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 |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
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, 02:05
Post
#3
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 297 Joined: 21-September 03 Member No.: 8934 |
QUOTE (Woodinville @ Jan 11 2006, 07:01 PM) How about this new report (DBT and all) on WMA Pro quality? http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...Comparison.aspx It would be nice if they stated the bitrate of the HE-AAC used in the test. |
|
|
|
Jan 12 2006, 12:34
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 394 Joined: 6-May 04 Member No.: 13932 |
QUOTE (Cyaneyes @ Jan 12 2006, 02:05 AM) Bitrate is in the pdf and is indeed 64 kbps. Even precise steps to how the clips were encoded are given in there. Of course using the same rethoric you could say that 63% of the participants rated HE-AACv2 equal or better than WMA. -------------------- "We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."
|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th May 2013 - 04:47 |