WMA might take over, many people prefer wma already. Options

[qualityequalizer]

I do not like the attitude in this forum that WMA is some sort of inferior format. In fact if you take a look at the tests (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html), notice how unfair they are. Notice the average bitrate - wma is 128 while ogg and mpc are 135.
My point is that with wma pro doing much better and Microsoft pushing this format hard and the DM support finding favor with record companies, wma can easily crush the mp3 revolution.

The only way to combat this is to develop OGG to be on equal par with wma (sound quality wise). pretty soon Microsoft will conduct its own tests (obviously biased) that will make them think wma is best.
- I am basing the above on some problems with OGG
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=18359
AND WHAY ARE WE not discussing problems with WMA on this forum?!!!
Are they any problems at all? Sure it might help microsoft a bit but it would show that their format has problems too.


What needs to be done is for fair tests to be made without discrediting wma. Increasing ogg support in hardware players would helpt too.
OGG is the only hope for consumers who want to be free from restrictions when ripping their music- and it has to be pushed..

Otherwise we will all be stuck with wma pro ,,,

Just my opinion ... By the way I hate wma simply because of the DRm thing....I'm sure everyone does. And it is ON by default in WMP contrary to what many Microsoft zealots say.

[odious malefacto...]

OGG is the only hope for consumers who want to be free from restrictions when ripping their music...

I feel no restrictions 'ripping' my music to LAME mp3.

[rjamorim]

In fact if you take a look at the tests (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html), notice how unfair they are.  Notice the average bitrate - wma is 128 while ogg and mpc are 135.

I feel like lambasting yet another clueless newbie.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Mar 1 2005, 19:46

[kwanbis]

i won't respond

[indybrett]

Another troll. 4 posts and he has the right to question the attitude here

[dobz]

sooo tempting to bite at this one...

but quality is only one of many factors that effects peoples choice of codec, even if wma had transparent quality at 128kbps i wouldnt use it due to its other faults...

[krmathis]

WMA is not supported in open-source operating systems (ex. GNU/Linux, *BSD).
Thats more than enough reason for me to stay away. ..

[Mono]

Most of this ground has been covered before; use the search. Read this thread and figure out why it's in the garbage. This thread is also enlightening: "No Wma?"

[Sebastian Mares]

I do not like the attitude in this forum that WMA is some sort of inferior format. In fact if you take a look at the tests (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html), notice how unfair they are.  Notice the average bitrate - wma is 128 while ogg and mpc are 135.

I doubt that 7 kbps make such a big difference.

AND WHAY ARE WE not discussing problems with WMA on this forum?!!!

Why should we? Vorbis is an open source format so changes can be done by everyone, while only Microsoft has access to the WMA code.

What needs to be done is for fair tests to be made without discrediting wma.

What is so unfair in Roberto's test? The 7 kbps more in MPC or Vorbis? Come on... So even if you say that 7 kbps is much, fine, that shows that the encoders were smart enough to assign more bits without having a big impact on the file size.

[JeanLuc]

WMA (especially 9 Pro) can be a competitive codec (quality-wise and filesize-wise) ... but it still is proprietary.

The biggest problem to me is that even modern DAP's refuse to play back the 9.0 Pro files so WMA is no option for me to use it on my portable.

[Duble0Syx]

While WMA may be a fair competitor in the sense of quality, I have to agree with most that it isn't anything special. For lossy music I'll use vorbis over WMA. I think what will eventually kill mp3 off is lossless compression, like FLAC and WavPack. Lossy WMA doesn't stand much of a chance since mp3 is already more compatible with portable device and operating systems. Some portables support WMA, but not all. I think all of them support mp3, I've not seen one that doesn't. But it's really a matter of choice, some people will use a format regardless of it being better or not.

[beto]

What a bunch of BS.....

To the thread starter:

Read this and this to understand why the bitrate difference is not such a big deal.

The ogg testing page you linked (guruboolez's tests) does not allow us to draw any conclusions away from the classical music genre. Read the test conclusion again....

You might want to investigate things a little further before posting, otherwise you just sound like a troll....

[Busemann]

I feel like lambasting yet another clueless newbie.

Roberto's back with a vengeance

[QuantumKnot]

WMA is not supported in open-source operating systems (ex. GNU/Linux, *BSD).

You can play WMA using mplayer or xmms (with the wma plugin) in Linux.

[xmixahlx]

also lamip & bmp plugins

and a cli program, wma2wav (written by the xmms-wma author)


later

[bubka]

doesnt wma use less battery than mp3 at similar bitrates too?

[Gabriel]

You know that WmaPro is not the same as Wma standard, in the sense that a wma standard decoder (including the hardware players) is not able to decode WmaPro, don't you?

[jtclipper]

wma is a dirty format in many aspects....also it resides inside the asf container which allows scripts to be embedded and run!? from inside a simple audio file, what a piss off.

Also never forget what the W in wma stands for... all of the people I know that use wma do not know what wma is and what an mp3 is...

So unless you work at m$soft stay away from wma and in general from DRM

[Lev]

doesnt wma use less battery than mp3 at similar bitrates too?

Not noticeably on my iRiver. (In fact I would be inclined to say the opposite)

[saverio]

doesnt wma use less battery than mp3 at similar bitrates too?

It should be the opposite. WMA is a more complex format, just like AAC, and in the same way AAC drains iPod's battery faster (at the same bitrate) than MP3, so does WMA. I wonder why no portable player exists for MPC, which has so little decoding complexity...

Actually, WMA is very bad to decode, and I have seen many many many pops and artifacts when recordind CDs that I did not hear when listening in the PC. Then I stopped using wma!

[Benjamin Lebsanf...]

I wonder why no portable player exists for MPC, which has so little decoding complexity...

Rockbox might add it to the iriver H1xx and h3xx series and neuros is on a good way there too.

[DonP]

So unless you work at m$soft stay away from wma and in general from DRM 

This from Wired:

"About 80 percent of Microsoft employees who have a portable music player have an iPod," said one source, a high-level manager who asked to remain anonymous. "It's pretty staggering."
The source estimated 80 percent of Microsoft employees have a music player -- that translates to 16,000 iPod users among the 25,000 who work at or near Microsoft's corporate campus. "This irks the management team no end," said the source.

[rjamorim]

WMA is a more complex format, just like AAC

I wouldn't be so sure about it.

I wonder why no portable player exists for MPC, which has so little decoding complexity...

On portable players with moving parts (CD players, HDD players), the decoding complexity makes nearly no difference on battery consumption. By far, most of the battery is used by servo motors.

[Busemann]

It should be the opposite. WMA is a more complex format, just like AAC

The decoders can be optimized to give very good battery performance even on these "new" formats.

[Busemann]

On portable players with moving parts (CD players, HDD players), the decoding complexity makes nearly no difference on battery consumption.

That's what I've said all along, but everyone disagreed. what gives?

This post has been edited by Busemann: Mar 2 2005, 13:34