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: Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder? (Read 44139 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

I've recently signed up for a subscription service (Yahoo! Music Unlimited) that uses WMA 10 Pro files encoded at 192 kbps (CBR).

I like the sound of this codec the best so far - and so I've decided to re-encode my music collection to WMA 10 Pro @ 192 kbps.

I tried encoding a CD to WMA 192 using Windows Media Player 10 - and compared the sound of my ripped files to the subscription files for the same song.  The subscription file had better high-frequency than the one I ripped.

I'm assuming Windows Media Player 10 encodes using the WMA 9 codec - and that that is the reason why it doesn't sound as good as my subscription song which is encoded using the WMA 10 pro codec.

Do any of you know of a program which would allow me to encode/rip files to the WMA 10 pro codec?  I checked the Microsoft site and their "Windows Media Encoder Suite" only encodes to WMA 9.

I want my permanent ("ripped") music collection to sound the same as my subscription files.  That's the main reason I'm leaning toward WMA 10 Pro.

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #1 –
Read the forums and learn about LAME MP3, Nero AAC, OggEnc, etc., before you blindly fall into being a WMA user.
Quote from: $cmoney$ on
I like the sound of this codec the best so far - and so I've decided to re-encode my music collection to WMA 10 Pro @ 192 kbps.

I hope you don't enable "protect files" or whatever MS calls it because you will be evoking Digital Rights Management ("DRM") on your encoded files, and they won't work outside of your computer.

Also most codecs at 192 kbps sound similar, and with LAME MP3 you'll have the advantage of support with practically any hardware device that supports MP3, software MP3 decoders/players, etc., from now into the future.

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #2 –
You must be mistaken regarding the codec used.  WMA 10 Pro is generally not used, since no normal portable "Playsforsure" devices support this (better) codec.  Play the content in WMP and select "Properties" to see the codec used.  To my knowledge, Yahoo! Music uses 192Kbps "standard" WMA.

FYI: WMP 10 supplies WMA 9.1 and WMP 11 beta (currently) supplies WMA 9.2.  WMP 11 does add ripping to WMA Pro, though.

Andavari, the bizarre "copy protect your own rips" option hasn't been a default for years... but yes, avoid it at all costs.

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: grommet on
You must be mistaken regarding the codec used.  WMA 10 Pro is generally not used, since no normal portable "Playsforsure" devices support this (better) codec.  Play the content in WMP and select "Properties" to see the codec used.  To my knowledge, Yahoo! Music uses 192Kbps "standard" WMA.

FYI: WMP 10 supplies WMA 9.1 and WMP 11 beta (currently) supplies WMA 9.2.  WMP 11 does add ripping to WMA Pro, though.

Andavari, the bizarre "copy protect your own rips" option hasn't been a default for years... but yes, avoid it at all costs.


Thanks grommet - I did check the file properties of my subscription songs, they're encoded at -

Windows Media Audio 9
192 kbps, 44 kHz, stereo 2-pass CBR.

I suppose that WMP 10 currently encodes to this?

I can hear a difference on the high end frequencies between my personal rips and the subscription songs - the subscription songs having a better sound.

Is is possible that Yahoo! encoded their files with a better encoder (or that their encoder does a better job at the high-end) than the one supplied with Windows Media Player?

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #4 –
Someone would need to ask Yahoo! or their content supplier, MusicNet, for details on what they do for their content.  It looks like they use the standard WMA encoder set to two-pass (ABR-like).  WMP 10/11 will only rip to basic CBR (or full VBR), but the difference shouldn't be too much.  MusicNet might use different music content sources than the CD you are using... or simply have a different volume level that is fooling you into thinking it sounds better.  (You don't have volume leveling turned on in WMP, do you?  That might change how local rips sound.)

For grins, rip to WMA Lossless... that way what you hear is the exact CD quality.  If Yahoo! still sounds better to you, it's definitely not your encoding. 

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #5 –
Is there a way to do 2-pass CBR encoding?

I think you may be right about recording from a different source.  I ripped the track from a CD that I got through yourmusic.com (a subsidiary of BMG).  I heard that years ago there was controversy surrounding the sound quality of BMG's CDs not being as good as a CD that you would get through a normal commercial source.

Thanks for all your input.

