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: WMA VBR better than LAME VBR? (Read 12004 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

hello,

wma 9 supports like lame also an vbr mode. I wonder which one is better...

thanks
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #1 –
what do you mean ?

you can compare the quality of two codecs (each in a certain vbr mode), but how can you compare the VBR routines of two completely different codecs ?

All VBR algorithms are integrated in the codecs.  You can't just take out the VBR parts of WMAx and plug them into LAME !

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #2 –
LAME's VBR sounds A LOT better then WMA's VBR. Not to mention, no chance of DRM and the ability to tweak the command line you use. Try doing that with WMA.
iTunes 10 - Mac OS X 10.6
256kbps AAC VBR
iPhone 4 32GB

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #3 –
@ Jojo :

First, there is WMA 9 VBR and  WMA 9 Pro VBR. They sound different. (Pro code extends on channels, bitdepth and sampling rate, but it seems that it sounds better with the same settings).
Normal version is backwards compatible. Pro version isn't (At least that's what I've heard).

Second, I suppose your only concern would be sound quality (being this forum). I haven't tried to ABX it yet, but the Pro codec generates bitrates similar to LAME (~200kbps) and the filter cuttoff is higher. I'm not sure if someone already did a listening test with WMA 9Pro, or it was just proposed. Try the search engine.

@NumLOCK :

Ahem... you were coding something, or reading about coding, right? I can't understand how you though Jojo was asking about routines and not sound quality. Not to say that the thing of integrating it in LAME is, indeed, something humorous.

@chrisgeleven :

a) DRM is not a reason not to use WMA. It *might* be a  reason not to download/share WMA.
B) You surely didn't play with wme8util. Also, the media encoder 2 gives you many options on what do you want to encode (ok, predefined options, not switches). Finally, it's a consensus that with lame, you should NOT play with the commandline. ;)

c) for what setting, codec, target bitrate? Or are you just making it from the quality it has at CBR 64? Be serious.

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #4 –
Quote
LAME's VBR sounds A LOT better then WMA's VBR.

Some pretty strong generalizations here - true at all data rates, all signals, all settings, all types of artifacts?  I'm not a WMA fan, but this position seems a little extreme and counter to some of the data I have seen (esp. low data rates).  Do you want to qualify it or is there data to back this?
Was that a 1 or a 0?

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #5 –
Quote
,May 13 2003 - 08:18 PM] @NumLOCK :

Ahem... you were coding something, or reading about coding, right? I can't understand how you though Jojo was asking about routines and not sound quality. Not to say that the thing of integrating it in LAME is, indeed, something humorous.

Umm...  I must admit, I was in the middle of some obscure coding while answering to him - indeed 

Sorry jojo, I really thought you meant, taking lame and wma apart to compare the component.. 

As for the VBR quality I can't really say, and probably wma is fine for low bitrates. If you need quality, you should pick LAME because it's been quite well-tuned for that - but the price will usually be ~170-220kbps.

As of now, the most impressive music codec (which is VBR-only) is Musepack.  Designed only for quality 

Cheers

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #6 –
Quote
:
As of now, the most impressive music codec (which is VBR-only) is Musepack.  Designed only for quality 

He he true. I like the fact MPC has no CBR mode (CBR only wastes bits or gets short of  'em)

I did set updatebitrate=1 in Winamp's MPC plugin .ini file, so I see bitrate movin' fast like if it were "alive". 

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #7 –
WMA is pretty good at low bitrates compared to other codecs. However at high bitrates VBR (around 192), I can easily pick it out. I did an ABX test awhile back when version 9 came out, both regular and pro codecs. Pro was better, but still nowhere near LAME quality VBR.

Not to mention WMA Pro can't play on any portables (yet) without firmware updates (if any are even available). WMA Pro also probably can't be played on earlier versions of WMP either or any software that relies on earlier versions of WMP's codecs (such as Winamp).

I can't pick out a LAME 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard file unless it is one of those killer samples. Trust me, I tried numerous times via ABX.

LAME VBR (above 160) is highly tuned (well, as high as MP3 can go). No one needs to change the preset for --alt-preset standard because the entire community put tons of well documented research and experimenting into it. The best options have been done for all bitrates (such as --alt-preset 128) to achieve the best quality possible with LAME. If there is a problem with a sample and a better commandline for a specific bitrate is found, then the next update of LAME will contain it.

How Microsoft accomplishes their VBR is a mystery. You have no community to report back to about a sample that fails with WMA VBR and no contact with WMA developers. You might have some control over the codec from the command-line program you mentioned, but your trusting a codec from a company that claims CD Quality as 64 kbit stereo and until very recently paid no attention to bitrates above 160 and 192 kbit. You really think that these"wondeRful" versions of WMP 9 and WME 9 can come even close to LAME at high bitrates  on the first version? Your crazy if you think that.

