Have you guys dropped WMA support? Don't see it listed on the front page. Just asking, because a lot of my files are in that format I normally use fb2k for ABX tests involving them. Thanks.
Have you guys dropped WMA support? Don't see it listed on the front page. Just asking, because a lot of my files are in that format I normally use fb2k for ABX tests involving them. Thanks.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=372507"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
you have to wait until somebody makes a component. foobar never had native wma support
Have you guys dropped WMA support? Don't see it listed on the front page. Just asking, because a lot of my files are in that format I normally use fb2k for ABX tests involving them. Thanks.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=372507"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
you have to wait until somebody makes a component. foobar never had native wma support
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=372509"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It should have imo. WMA is one of the most common music filetypes. More common than other filetypes supported by default anyway, such as SVX,AIF,IFF. Might even be more common than OGG, not sure but it could be.
I agree oh Luna Element creator... (god!!)
Have you guys dropped WMA support? Don't see it listed on the front page. Just asking, because a lot of my files are in that format I normally use fb2k for ABX tests involving them. Thanks.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=372507"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
you have to wait until somebody makes a component. foobar never had native wma support
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=372509"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It should have imo. WMA is one of the most common music filetypes. More common than other filetypes supported by default anyway, such as SVX,AIF,IFF. Might even be more common than OGG, not sure but it could be.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=372533"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Unlike all those other formats, WMA is not open.
Since it has already been done for ealier version it should'nt be difficult to write one for V.9, or am I dumb ?
Sure, but the fb2k 0.9 SDK has only been out just now, so it may take a bit before whoever wrote the old one updates it.
Wasn't there a discussion at some point that the developer who wrote foo_wma for 0.8 is no longer developing for Foobar? I know I read that somewhere on these forums.
Writing a WMA input for Foobar is very straight forward, it just seems silly to reinvent the wheel since the source to a working component is out there somewhere.
Just FYI, conversion to WMA is possible using "Custom" commandline provided the Windows Media Encoder components are installed on the PC:
Encoder: cscript.exe
Extension: wma
Parameters: "C:\Program Files\Windows Media Components\Encoder\WMCmd.vbs" -input %s -output %d -profile a64
No tags though; any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks.
Actually I can write BASS library wrapper for WMA input
http://www.un4seen.com/bass.html (http://www.un4seen.com/bass.html)
I should have the old source code somewhere. Anyone interested can notify me
I should have the old source code somewhere. Anyone interested can notify me
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=372831"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
send it to me please ( dimzon541 at gmail dot com )
I only have a few albums in WMA format but I too look forward to a component for 0.9.
Me too
I have some albums in wma, and i am waiting since beta 7 to hear them again( i always was to lazy to use the old one)
looking forwarft to a port
--Ano
I am hoping for the plugin too since I have a few songs are in wma format.
I would like to see this plugin, but with added streaming support if possible (i know the original didnt have that)
I echo the sentiments expressed by others on this thread, in fact the lack of a wma plugin is the only thing keeping me from taking the plunge into 0.9.
The funny thing is that I really dislike wma, however my favorite internet radio program is streamed only as wma over mms, and rather than listen with WiMP (which I dislike even more) I record it with Netransport and listen with Foobar 0.8.3.
Lastly a big thank you to Peter & all the plugin developers for making Foobar great. Looking forward to all the improvements of 0.9 (once we have a wma plugin )
I too would really like to see WMA support.
@dimzon
Did you receive the source code, and do you think you can make the foo_wma component?
Why is WMA so less-appreciated?
I have all of my music in WMA. Foobar 0.8.3 was fine, 0.9 is nonsense without WMA support.
Ys,
Rozzo
Why is WMA so less-appreciated?
I have all of my music in WMA. Foobar 0.8.3 was fine, 0.9 is nonsense without WMA support.
