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: WMAPro vs Nero HE-AAC-v2 64kbps test (Read 6083 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WMAPro vs Nero HE-AAC-v2 64kbps test

300 people, the same equipment. MS paid for it so expect the overall document to be skewed/distorted in MS's favor but not the results.

Reguardless, put on your bullshit deflectors and read through it, you might be surprised if you consider the improvments required over WMA to get WMAPro there.

Link to PDF

Knowing you guys on HA, i expect you guys to go in a mental shitstorm ripping this document apart, questioning the audio choices, methods, etc. Again, all I ask is just try to look through the BS and refrain from prejudice comments. Maybe we can get a constructive conversation about WMAPro in here for once.

-Joe

WMAPro vs Nero HE-AAC-v2 64kbps test

Reply #1 –
Would be great to know the actual file sizes of the test samples.  Does 1K = 1,000 or 1,024 ?  It might be possible that one of the formats had a small advantage over the other.

In each of the tests a sizable percentage considered both contenders about equal.  Didn't see a winner by a knock-out.  Only a split decision.  Looks like either format could claim 'Rated as good or better in more than 50% of cases.'

WMAPro vs Nero HE-AAC-v2 64kbps test

Reply #2 –
Quote from: woody_woodward on
Would be great to know the actual file sizes of the test samples.  Does 1K = 1,000 or 1,024 ?  It might be possible that one of the formats had a small advantage over the other.

In each of the tests a sizable percentage considered both contenders about equal.  Didn't see a winner by a knock-out.  Only a split decision.  Looks like either format could claim 'Rated as good or better in more than 50% of cases.'


my two cents are that it's a virtual tie, except for castanets.

Castanets WMAPro blows Nero HE-AAC out of the water. I'd be interested in seeing that reproduced.

-Joe

WMAPro vs Nero HE-AAC-v2 64kbps test

Reply #3 –
Quote
Maybe we can get a constructive conversation about WMAPro in here for once.


No, we can't.

First, Microsoft did not agree to include their latest WMAPro in Sebastian Mares' public blind listening test at 48 kbps

Second, analysing the test results without test material itself is useless - how can credibility of the test be verified at all?

Third, in May 2006, Nero released completely new AAC encoder that is significantly better than the one used in NSTL test and that was, in fact, scoring with the highest average score among state of the art HE-AAC encoders (Coding Technologies, 3GPP Reference, Nero...)

And last, but not least - giving public comments about WMAPro quality is very hard, and sometimes illegal, as Vista Beta / WMP 11 EULAs explicitly prohibit public benchmarking of their software - so people would only be able to comment results of the internal test where you actually never heard the samples.

I am quite sure that latest WMAPro is much better than the older one - but, the rules of the game Microsoft imposed for now - that publishing benchmarking results is prohibited, and the sole internal nature of the NSTL test completely rules out any quality discussion you would expect on HA forum.

WMAPro vs Nero HE-AAC-v2 64kbps test

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Ivan Dimkovic on
I am quite sure that latest WMAPro is much better than the older one - but, the rules of the game Microsoft imposed for now - that publishing benchmarking results is prohibited, and the sole internal nature of the NSTL test completely rules out any quality discussion you would expect on HA forum.



So basically, we have to wait for WM11/ Vista to come out of beta and become final before the non-benchmarking EULA becomes more open and we can actually discuss/benchmark WMAPro?

Understandable from MS's perspective, the hardware/automotive industry does the same thing with pre-production hardware.

Thanks for pointing that out Ivan.

I believe this thread should be closed/ereased or at the very least locked until we can have something constructive to talk about because of two obvious reasons: MS's beta EULAs and the deprecated Nero HE-AAC encoder that they used for this outdated comparison.

-Joe

WMAPro vs Nero HE-AAC-v2 64kbps test

Reply #5 –
It seems similar to the Sony (Atrac3) way:

*Test contender itself provides the test samples: this is a big no-no for a meaningfull listening test. Of course they would have tested the samples before selecting them for the "test".

*Test results are published by the test client (Microsoft) and not the lab: Microsoft could have payed for several tests conduced by several "labs" before deciding which one to publish.

But it would probably fool a lot of uninformed people.