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: [TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best (Read 8464 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

I have about 50 gb of classic music (mostly barock original instrumentsal) and a serious spectrum analizer. Well, the best encoder is far the new Microsoft WMA 9 pro. I'm encoding using Nero 6.6.0.8a or Easy CD-DA Extractor 8.x

Do not listen people telling bad about that! They write without testing anything, but only against Microsoft with no techical reasons.

My personal tests have theese results at 100-130 vbr:

1) MS WMA (The best!)
2) MP4 AAC (nero) or M4a (I-Pod)
3) Ogg Vorbis 1.1
4) MP3 Pro
5) MP3 (lame vbr)

At lower bitrates WMA advantage over the others is more consistent!

Tom

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #1 –
care to post some results, besides your word?

I mean ABX results, because spectrum analysis does not say anything about quality...

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #2 –
Quote
I have about 50 gb of classic music (mostly barock original instrumentsal) and a serious spectrum analizer. Well, the best encoder is far the new Microsoft WMA 9 pro. I'm encoding using Nero 6.6.0.8a or Easy CD-DA Extractor 8.x

Do not listen people telling bad about that! They write without testing anything, but only against Microsoft with no techical reasons.

My personal tests have theese results at 100-130 vbr:

1) MS WMA (The best!)
2) MP4 AAC (nero) or M4a (I-Pod)
3) Ogg Vorbis 1.1
4) MP3 Pro
5) MP3 (lame vbr)

At lower bitrates WMA advantage over the others is more consistent!

Tom
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=288663"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'd suggest that you read TOS No. 8, which requires that claims of this nature be backed up by some kind of objective, verifiable listening tests based upon ABX principles where you are doing blind tests so that your own biases cannot influence your evaluation of the results.  Also, because we are talking about music, which islistened to (and sometimes felt, if you turn it up loud enough), but generally not seen (unless you're under the influence of something), encoder quality is best judged by how things sound, and not by how they look on a spectrum analyzer or any other graph.

I suggest that you take a look at the last 128 kbps multi-codec test in the listening tests forum.  Indeed, perhaps you could do the work people did in that listening test and let us know what your results were.

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #3 –
Dear friends,

I had theese results encoding this kind of music using previous encoders in VBR 100-130:

1) Tanto Tempo Remixes (2001) -  Bananeira (Remixed By Rae  Christian)
2) Brandeburg Concerts N.6 - Nicholaus Harnocourt
3) Huun-Huur-Tu - The Orphan Lament

I played compressed sounds in a Kef 100w  per channel 5.1 in position Stereo equalizer to 0 position.

Well, in any case WMA compressed sound was the best not only for me, but also for 6 persons presents to listen.

Tom

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #4 –
I forgot: the first sound is by Bebel Gilberto, a very famous brasilian singer.

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #5 –
I forgot another very important thing: WMA encoder is a lot faster then all, while ogg encoder is very very very slow!! TOO SLOW!!

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #6 –
This thread can go into the Recycle Bin. No ABX results, blatant disregard for TOS 8, etc etc.

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #7 –
Hi
Two remarks:

- At 100-130 kbps I'd argue the goal may not necessarily be to sound better, but rather to sound closest to the original.

- Was it a blind test ?

Regards

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #8 –
If you do not

1) Follow the forum rules
2) Read replies to your own posts

Your stay in this forum will be short and useless.

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #9 –
Quote
This thread can go into the Recycle Bin. No ABX results, blatant disregard for TOS 8, etc etc.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=288678"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ditto! 
Please read the rules once more, then post your ABX test results.

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #10 –
I'm convinced. I'm switching to WMA 9 Pro right away. Where can I buy it?

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #11 –
Quote
I'm convinced. I'm switching to WMA 9 Pro right away. Where can I buy it?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You're lucky: you can get it for just $199.00 [a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005MOTH/]there[/url] 

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #12 –
Quote
Do not listen people telling bad about that! They write without testing anything, but only against Microsoft with no techical reasons.