I do not have any faith in high bitrate WMA VBR and won't until I am proven otherwise.
iTunes 10 - Mac OS X 10.6
256kbps AAC VBR
iPhone 4 32GB

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #8 –
WM 9 is touted to go to Cinemas, so yes... they need a BIT of quality.

Still, since you say you tried it, i should respect your words, even though the sample I tried seemed ok (again, I repeat i didn't paid much attention).

"You really think that these"wondeRful" versions of WMP 9 and WME 9 can come even close to LAME at high bitrates on the first version? "

Ahem.... first version? I think I missed something here...
I suppose you mean for the VBR counterpart. Still, I would say it's easier to design a codec to be VBR than CBR. The lossy part is to decide what to discard to fit a specific amount of data. (of course, this applies to vbr as well, but you can maintain the same rules during the whole file in this case)

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #9 –
First version as in WMP 9 contains the first version of WMA that is VBR capable. WMA Pro is a first version of a new codec (don't know how different it is from WMA 9, but it is different enough that no player that read WMA files previously can read these). The general rule in software is never trust (or at least be highly skeptical) of version 1.0 of software or features. WMA 9 VBR is definitely version 1.0 of that feature and so is WMA Pro.

If VBR were so easy, we all would be using every single MP3 encoder since they all would produce such high quality VBR files. Until LAME came along, no MP3 encoder had good VBR implimentations and just about all MP3 encoders that have VBR of them still suffer major problems (except LAME). VBR requires lots of work compared to CBR. CBR you just use the same bitrate throughout the music. VBR must figure out how much bitrate a piece of music requires. Then it must figure out how low it can go at a given quality setting without sacrificing much quality. That is a lot more work then CBR.

Ogg Vorbis and Musepack are both VBR codecs from the start, yet both have had many many many versions of its encoder to reach where they are today. Ogg Vorbis only recently was able to pass LAME --alt-preset standard in quality for most music and some claim there is still problems with Ogg Vorbis. Musepack is generally accepted as the most transparent lossy codec out there today, but had many versions before it reached its SV7 1.15 alpha encoder version.

No one knows how well tested WMA's VBR is. Unless Microsoft is absolutely perfect on a version 1.0 feature for the first time in the company's existance (ask anyone who has used Microsoft products if their version 1.0 are usable), there is probably some major bugs/problems with WMA's VBR. Problem is, since no one can look at the code or do extensive tweaking, no one will be able to see if these bugs are even fixable.

Cinema's could WMA, true, but I am almost guarenteeing that they are using WMA lossless (which quality = WAV since alll lossless codecs equal the quality of WAVs). If it isn't lossless, then the quality is at such a high bitrate (probably 320+) that the comparison to LAME VBR isn't the right thing to do.
iTunes 10 - Mac OS X 10.6
256kbps AAC VBR
iPhone 4 32GB

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #10 –
Wow, thanks for all your replies . The reason why I even started this topic was because I used to transcode my mp3 files into wma files so that my mp3 player could hold more music. Microsoft claims that a 64kbps wma file sounds as good as a 128kbps mp3 file and I frequently read that this is not perfectly true and that you need a 96kbps wma file in order to reach the mentioned quality level. So this is why I was wondering if I should rather encode my CD's into wma instead of using --abr 191...but according to the post you guys made wma is only better in lower bitrates.

So let's say I want to transcode my mp3 files to a lower bitrate ~128kbps (or maybe even less), would it be the best to use vbr wma instead of ---abr 128 ????
Also, is it true that a vbr mode is always better than a cbr mode (assuming the same bitrate), no matter what bitrate I choose? I mean, also the lower once?

Thanks
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #11 –
Read (and listen) this:

http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/wma9/

It seems clear than on bitrates lower than 128, wma is better. But with 128, it is probably a matter of taste. Listen to the 2 128kbps samples on this page. There is no clear winner at 128kbps.

On the one hand, this is only for one sample, but on the other hand this specific sample was chosen by Microsoft.

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #12 –
ok, thanks for the link...what about my other question? Is vbr ALWAYS better than cbr?
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #13 –
Quote
ok, thanks for the link...what about my other question? Is vbr ALWAYS better than cbr?

Good implementations of VBR always are better than CBR, if you're talking about quality.
(Just look at MPC, Ogg Vorbis, and the newest LAME developments.  They all use VBR, and the new MPC/Vorbis codecs can't use CBR.)

The simple explanation is that with VBR the encoder gives appropriate storage space for appropriately complex parts of the music.  Where there is silence, it takes almost no space, where it is complex bitrates can be as high as 320Kbps (and above for non-MP3).  With CBR, every portion of the music gets the same amount of space to work with, meaning that some sections could have more information than nessesary, while others are lacking enough space to sound good.  (CBR does have the bit resevoir to help with this, but it doesn't work nearly as well as VBR.)

For knowing what filesize you're going to end up with, obviously CBR is best. 

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #14 –
One limitation of VBR (at least in LAME) is that for lower bitrates (below 160), ABR is recommended. You specify an average bitrate of say 128 (for example) and LAME will use a few different bitrates that in the end will all average right around 128. The quality is considered to be slightly better then CBR.