Ys,
Rozzo
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=376226"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
while comparable in size and quality, mp3's are the standard, and everything plays them.
not quite so with the wma's. also the wma's can have drm built into them making them impossible to use.
basicly it's just another example of microsoft not working with the industry...
(at least, that's my take on the subject)
WMA files have also been proven to rank lower than LAME MP3 in ABX blind listening tests.
IIRC, other lossy formats also produce better quality than WMA. Also, i've seen some wma files in Shareaza which need a license to play. but that's just a way to install spyware to your comp.
in other words, WMA is crap.
Ability to put the files in a container with DRM isn't an arguement against a format. You could do that with audio format.
However, overall poor performance verses MP3, worse hardware support then MP3 and lack of a reasonably open standard are all very good reasons to avoid WMA lossy.
It is unfortunate no one knows the status of those who claimed they may make a plugin. I would be more than happy to take foo_xm (which plays WMAs) and modify it to make a general purpose plugin, but I don't want to get some 15+ hours into the work and find it's not needed any more
Peter is already working on a WMA plugin, so this issue should be solved soon.
Peter is already working on a WMA plugin, so this issue should be solved soon.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=376631"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks a million!!!
A WMA component with MMS streaming support would be awesome all my favourite internet radio stations are streaming in WMA9 also (32-64-170kbps, 170kbps radio streaming is actually very good quality i think, much better than FM or the crappy DAB format).
I greatly anticipate a wma plugin! Would come in handy as I'm even unable to tag files with the wma tag.
I'm a little bit disappointed too about this fact that there is missing a WMA-Plugin.
On one hand I think WMA is crap, but on the other hand I used to recommend foobar2000 0.8.3-special to friends as an audioplayer playing almost every file u can get. I was hoping, with using foobar my friends learn to love it and bit by bit free codecs as well. So i'm afraid that few friends, having WMA-files, will maybe switch to other well known players now and rest with WMA and according horrible players.
New users can only find v0.9 on the homepage of foobar, without a way to support WMA at least non-native. This is a bit pity for me.
Of course I don't need WMA, I love foobar and I'll use it, because it supports everything I need myself. But I really would like to see, that foobar takes care for less audiophil fans of higly economical and functional audioplayers. This would help making foobar and free codecs more popular, I think.
But I really would like to see, that foobar takes care for less audiophil fans of higly economical and functional audioplayers.
WMA supports lossless and is playable on every current XP system without additional software. Thats why i use it.
Of course i'm using foobar for myself so having no WMA playback currently is really a downer for me.
was there a wma-plugin for 8.3?
was there a wma-plugin for 8.3?
Yeah, it came with the special installer.
thx
So no news of a foobar 0.9 WMA plugin? I would have thought one would be done by now.
foobar2000 v0.9.1 beta 1 plays WMA
great news!
thanks, upstairs
Unfortunately, WMA encoded with ACEPL is still not supported.
WMA-ACELP is supported with final release of 0.91.
Peter & Co: thank you!
About the 2-pass wrong bitrate indication (still present with 0.9.1), I've posted a short encoding as example:
http://audiotests.free.fr/temp/2pass_bug.wma (http://audiotests.free.fr/temp/2pass_bug.wma)
foobar2000 reports "172 kbps" as bitrate.
I don't know if it may help, but I made screenshot of information available through Winamp:
http://audiotests.free.fr/temp/Clipboard01.png (http://audiotests.free.fr/temp/Clipboard01.png)
http://audiotests.free.fr/temp/Clipboard02.png (http://audiotests.free.fr/temp/Clipboard02.png)
There's a field called bitrate which indicates 172624 [bytes]; it's apparently what foobar2000 reports. There are also other fields called CurrentBitrate and OptimalBitrate and both are corresponding to the true audio bitrate of the file (128594 [bytes]).
But I have still a problem: The WMA doesnt work if there are no "Windows Media runtime libraries" installed. But I'ive didnt found any possibility to install them, because they are only available to WinXP, and I'm an user of Win2k...
