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 14 2006, 14:57
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 325 Joined: 5-April 04 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Member No.: 13246 |
What about volume leveling?
With the test procedure described by NTSL the encoder raising the volume the most would normally win such a comparison. Not that I suspect neither WMA PRO nor AAC of boosting the volume, however software is software and IMHO the testing metholody should have taken this issue into account. At least provide an analysis of the gain of the resulting wav files. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th May 2013 - 23:22 |