You have to learn how to trust people then......anyway, no one in this forum says WMA Pro is bad.. They are just referring to the standard version


Quote
At lower bitrates WMA advantage over the others is more consistent!

Agree....

he-aac or autov is not in your list, you should also give them a try before making any conclusion because they are equally good at low bitrates too!

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #13 –
Quote
Quote
Do not listen people telling bad about that! They write without testing anything, but only against Microsoft with no techical reasons.


You have to learn how to trust people then......anyway, no one in this forum says WMA Pro is bad.. They are just referring to the standard version




Exactly.  And if WMA Pro is somewhat neglected in general in these forums it's because not a single portable player can play it.

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #14 –
In this forum, ABX tests are required if you are claiming a quality difference.  Your claim is that WMA Pro is better than another codec therefore your own ABX tests are required to prove your claim.  Read TOS#8 and either post ABX results proving your claim, or stop posting on this issue.

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #15 –
Quote
Dear friends,

I had theese results encoding this kind of music using previous encoders in VBR 100-130:

1) Tanto Tempo Remixes (2001) -  Bananeira (Remixed By Rae  Christian)
2) Brandeburg Concerts N.6 - Nicholaus Harnocourt
3) Huun-Huur-Tu - The Orphan Lament

I played compressed sounds in a Kef 100w  per channel 5.1 in position Stereo equalizer to 0 position.

Well, in any case WMA compressed sound was the best not only for me, but also for 6 persons presents to listen.

Tom
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=288674"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Did you do a blind test so that your knowledge of which encoder was which wouldn't influence the outcome?

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #16 –
Quote
Exactly.  And if WMA Pro is somewhat neglected in general in these forums it's because not a single portable player can play it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=288687"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Erm... the same applies to Musepack :B

The reason WMA pro isn't discussed much around here is because there is no way we can influence its development. What is the point of providing ABX tests pointing out flaws if the developers aren't listening, and only they can do something about it?

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #17 –
Quote
care to post some results, besides your word?

I mean ABX results[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=288665"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote
I'd suggest that you read TOS No. 8, which requires that claims of this nature be backed up by some kind of objective, verifiable listening tests based upon ABX principles[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=288668"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote
- Was it a blind test ?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=288679"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote
Please read the rules once more, then post your ABX test results.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=288683"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote
In this forum, ABX tests are required[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=288688"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote
Did you do a blind test
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=288689"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You guys can now stop asking for ABX tests. I think he got the message

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #18 –
Quote
Quote
Exactly.  And if WMA Pro is somewhat neglected in general in these forums it's because not a single portable player can play it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=288687"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Erm... the same applies to Musepack :B



Well I'm not sure that justifies calling me ERM.

just kiddin'

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #19 –
Quote
have about 50 gb of classic music (mostly barock original instrumentsal) and a serious spectrum analizer. Well, the best encoder is far the new Microsoft WMA 9 pro. I'm encoding using Nero 6.6.0.8a or Easy CD-DA Extractor 8.x

Do not listen people telling bad about that! They write without testing anything, but only against Microsoft with no techical reasons.

My personal tests have theese results at 100-130 vbr:

1) MS WMA (The best!)
2) MP4 AAC (nero) or M4a (I-Pod)
3) Ogg Vorbis 1.1
4) MP3 Pro
5) MP3 (lame vbr)

At lower bitrates WMA advantage over the others is more consistent!

Tom


Another escaped Lunatic joints this Forum.  A Deaf one at that!.

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #20 –
ABX tests don't determine what is "better", though one might ask if listening is blind.

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #21 –
Perhaps he doesn't understand that April Fools lasts only a day, and not a month?
"Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored."
—Aldous Huxley

[TROLLING] WMA 9 Pro is the best

Reply #22 –
Quote
ABX tests don't determine what is "better", though one might ask if listening is blind.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=288717"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, but they do ensure that a judgment that mp3 sounds better than wma is based upon what sounds better to the listener and not the fact that they may want one to sound better than the other.