But I have still a problem: The WMA doesnt work if there are no "Windows Media runtime libraries" installed. But I'ive didnt found any possibility to install them, because they are only available to WinXP, and I'm an user of Win2k...
Try the v9 System Codecs from dBpowerAMP (http://www.dbpoweramp.com/codec-central-wma.htm). If that fails you can install foobar 0.8.3 special and check WMA support during setup (which should install the runtime library).
I'm running xp pro have all the current media codecs for media 10 player and I can't get any wma file to play in Foobar 9.1. What am I doing wrong? I have
installed 8.3 special in the past. I should have all current runtimes, Windows Media Format Runtime etc.
What does the console throw up when you try to play .wma? (View > Console)
I'm getting:
could not enumerate tracks (Unsupported file format) on: file name
IIRC, other lossy formats also produce better quality than WMA. Also, i've seen some wma files in Shareaza which need a license to play. but that's just a way to install spyware to your comp.
in other words, WMA is crap.
Blah, blah, blah.
Where's your "I hate Microsoft" banner sig?
WMA lossless is a valid, useful, widespread format.
Spyware indeed.
Blah, blah, blah.
Where's your "I hate Microsoft" banner sig?
WMA lossless is a valid, useful, widespread format.
Spyware indeed.
I believed in some cases WMA is crap, but WMA also is one of the mainstream formats, so even if you hate it, you have to face the fact: Out there on the Internet, there still some resources available only in WMA. and nearly all nowadays portable players plays MP3 and WMA natively (please don't mention ipods).
hello there! that´s my first post... HOORAY!
i´m using foobar for quite a while now and i love it. sound is perfect.
BUT: the new foobar decodes wma, it´s nice, since i stored my lossless music in WMA-Professional. yeah, i can hear you right now "WMA is crap, it´s from microsoft, it´s commercial... blablabla".
i use it, because WMA-Professional is simply the best lossy compressor i know. the normal WMA is crap, that´s true. it´s the worst. but WMA-Professional is very good, even better than AAC.
so, i´m doing upsampling with adobe audition and remastering with SoundForge and WaveLab, and i store the music in WMA-Professinal (24 Bit / 48 kHz or 24 Bit / 96 kHz, always with variable bitrate and 2-pass-encoding). it sounds like the original (blind comparison).
but now, foobar doesn´t fully support WMA-Professional. 24 Bit / 96 kHz are interepreted as 24 Bit / 48 kHz. i know that these additional sampling is something like an add-on and it really is 48 kHz, but i would very much like to have 96 kHz again.
only a suggestion...
i use it, because WMA-Professional is simply the best lossy compressor i know. the normal WMA is crap, that´s true. it´s the worst. but WMA-Professional is very good, even better than AAC.
Welcome to the forum. I assume you only know very few lossy codecs or haven't read the Terms of Service carefully enough, in particular #8. If you make a claim regarding the quality of something, you must present data to back your claim. If you wish to express your personal preference, you should mark it as such, for example by using "I like..." or "I prefer...".
so, i´m doing upsampling with adobe audition and remastering with SoundForge and WaveLab, and i store the music in WMA-Professinal (24 Bit / 48 kHz or 24 Bit / 96 kHz, always with variable bitrate and 2-pass-encoding). it sounds like the original (blind comparison).
Welcome to the HA forums Cavaille.
- Upsampling does not improve perceived sound quality. Beware the placebo effect.
- 2-pass encoding is moot if you're using VBR.
- Read up on ABX testing. Try it with the encoder of your choice (WMA) versus the uncompressed original and then a compression format that you think is inferior (say, AAC) versus the uncompressed original. You might surprise yourself.