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #7 –
A few select applications that support WMA encoding will let you configure it for 2-pass... including Microsoft's Windows Media Encoder & dbPowerAMP. The WMF SDK supports it... it's up to the application developer to let you call it.

re: BMG using different masters... if it was ever true, it's no longer.  That would take more effort. 

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: grommet on
A few select applications that support WMA encoding[...]

foobar2000 also can be [a href='index.php?showtopic=47759']configured[/a] to Convert/Rip music to WMA. It is however strongly recommended to try other codecs such as MP3/LAME (with the "-V5 --vbr-new" options).

Edit. Changed the link to "How to set up Converter...".

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #9 –
Guys... great help, I also was looking for WMA 10 encoder... the reason I choose it is because it supports 5.1 audio and MP3 doesn't.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...io9Professional

Why wouldn't you recomend WMA?

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: CharlyAR2 on
Why wouldn't you recomend WMA?

Well for starters they've made some pretty absurd claims in the past, like 64 kbps WMA is comparable 128 kbps MP3, or the more redonkulous 192 kbps WMA is "better than CD quality". 

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: CharlyAR2 on
Why wouldn't you recomend WMA?

Just search a bit these forum and you can find links to listening tests which explain most. Add the fact that WMA is proprietary, lacks good support in open-source and freeware world including operating systems other than Windows. Conclusions must be clear, when there are better alternatives such as AAC, OGG or even MP3.

Matter is more complicated when it comes to 5.1 encodings... I'm sure OGG and MP3-Surround are losing this battle, I don't know current possibilites of AAC...
Not really a Signature.

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #12 –
Tnx for your answers, Remedial Sound and vitos.

AAC, OGG, M4A, etc, are no-go because of compatibility and tags.
I will take WMA for 5.1 encodings...

So, between WMA 10 and MP3 you would still choose MP3 as better quality/file size?

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: CharlyAR2 on
Tnx for your answers, Remedial Sound and vitos.

AAC, OGG, M4A, etc, are no-go because of compatibility and tags.
I will take WMA for 5.1 encodings...

So, between WMA 10 and MP3 you would still choose MP3 as better quality/file size?


Don't take the replies you receive here as gospel. At 128 kbps, LAME MP3 -V5 --vbr new is beter than WMA 128. This is proven via a listening test. There is no dispute. At 192 kbps, which you are using, that same claim is dubious at best. People here hate WMA and AAC because they are sponsored by big companies (M$ and Apple respectively). All you will hear about is how great MP3, OGG, and FLAC are.

I love LAME MP3 at -V2 --vbr new, and appreciate the work put in by all at HA to make it the great codec it is. I use it a lot. However, iTunes AAC at 192kbps sounds as good or perhaps even better to *my* ears on my iPod. WMA at 192 kbps sounds great to *my* ears as well. Really, most codecs at 192 kbps sounds pretty darn good. If you like WMA at 192 kbps, then use it! Especially if your portable players support it. If you prefer the compatability of MP3, then use LAME 3.97 or even the Fraunhofer encoder included with WMP 11. You cannot go wrong at that bit rate.

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: CharlyAR2 on
So, between WMA 10 and MP3 you would still choose MP3 as better quality/file size?

There is no WMA 10 at the moment, you're confusing it with WMP 10.

Currently I will choose LAME MP3 because my DAP does only support decoding WMA 9 Standard (not Professional) and WMA9STD quality is qestionable in 128-192 kbps range (compared to LAME MP3). However, WMA has some advantages such as very good networking support and WMP pre-installed on all modern Windows machines.

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Egor on
Quote from: CharlyAR2 on
So, between WMA 10 and MP3 you would still choose MP3 as better quality/file size?

There is no WMA 10 at the moment, you're confusing it with WMP 10.
[...]


Thanks for your answer Egor.

But, uhmmm... nopes, you are wrong about this. You should update your info. WMA 10 Pro exists from some months now, and has some nice feats  : http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...io9Professional

I tried some files and I have to say that for me, doing blind test, sounds better than MP3, on files about 30% smaller. The downside is that seems that no ripper supports it yet. Only found Windows Media Encoder. 

Quote from: ezra2323 on
Quote from: CharlyAR2 on

Tnx for your answers, Remedial Sound and vitos.

AAC, OGG, M4A, etc, are no-go because of compatibility and tags.
I will take WMA for 5.1 encodings...

