with the subject? You should put all that in a thread named "Here are the first bits of objective information ever to be posted on Hydrogen Audio" or "degarb revolutionizes the way people think about audio encoding" or something like that.
Only argument against vorbis, is that they need to get rid of sub 96 kps artifacts
You can't expect transparency at such low bitrates. Yes, there still is a lot of room for tuning, and I'm sure those bitrates will be massively improved. But - in comparison to the other formats - Vorbis is damn good at low bitrates. So why all the complaints?
and mpc 201 sounds more faithful than a similarly sized ogg
What do you mean with "faithful"?
And again - there's a lot more room for tuning. MPC is so well tuned for high bitrates, it's hard to beat.
And if MPC sounds better to you, why don't you just go ahead and use it, instead of ranting that Vorbis doesn't provide the same level of quality?
I noted mp4s had a much wider flex as did the lame.
I don't quite understand how that fits into the context... could you explain?
BTW, these comments on "bitrate flexing" you made also illustrate that you have no clue at all.
Furthermore, this is one of the rudest forums I have ever been on. Even on part of the senior members and moderators.
That is simply outrageous. I was actually surprised to see such mild reactions to your senseless posts and wild claims.
...i didn't notice it, it certainly is outragous to my opinion as well.
If i read that before i can guarantee that my previous reply wouldn't be the same at all....good thing maybe...
Especially, if you say something against the dogma that is in wide circulation. Since I can easily prove this with less than 2 megs, here goes: Lame 256 IS NOT and has NEVER BEEN CD[perfect] Quality.
...
Now go ahead and call me a troll or idiot. But if you do this, it is obvious (unless winamp re eq issue.), and you can only scratch ones head and ask "are they doing test on speakers or headphones? Lame 256 is NOT cd perfect.
LOL, well it's good that you are writing this in off-topic forum, because you couldn't be more way off.
Nobody here says MP3 is CD-quality, and if somebody does, he/she is proven wrong. You could use even a little bit time for reading the forum first..
Honestly I don't wonder if some people think you are trolling. If you don't find out even the most basic stuff here, and claim these things like this forum would favor the idea that Lame-320kbps would be CD-quality, which probably anybody who has read this board for day or two can notice is something this forum does not do rather just the opposite, so you just simply ridicule yourself..
What comes to "pops" as Lame artifact, I think those are more like from ripping or clipping artifacts (probably because you amplified mp3s too much.)
I'm sorry if you find the forum unfriendly, but honestly, I think you have pretty big part in creation of that impression for yourself.
1. what portable players support mp4? No I haven't yet seen any and too lazy to goggle (being invested in iriver).
As far as flex goes (as per other man's post), I know with mp3, more variable bit rate distribution did seem (emphasis on word) to make stuff sound better at moderate bit rates. If you don't believe me get a bit rate anaylysis program (one is free, but cant think of name) and play with lame settings and frauhoffer (for a day or more.)
Indeed I would lean toward mpc, but likely by the time the portable will be able to do them, in 2 years, ogg will be as good. For now it is almost.
No one can hurt ogg--exactly-- because it is not making a profit. Yet, ogg popularity can be hurt; the value of its developers time can be hurt; its status as a standard; and the extent it is useful to encode. For a file that is not compatible with other people (sharing), nor compatible in the widest range of players (not talking computers), is hurting Ogg.
Total ogg success would the supplanting of mp4. I do believe that either mp4 or ogg will become the standard. And the other will be forgotton and not supported by portables 20 years hence. (you get older you will appreciate this. As do 8 track users, which I cannot find to buy.) As the main format then will be Ogg V x or MpX. With only a trace legacy memory of the best known former formats.
As to which will effectively die and which will live, I don't know. I wouldn't relax. Now is a time of decision.
I don't believe things, because I want to believe them. At least I try not, though I am only human. (She couldn't only love me for my money.)
>What comes to "pops"
Again, my strong hint to developers and testors. Do not use simple DDD test files. AAAD is best.
Pops and click were native on AAAD material popular pre 1988. They can be removed through filter and Noise reduction. Modestly, for introduction of artifacts. But it is amazing what can be done without manually tweaking anything. I am not sure the native pops would be considered artifacts, short of they could be manually interpolated out.
As far as flex goes (as per other man's post), I know with mp3, more variable bit rate distribution did seem (emphasis on word) to make stuff sound better at moderate bit rates. If you don't believe me get a bit rate anaylysis program (one is free, but cant think of name) and play with lame settings and frauhoffer (for a day or more.)
MP3 vbr's flex does not necessary mean it provides better quality. It can fail pretty often if not properly tweaked.
If you think the fact that mp3 vbr can hit suddenly high bitrates, when other codecs don't, you are wrong to assume that mp3 vbr is better.
This is especially so if there's lots of high frequency content in the sample being encoded. MP3 has practically a design flaw, which often leads mp3 vbr to bloat the bitrate in cases when it wouldn't be psychoacoustically needed. In other cases mp3 can fail easily. Flex in mp3 vbr is no guarantee of quality.
