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: No Wma? (Read 16514 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

No Wma?

Reply #25 –
Quote
Dibrom said :
DRM restricts accessability and usability, plain and simple


    You said it .

No Wma?

Reply #26 –
Well gee...I guess someone should tell Peter Gabriel that WMA sucks so bad:

-> Peter Gabriel's Windows Media 9 gig

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...
...:: Kas ::...

No Wma?

Reply #27 –
Blahblahblah SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad.

Sometimes I think it's more MS business practises that make WMA sound badder than it is, not the actual codec.

No Wma?

Reply #28 –
Quote
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?

No Wma?

Reply #29 –
Well, you could say M$ business practices contain bad artifacts that are easily smelled...
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

No Wma?

Reply #30 –
Quote
Well gee...I guess someone should tell Peter Gabriel that WMA sucks so bad:

-> Peter Gabriel's Windows Media 9 gig

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.

No Wma?

Reply #31 –
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.

No Wma?

Reply #32 –
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.

No Wma?

Reply #33 –
Quote
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

No Wma?

Reply #34 –
Quote
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.

No Wma?

Reply #35 –
Quote
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.

No Wma?

Reply #36 –
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.

No Wma?

Reply #38 –
>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.

No Wma?

Reply #39 –
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.

No Wma?

Reply #40 –
Quote
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.

No Wma?

Reply #41 –
>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.

No Wma?

Reply #42 –
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.

No Wma?

Reply #43 –
Quote
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?

No Wma?

Reply #44 –
Quote
Pardon me, but isn't sbr discussed here.


It sure has been discussed in the past.


Quote
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 64kps listening test.


Quote
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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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

No Wma?

Reply #45 –
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.

No Wma?

Reply #46 –
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.

Quote
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"..

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

No Wma?

Reply #47 –
Replying to degarb's previous post first...

Quote
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.


Quote
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...)


Quote
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.


Quote
are they doing test on speakers or headphones?


You must think we're all stupid here... of course we use headphones!


Quote
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.

No Wma?

Reply #48 –
Quote
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?


Quote
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?


Quote
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.

No Wma?

Reply #49 –
Quote
Quote
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...