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: Windows Media wiki page (Read 7058 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Windows Media wiki page

Quote
Even though Microsoft claims it is able to deliver the same quality as MP3 at half the bitrates, that statement is certainly false. A more realistic number would be same quality at around 25 % smaller bitrates - and that applies to low bitrates only. At 128kbps, it is easily bested by LAME.

WMA Standard is the second most widespread lossy format (only losing to the ubiquitous MP3), mostly thanks to Microsoft's aggressive marketing tactics.


Microsoft hate sometimse runs rampant around here, but if obviously opinion-driven claims like this are going to be made, surely TOS requires some proof?

Windows Media wiki page

Reply #1 –
Quote
Microsoft hate sometimse runs rampant around here, but if obviously opinion-driven claims like this are going to be made, surely TOS requires some proof?


Nobody cares about Microsoft. If it wasn't for their codec being used frequently on the Zune it wouldn't see the light of day. I suppose the only logical thing to do would be to include it in the next listening test. Other then that it has nothing going for it.
budding I.T professional

Windows Media wiki page

Reply #2 –
Quote from: HotshotGG on
Other then that it has nothing going for it.
Yeah, except the most diverse ecosystem of support for any other format besides MP3.
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High

Windows Media wiki page

Reply #3 –
Quote from: LANjackal on
Yeah, except the most diverse ecosystem of support for any other format besides MP3.

Quote
WMA Standard is the second most widespread lossy format (only losing to the ubiquitous MP3), mostly thanks to Microsoft's aggressive marketing tactics.


Quite interesting that inferior, locked-down formats can be pushed for mass adoption simply by proclaiming themselves louder than the rest, and then assert that they must be superior to their competitors just because they have 'substantial market share/penetration'.

Even more interestingly, people who are taken for granted to know better, buy the assertion hook, line and sinker.

Windows Media wiki page

Reply #4 –
Quote from: sld on
Quite interesting that inferior,


Theres nothing inferior about WMA std aside from MS terrible handling of the format.  Its a modern if somewhat simple MDCT format that has a lot in common with AAC-LC.

Quote from: sld on
locked-down formats can be pushed for mass adoption simply by proclaiming themselves louder than the rest,


The point raised by the OP is that this isn't really true, and so should be removed from the Wiki.  Parroting it here isn't productive or interesting.

Quote from: sld on
and then assert that they must be superior to their competitors just because they have 'substantial market share/penetration'.

Even more interestingly, people who are taken for granted to know better, buy the assertion hook, line and sinker.


This is silly.  No one has said that WMA must be superior to its competitors, and I don't think anyone is interested in making that argument.  In fact, your inferiority comment is the first actual opinion anyone has offered, about the merit of the format.  If you want to argue about that, why not start a thread about it rather then hijack this one?

Windows Media wiki page

Reply #5 –
Quote from: hellokeith on
WMA Standard is the second most widespread lossy format (only losing to the ubiquitous MP3), mostly thanks to Microsoft's aggressive marketing tactics.

I have no objections against this statement.