I forget the exact switch (since I don't use it) but if you look at the sticky for LAME in the MP3 forum, you can find it.
iTunes 10 - Mac OS X 10.6
256kbps AAC VBR
iPhone 4 32GB

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #15 –
Quote
How Microsoft accomplishes their VBR is a mystery. You have no community to report back to about a sample that fails with WMA VBR and no contact with WMA developers. You might have some control over the codec from the command-line program you mentioned, but your trusting a codec from a company that claims CD Quality as 64 kbit stereo and until very recently paid no attention to bitrates above 160 and 192 kbit. You really think that these"wondeRful" versions of WMP 9 and WME 9 can come even close to LAME at high bitrates  on the first version? Your crazy if you think that.

WMA v9 is quite "excellent" at super-low and low bitrates
WMA V9 Pro being not too "horrible" at mid and hi bitrates

THAT'S A

[span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%']MIRACLE[/span]

[span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%']DON"T ASPECT TOO MUCH FROM MS WMA[/span]

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #16 –
With the proper filtering and tuning, MP3 sounds as good as WMA at ultra-low bitrates (11kHz and 22kHz, that is). WMA has the market cornered for 48-96kbps, but unfortunately at that range it's only the least crappy. Nothing sounds good under 64kbps.

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #17 –
WMA9Pro seems to be a different codec, and qualitatively better than regular WMA9. However you'll be waiting some time until an update comes out (aka better tuned codecs, since the bitstream is supposendly fixed) because the next iteration of Windows Media (player, codec) seems to be scheduled for Longhorn which itself is scheduled for end 2004.

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #18 –
Quote
WMA9Pro seems to be a different codec, and qualitatively better than regular WMA9. However you'll be waiting some time until an update comes out (aka better tuned codecs, since the bitstream is supposendly fixed) because the next iteration of Windows Media (player, codec) seems to be scheduled for Longhorn which itself is scheduled for end 2004


How can one tell if they are encoding with WMA9 or WMA9Pro. Using both EAC and WMP, I do not see an option for 'pro' or 'no pro' for WMA. Only selections for CBR ad VBR at different quality levels. What am I missing?

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #19 –
use DBpowerAmp to encode WMA9 Pro

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #20 –
Quote
WMA9Pro seems to be a different codec, and qualitatively better than regular WMA9. However you'll be waiting some time until an update comes out


Doe sanyone know of a program that will allow you to transer WMA and WMA Pro files to a portable "as is" (as is being, VBR 98 quality). WMP restricts the transfer to a 128 CBR file. It automatically transcodes the file. We all know what this does to sound quality.

Interestingly, MP3 files are transferred "as is". Which is a good thing because I LOVE my LAME APS files sound quality. The only reason I even keep WMP around is it does a great job (at least with MP3) of portable device management.

Winamp does not, MMJB does not, and Pinnacle My MP3Pro does not (work very well with portables).

I'm interested in the WMA 'as is' transer because I want to compare the sound quality of several different songs encoded with LAME APS and WMA 98 using my Rio flash player, Nomad Zen, and Bose Triport headphones.

Also, WMA is gapless. Does anyone know if WMA CDs play gapless on a WMA enabled CD player? I'm not referring to burning WMAs to CDA files and playing the CD that way. I'm talking about playing the disc with 100+ WMA files. Still gapless that way?

Finally, I find it interesting that Spoon's cool program allows one to select WMA and WMA Pro, but MS's own player does not!!! What is wrong with MS? 

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #21 –
Try Sveta Portable audio at www.dbpoweramp.com

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #22 –
Quote
First, there is WMA 9 VBR and WMA 9 Pro VBR. They sound different. (Pro code extends on channels, bitdepth and sampling rate, but it seems that it sounds better with the same settings).
Normal version is backwards compatible. Pro version isn't (At least that's what I've heard).


Now that Roberto's listening test results are in, and WMA Pro scored so high, I am curious of 2 items.

How much better in sound quality is WMA Pro than standard version 9? From reading all of M$s literature, it seems that all Pro adds is the ability for 5.1 channel sound. Of course, other posts in this forum suggest otherwise. At 2 pass 128 VBR, is there a noticable difference between the 2? WMP re-encodes Pro file to standard version 9 before transferring to portables. We all know what re-encoding in lossy does to sound quality.  Sveta portable audio can transfer Pro files directly, but the portable players will not recognize them 

Second, anyone have any news on when (if) portables will be made WMA Pro compliant. I tried to ask M$, but finding a 'submit question' page on their web site is next to impossible. I guess they do not welcome feedback.

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #23 –
Difference is consequent, for me :
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=10551
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

WMA VBR better than LAME VBR?

Reply #24 –
for what I've read so far it looks good, there will be firmware updates soon for many hardware players . I'm not sure if they would also be able to play wmp9 pro lossless files though, but this wouldn't bother me at all
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'