Below I've linked the message where I explain the sfb21 issue of mp3, which can lead to bloating of bitrate which may give you this false sense of security, when infact mp3 vbr can easily fail in other cases (like happen often with --r3mix)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....&st=0#entry6562 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=16&t=703&st=0#entry6562)
OK.. to me it seems you don't care to read this forum at all nor answer questions, only those you "think" you have good answers to.
Example to unwillingness to search: "what portable players support mp4? No I haven't yet seen any and too lazy to goggle (being invested in iriver)"
I do believe that either mp4 or ogg will become the standard. And the other will be forgotton and not supported by portables 20 years hence
I don't think there will really be a standard, and nothing will be forgotten. Now that MPC, AAC, and OGG offer high quality lossy audio compression, people will have relatively much more choise, and none is actually a bad choise. Each format has different artifacts. for example, MPC is bad at low bitrates currently, Ogg is great at low bitrates, and has allaround good quality (but still pre-echo), AAC is good at almost all bitrates (not really at low, but AAC+ will fix that) but has artifacts such as quite noticable pre-echo. (this is all subjective..)
AAC has tough licensing that will keep many away from it. OGG is totally completely free, many love and will love this. MPC too doesn't really have a problem with being free. As said in one of the forums (i read the forums..) proprietry patents that MPC uses will soon expire.
I "don't buy" the "standard" talk or "this is the codec of the future"..
Anyway, i don't think i should comment on anything more. I suggest you to read the forums, much knowlage can be gained.
>I don't think there will really be a standard, and nothing will be forgotten.
This is possible. Hopefully probable. As ic chips get cheaper, smarter, more memory. Just as long as too many formats don't keep sprouting up, and cost to feature ratio issues...Not to mention the desicion maker must be familiar with a format to bother to include it. (Parallel to the Opera v IE battle.)
I only see flash mp4 players on google. Which is good for ogg. I don't consider flash portable having an appeal to people that consider music permanent. Though you look sexier with a flash player, than a joggable cd/mp3 player.
degarb - do you realize at all that people are talking to you? Instead of perhaps reacting to the criticism you've received from several users and responding to the arguments put forward by them, you just go on blabbing about a
totally different subject. Trying to speak to you is like talking to a wall.
>What comes to "pops"
Again, my strong hint to developers and testors. Do not use simple DDD test files. AAAD is best.
Ahahahaha.
degarb:
Stop trolling. I'm not going to warn you again. If you are going to make claims about other peoples intentions or their actions (or make sweeping generalizations in a hostile manner), then you had best back up your claims with solid evidence and reason. If you are going to make inflammatory claims about something audio related, do the same.
Slagging off Hydrogenaudio or it's users for no reason is unacceptable, especially when it's off topic. Hydrogenaudio isn't your personal playground for ranting or otherwise carrying on about nonsense just to get a rise out of people. Use of this forum is a privilege, not a right. It's a privilege that will be taken away from people who are unable to converse in a reasonable manner or who are unable to follow the rules.
If you want to continue to be a member here, I suggest that you change your attitude drastically. So far I haven't seen you contribute anything worthwhile to the forums here, instead all you do is disrupt things. Either change this, or leave.
Has anyone played wma files on their rio/iriver? Transparent mode?
Quote:
Volcano
Posted: Oct 19 2002 - 03:35 PM
Senior Member
Group: Members
Posts: 316
Member No.: 112
Joined: 30- September 01
degarb - do you realize at all that people are talking to you? Instead of perhaps reacting to the criticism
you've received from several users and responding to the arguments put forward by them, you just go on blabbing about a totally different subject. Trying to speak to you is like talking to a wall.
QUOTE
>What comes to "pops"
Again, my strong hint to developers and testors. Do not use simple DDD test files. AAAD is best.
Ahahahaha.
You don't really expect people to take you seriously if you talk such *unbelievable* crap, do you...? (Apart from that, you took JohnVs sentence totally out of context, again your comment had absolutely nothing to do with what he was saying...)
Actually, I think I'm making a right fool of myself, wasting my time on you...
________________
This type of post added NOTHING to encoding conversation. Was a pure attack without even making a single point. Anyone posting such a direct attack has the maturity level of teenager, if that.
Try too keep comments more productive.
Back to encoding. Yes, LPs can be cleaned up to cd quality. Yes, encoding them is going to be harder than a pretty wav file because the remaining dirt must be encoded as well as the original signal. The beauty is the answer to the question : " Can the encoder handle the stress properly."
Unfortunately, the drift is way off wma due to ogg fervor.
Which brings me to a question: I will not install media player. So is there away to encode wavs to wma9 via eac or cdex?
And no I have never tested wma and dirty wavs.
However, this very wma question shall bring a flurry of wma hate posts; I will be called an idiot. And so this board goes.
Degarb:
I warned you.
Bye bye.
Wow. 2nd ban in HA's story.
Time to close this thread?
It's wasted enough of my time