WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps? |
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps? |
 Nov 11 2004, 21:13
Post
#1
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 191 Joined: 9-November 03 Member No.: 9748  |
According to this article it is. . .
"Microsoft had just released Version 9 of Windows Media Audio, and earlier testing had assured us of the codec's capabilities. We settled on a 96-kbps constant bit rate for the broadest possible compatibility versus the variable-bit-rate option, which we estimated would give us equivalent quality to MP3 at 160 kbps with most music types." Read it Here |
 |
 
|
 |
|
Dec 18 2004, 17:24
Post
#2
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 727 Joined: 23-November 04 Member No.: 18295 |
QUOTE WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps Weird then that in the multiformat 128kbps-public-listening-tests that "Lame3.96 -V5" actually beat WMA9 when they were both at 128kbps. 
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 18 2004, 17:41
Post
#3
|
|
 Rarewares admin Group: Members Posts: 7515 Joined: 30-September 01 From: Brazil Member No.: 81 |
QUOTE (uart @ Dec 18 2004, 01:24 PM) Weird then that in the multiformat 128kbps-public-listening-tests that "Lame3.96 -V5" actually beat WMA9 when they were both at 128kbps.  True. But in Microsoft's defense (heh), one could claim they used another MP3 encoder. Maybe Blade, or iTunes, or even an old version of Lame. I remember they had a WMA comparision up where the MP3 files were encoded with Lame 3.6x or something, that was completely deprecated at the time, versus WMA's latest version. This post has been edited by rjamorim: Dec 18 2004, 17:41 -------------------- Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org |
|
|
|
detokaal WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps? Nov 11 2004, 21:13
rjamorim RE: WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps? Nov 11 2004, 21:39 Digisurfer Think I'll continue to trust my own ears, than... Nov 11 2004, 22:16 Gabriel That is some very good news: They are no claiming ... Nov 12 2004, 09:59
mithrandir QUOTE (Gabriel @ Nov 12 2004, 03:59 AM)That i... Nov 13 2004, 01:35 Zurman QUOTE (detokaal @ Nov 11 2004, 12:13 PM)Accor... Nov 12 2004, 11:11 zver QUOTE (Zurman @ Nov 12 2004, 02:11 AM)QUOTE (... Nov 12 2004, 18:44 rjamorim QUOTE (Zurman @ Nov 12 2004, 07:11 AM)They pr... Nov 13 2004, 01:51 mithrandir QUOTE (rjamorim @ Nov 12 2004, 07:51 PM)I see... Nov 14 2004, 01:50 negritot QUOTE (Gabriel @ Nov 12 2004, 12:59 AM)That i... Nov 12 2004, 19:05 Brink QUOTE I see the misconception that Xing is a very ... Nov 14 2004, 01:40 rjamorim QUOTE (Brink @ Nov 13 2004, 09:40 PM)QUOTE I ... Nov 14 2004, 01:43 QuantumKnot Xing's VBR technology seems to have disappeare... Nov 14 2004, 02:27 Brink QUOTE Lame wins, followed by AudioActive, which is... Nov 14 2004, 03:17 Jojo doesn't Xing cut everything > 16khz? Nov 16 2004, 00:43 danbee QUOTE (Jojo @ Nov 15 2004, 11:43 PM)doesn... Dec 18 2004, 18:18 rjamorim QUOTE (mithrandir @ Nov 13 2004, 09:50 PM)Xin... Nov 16 2004, 01:07 Ivegottheskill I haven't heard of AActive, but it performed r... Nov 16 2004, 13:12 uart QUOTE I remember they had a WMA comparision up whe... Dec 18 2004, 18:19 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th May 2013 - 10:28 |