Read around these forums (and especially the wiki), you'll learn a lot about digital audio & compression. I did!
edit: grammar
oh sorry, i didn´t read the terms of service that carefully. sorry for that. i will post some samples in the near future, comparing the different lossy encoders. i know, that this is already done (i don´t know on which site i read this), and AAC & WMA Pro stands regarding to these tests at the same level.
my experience in this field (and i have quite a lot) shows me, that if i open an AAC-file with winamp, that formerly was 24/96, then it will be played back by winamp with 16/96. try that for yourself. WMA-Pro stays 24/96.
and in my ears i prefer WMA-Pro because of the better sound. so, i was just describing my own personal experience. sorry, if i wasn´t clear enough on that
OFF TOPIC: and resampling CAN improve the quality, because you move the anti-alias-cutoff out the hearing-range of the ear, you know... and i do it mostly for better impulse-recovering. as jack renner (or was it the other one?) from TELARC said in 1998: "the recording is not flawed, the playback is."
my experience in this field (and i have quite a lot) shows me, that if i open an AAC-file with winamp, that formerly was 24/96, then it will be played back by winamp with 16/96. try that for yourself. WMA-Pro stays 24/96.
AAC is a lossy format. If Winamp decodes it to 16 bits per sample, then that is a property of the Winamp decoder, not the format. foobar2000 will decode AAC to floating point like it does with all other formats.
OFF TOPIC: and resampling CAN improve the quality, because you move the anti-alias-cutoff out the hearing-range of the ear, you know... and i do it mostly for better impulse-recovering. as jack renner (or was it the other one?) from TELARC said in 1998: "the recording is not flawed, the playback is."
A software resampler generally does not improve quality, it may however prevent quality degradation resulting from low quality resampling in the audio hardware.
[AAC is a lossy format. If Winamp decodes it to 16 bits per sample, then that is a property of the Winamp decoder, not the format. foobar2000 will decode AAC to floating point like it does with all other formats.
foobar does? i did know a lot, but not that. no more questions. thanx
I am unable to write tags to my WMA's with foobar2000 0.9.1. Console error says, "Could not write info (WMA tag editing not supported) to: "C:\Music\...".
Is there any way around this? I know I could write tags to WMA's with 0.8.
Thanks for your help.
I am unable to write tags to my WMA's with foobar2000 0.9.1. Console error says, "Could not write info (WMA tag editing not supported) to: "C:\Music\...".
Is there any way around this? I know I could write tags to WMA's with 0.8.
Thanks for your help.
Just as it says: writing WMA-tags is (currently?) not supported in foobar2000 0.9. WMA component for 0.8 is a third party one which supports tagging.
Is it possible for someone to recompile the 0.8 WMA component for 0.9 so we can get tagging capabilities?
Am trying to use TAG.EXE to write WMA tags, but no luck so far. My fb2k 9.2B5 converter settings look like this:
Encoder: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\CMD.EXE
Extension: wma
Parameters: /c C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\cscript.exe c:\progra~1\w_media\encoder\WMCmd.vbs -input %s -output %d -a_mode 2 -a_setting Q10_44_2 && c:\progra~1\tag\tag.exe %d --artist "%artist%" --album "%album%" --track "%tracknumber%" --title "%title%" --genre "%genre%" --year "%date%"
("w_media" is Windows Media Components directory.)
The file converts just fine, but no tags.
Any suggestions? Or, are WMA tags somehow not supported by TAG?
Thanks.
foobar2000 0.9.2 does read wma tag info perfectly, but will not use replaygain which was applied with 0.8.3 or mp3tag (don't know anymore which one I used).
I dislike WMA too, but maybe there is a chance this will be implemented (reading replaygain info) in a future version?
Edit: I meant the tags were probably added using mp3tag, the replaygain was certainly applied with foobar.
OFF TOPIC: and resampling CAN improve the quality, because you move the anti-alias-cutoff out the hearing-range of the ear, you know... and i do it mostly for better impulse-recovering. as jack renner (or was it the other one?) from TELARC said in 1998: "the recording is not flawed, the playback is."
