Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: WMA support discussion (Read 45682 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WMA support discussion

Reply #50 –
Quote from: foosion on
[AAC is a lossy format. If Winamp decodes it to 16 bits per sample, then that is a property of the Winamp decoder, not the format. foobar2000 will decode AAC to floating point like it does with all other formats.


foobar does? i did know a lot, but not that. no more questions. thanx
marlene-d.blogspot.com

WMA support discussion

Reply #51 –
I am unable to write tags to my WMA's with foobar2000 0.9.1.  Console error says, "Could not write info (WMA tag editing not supported) to: "C:\Music\...".

Is there any way around this?  I know I could write tags to WMA's with 0.8.

Thanks for your help.

WMA support discussion

Reply #52 –
Quote from: matahijau on
I am unable to write tags to my WMA's with foobar2000 0.9.1.  Console error says, "Could not write info (WMA tag editing not supported) to: "C:\Music\...".

Is there any way around this?  I know I could write tags to WMA's with 0.8.

Thanks for your help.


Just as it says: writing WMA-tags is (currently?) not supported in foobar2000 0.9. WMA component for 0.8 is a third party one which supports tagging.

WMA support discussion

Reply #53 –
Is it possible for someone to recompile the 0.8 WMA component for 0.9 so we can get tagging capabilities?

WMA support discussion

Reply #54 –
Am trying to use TAG.EXE to write WMA tags, but no luck so far.  My fb2k 9.2B5 converter settings look like this:

Encoder: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\CMD.EXE

Extension: wma

Parameters: /c C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\cscript.exe c:\progra~1\w_media\encoder\WMCmd.vbs -input %s -output %d -a_mode 2 -a_setting Q10_44_2 && c:\progra~1\tag\tag.exe %d --artist "%artist%" --album "%album%" --track "%tracknumber%" --title "%title%" --genre "%genre%" --year "%date%"

("w_media" is Windows Media Components directory.)

The file converts just fine, but no tags.

Any suggestions?  Or, are WMA tags somehow not supported by TAG?

Thanks.

WMA support discussion

Reply #55 –
foobar2000 0.9.2 does read wma tag info perfectly, but will not use replaygain which was applied with 0.8.3 or mp3tag (don't know anymore which one I used).
I dislike WMA too, but maybe there is a chance this will be implemented (reading replaygain info) in a future version?

Edit: I meant the tags were probably added using mp3tag, the replaygain was certainly applied with foobar.

WMA support discussion

Reply #56 –
Quote from: Cavaille on
OFF TOPIC: and resampling CAN improve the quality, because you move the anti-alias-cutoff out the hearing-range of the ear, you know... and i do it mostly for better impulse-recovering. as jack renner (or was it the other one?) from TELARC said in 1998: "the recording is not flawed, the playback is."


Only if your DAC supports 96k.  Otherwise you'll be resampling to 96k (which is lossy) and then doing a second resample back down to 48k most likely. 

And realistically, the people who made your DAC probably aren't idiots.  If it really supports 96k, and it actually performs better at 96k, the DAC would simply oversample 48k data 2x as much as it does 96k audio, thus giving the same effect.

WMA support discussion

Reply #57 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
Only if your DAC supports 96k.  Otherwise you'll be resampling to 96k (which is lossy) and then doing a second resample back down to 48k most likely. 

And realistically, the people who made your DAC probably aren't idiots.  If it really supports 96k, and it actually performs better at 96k, the DAC would simply oversample 48k data 2x as much as it does 96k audio, thus giving the same effect.


the card supports 96 kHz. i checked with another card on another pc (but with no proof of that).

it´s an external creative card - with the known resampling problem. it´s extremely flawed in my opinion and produces heavy distortions when upsampling from 44.1 to 48 or 96 kHz. i think, that this problem was often discussed in the past here. that is the reason for me to upsample. so i do upsampling with adobe audition or the SSRC-resampler-dsp until i´m able to get a new card. be sure, that it won´t be another creative!

and honestly, i don´t know, if the card oversamples the data. and i think, that no one knows that, because that would be only visible to those engineers, who created the card. and be careful to differentiate between "upsampling" & "oversampling". it´s not the same.

so, that was the off-topic text 

still, foobar does not fully support WMA, at least i think it doesn´t. please correct me, if i´m wrong. maybe i did something wrong. right now i see my 96 kHz-files played back with 48 kHz (foobar even say, it is 48 kHz). maybe the WMA-pro  codec is with 96 kHz a lie and it just can´t do 96 kHz? i don´t know that.

and in my opinion 96 kHz always is better, even if upsampled. be careful, that is my personal opinion and in this case i fully trust my ears, and i´m able to hear differences between resamplers and i think, that i´m hearing music long enough for avoiding placebo-effects (at least i hope so), for i´m a very critical person if it comes to sound.

i should stop... so much off-topic stuff here... sorry. don´t bann me from this forum.
marlene-d.blogspot.com

WMA support discussion

Reply #58 –
Quote from: Apesbrain on
Just FYI, conversion to WMA is possible using "Custom" commandline provided the Windows Media Encoder components are installed on the PC:

Encoder: cscript.exe
Extension: wma
Parameters: "C:\Program Files\Windows Media Components\Encoder\WMCmd.vbs" -input %s -output %d -profile a64

No tags though; any suggestions would be welcome.  Thanks.


when I try this i get an error message after the conversion "appears" to have finished

Error flushing file (Object not found) : file://C:\download\Sure Shot.wma

how do I get around this?

WMA support discussion

Reply #59 –
Quote
foobar2000 0.9.2 does read wma tag info perfectly, but will not use replaygain which was applied with 0.8.3 or mp3tag (don't know anymore which one I used).
I dislike WMA too, but maybe there is a chance this will be implemented (reading replaygain info) in a future version?


I too vote for added replay-gain support for .wma (and .wav too!).  That is the sole thing I like about .83 over .9, the ability to replay-gain any format without having to have tag writing support for that format.  I doubt we will get the database back in .9 that we had in .83 (it allowed us to replay-gain every file), but I think since .wav and .wma are popular enough formats some consideration should be at least given in this matter.


[Edit: changed won't to will in order to make sense]

WMA support discussion

Reply #60 –
Quote from: willardjuice on
Quote
foobar2000 0.9.2 does read wma tag info perfectly, but will not use replaygain which was applied with 0.8.3 or mp3tag (don't know anymore which one I used).
I dislike WMA too, but maybe there is a chance this will be implemented (reading replaygain info) in a future version?


I too vote for added replay-gain support for .wma (and .wav too!).  That is the sole thing I like about .83 over .9, the ability to replay-gain any format without having to have tag writing support for that format.  I doubt we won't get the database back in .9 that we had in .83 (it allowed us to replay-gain every file), but I think since .wav and .wma are popular enough formats some consideration should be at least given in this matter.


I agree with you, I have a few WMA albums which I dont want to transcode to other formats since its not WMA Lossless and I'm going to be losing quality. I also wish someone could port the WMA component from 0.8.3.