NSTL WMA Pro listening test, MS claims test proves WMA Pro > HE-AAC |
NSTL WMA Pro listening test, MS claims test proves WMA Pro > HE-AAC |
 Jan 11 2006, 21:40
Post
#1
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1559 Joined: 24-June 02 From: Catalunya(Spain) Member No.: 2383  |
QUOTE (gameplaya15143 @ Jan 11 2006, 03:32 AM) i think they are 'supposed' to represent a % quality.. but they are just high-to-low (or should it say low-to-lower... uh oh.. i better watch out for tos8)  Have you heard problems with a ~240Kbps VBR (Q98) wma 9.1 file to say it is low quality? |
 |
 
|
 |
|
Jan 12 2006, 01:01
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1355 Joined: 9-January 05 From: JJ's office. Member No.: 18957 |
QUOTE ([JAZ] @ Jan 11 2006, 12:40 PM) QUOTE (gameplaya15143 @ Jan 11 2006, 03:32 AM) i think they are 'supposed' to represent a % quality.. but they are just high-to-low (or should it say low-to-lower... uh oh.. i better watch out for tos8) Have you heard problems with a ~240Kbps VBR (Q98) wma 9.1 file to say it is low quality? How about this new report (DBT and all) on WMA Pro quality? http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...Comparison.aspx -------------------- -----
J. D. (jj) Johnston |
|
|
|
|
Jan 12 2006, 02:33
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 484 Joined: 8-January 06 From: Earth Member No.: 26978 |
QUOTE (Cyaneyes @ Jan 11 2006, 08:05 PM) It would be nice if they stated the bitrate of the HE-AAC used in the test. one would asume that the bitrate was close to that of the wma it was being compared to...  but that IS just an asumptioni liked this line: "71% of all listeners indicated that WMA Pro was equal to or better than HE AAC." there is a 48kbps multiformat test coming up isnt there? I'll wait for those results  @[JAZ] no problems at that kind of a bitrate.. but then again i dont know, i don't really use wma, i just keep the dbpoweramp encoder around for occational tests 
-------------------- Vorbis-q0-lowpass99
lame3.93.1-q5-V9-k-nspsytune |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd May 2013 - 14:17 |