Only if your DAC supports 96k. Otherwise you'll be resampling to 96k (which is lossy) and then doing a second resample back down to 48k most likely.
And realistically, the people who made your DAC probably aren't idiots. If it really supports 96k, and it actually performs better at 96k, the DAC would simply oversample 48k data 2x as much as it does 96k audio, thus giving the same effect.
Only if your DAC supports 96k. Otherwise you'll be resampling to 96k (which is lossy) and then doing a second resample back down to 48k most likely.
And realistically, the people who made your DAC probably aren't idiots. If it really supports 96k, and it actually performs better at 96k, the DAC would simply oversample 48k data 2x as much as it does 96k audio, thus giving the same effect.
the card supports 96 kHz. i checked with another card on another pc (but with no proof of that).
it´s an external creative card - with the known resampling problem. it´s extremely flawed in my opinion and produces heavy distortions when upsampling from 44.1 to 48 or 96 kHz. i think, that this problem was often discussed in the past here. that is the reason for me to upsample. so i do upsampling with adobe audition or the SSRC-resampler-dsp until i´m able to get a new card. be sure, that it won´t be another creative!
and honestly, i don´t know, if the card oversamples the data. and i think, that no one knows that, because that would be only visible to those engineers, who created the card. and be careful to differentiate between "upsampling" & "oversampling". it´s not the same.
so, that was the off-topic text
still, foobar does not fully support WMA, at least i think it doesn´t. please correct me, if i´m wrong. maybe i did something wrong. right now i see my 96 kHz-files played back with 48 kHz (foobar even say, it is 48 kHz). maybe the WMA-pro codec is with 96 kHz a lie and it just can´t do 96 kHz? i don´t know that.
and in my opinion 96 kHz always is better, even if upsampled. be careful, that is my personal opinion and in this case i fully trust my ears, and i´m able to hear differences between resamplers and i think, that i´m hearing music long enough for avoiding placebo-effects (at least i hope so), for i´m a very critical person if it comes to sound.
i should stop... so much off-topic stuff here... sorry. don´t bann me from this forum.
Just FYI, conversion to WMA is possible using "Custom" commandline provided the Windows Media Encoder components are installed on the PC:
Encoder: cscript.exe
Extension: wma
Parameters: "C:\Program Files\Windows Media Components\Encoder\WMCmd.vbs" -input %s -output %d -profile a64
No tags though; any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks.
when I try this i get an error message after the conversion "appears" to have finished
Error flushing file (Object not found) : file://C:\download\Sure Shot.wma
how do I get around this?
foobar2000 0.9.2 does read wma tag info perfectly, but will not use replaygain which was applied with 0.8.3 or mp3tag (don't know anymore which one I used).
I dislike WMA too, but maybe there is a chance this will be implemented (reading replaygain info) in a future version?
I too vote for added replay-gain support for .wma (and .wav too!). That is the sole thing I like about .83 over .9, the ability to replay-gain any format without having to have tag writing support for that format. I doubt we will get the database back in .9 that we had in .83 (it allowed us to replay-gain every file), but I think since .wav and .wma are popular enough formats some consideration should be at least given in this matter.
[Edit: changed won't to will in order to make sense]
foobar2000 0.9.2 does read wma tag info perfectly, but will not use replaygain which was applied with 0.8.3 or mp3tag (don't know anymore which one I used).
I dislike WMA too, but maybe there is a chance this will be implemented (reading replaygain info) in a future version?
I too vote for added replay-gain support for .wma (and .wav too!). That is the sole thing I like about .83 over .9, the ability to replay-gain any format without having to have tag writing support for that format. I doubt we won't get the database back in .9 that we had in .83 (it allowed us to replay-gain every file), but I think since .wav and .wma are popular enough formats some consideration should be at least given in this matter.
I agree with you, I have a few WMA albums which I dont want to transcode to other formats since its not WMA Lossless and I'm going to be losing quality. I also wish someone could port the WMA component from 0.8.3.