So, between WMA 10 and MP3 you would still choose MP3 as better quality/file size?


Don't take the replies you receive here as gospel. At 128 kbps, LAME MP3 -V5 --vbr new is beter than WMA 128. This is proven via a listening test. There is no dispute. At 192 kbps, which you are using, that same claim is dubious at best. People here hate WMA and AAC because they are sponsored by big companies (M$ and Apple respectively). All you will hear about is how great MP3, OGG, and FLAC are.

I love LAME MP3 at -V2 --vbr new, and appreciate the work put in by all at HA to make it the great codec it is. I use it a lot. However, iTunes AAC at 192kbps sounds as good or perhaps even better to *my* ears on my iPod. WMA at 192 kbps sounds great to *my* ears as well. Really, most codecs at 192 kbps sounds pretty darn good. If you like WMA at 192 kbps, then use it! Especially if your portable players support it. If you prefer the compatability of MP3, then use LAME 3.97 or even the Fraunhofer encoder included with WMP 11. You cannot go wrong at that bit rate.


Thanks for your answer... BTW, did you find some ripper that supports WMA 10 Pro?

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #16 –
Quote from: CharlyAR2 on
But, uhmmm... nopes, you are wrong about this. You should update your info. WMA 10 Pro exists from some months now, and has some nice feats  : http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...io9Professional

I don't know about Microsoft marketers' intentions, but few moments before it was WMA 9 Professional. Also look at the link more carefully:
Code: [Select]
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/codecs/audio.aspx#WindowsMediaAudio9Professional

You can see the factual version of a WMA file by clicking File -> Properties in Windows Media Player.

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Egor on
Quote from: CharlyAR2 on
But, uhmmm... nopes, you are wrong about this. You should update your info. WMA 10 Pro exists from some months now, and has some nice feats  : http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...io9Professional

I don't know about Microsoft marketers' intentions, but few moments before it was WMA 9 Professional. Also look at the link more carefully:
Code: [Select]
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/codecs/audio.aspx#WindowsMediaAudio9Professional

You can see the factual version of a WMA file by clicking File -> Properties in Windows Media Player.


I don't know about the marketer's. What I'm talking about is the results you can get with different encoders.

And yes, the version is:
Encoding with WMPlayer 10: WMA 9.1
Encoding with WMPlayer 11: WMA 9.1 or 9.2 (depending on the settings)
Encoding with WMEncoder: WMA 9.1, 9.2 or 10

I didn't find big differences between 9.1 and 9.2, but I did find some improvements in 10.

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #18 –
WMA pro has done quite well in listening tests. People ehre are not distinguishing it from WMA standard.

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #19 –
Hi all. my english is very poor to explaine good unfotunetly, butjust as mention all i can say is that i have done many ABX tests and i can hear the diference between WMA 9.1 and MP·/lame 3.97b2 CBR 192 and WMA sounds better than lame. WMA sounds maore clear , better low and High freq. I also do not use it, becouse of the lac of supporet har/software, but i think as quality is good enough.
Foobar2000 KS Output 24bit S-Pdif
Onkyo Tx-Sr 703
JBL SCS300.7
Listening to music is the best pastime.


Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #20 –
Hi there, see the following instructions how to do a proper comparison:

Quote
8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #21 –
Hi guys. Windows Media Player 11 beta 2 encodes to WMA10Pro (selecting Rip -> Format -> Windows Media Audio Pro)
Is one-pass only and quality bassed, but the quality is pretty good.
Bad side is doesn't support 5.1 channel encode (you have to use Windows Media Encoder to do so).

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #22 –
Quote from: CharlyAR2 on
Is one-pass only and quality bassed, but the quality is pretty good.


Quality-based? It's still using constant bitrates. There's no quality mode (VBR) supporting the WMA Professional codec in Windows Media Player yet. For quality-based encoding you have to use the Windows Media Encoder, which supports just 16 bit multichannel and 24 bit in VBR mode. The only working compromise for variable 16 bit stereo encoding is bit-rate VBR (ABR) with either 48 kbit/s or 64kbit/s.

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #23 –
Quote from: CharlyAR2 on
Hi guys. Windows Media Player 11 beta 2 encodes to WMA10Pro (selecting Rip -> Format -> Windows Media Audio Pro)

I see. If you would run the automated script from this post, the results might help adding fb2k converter preset for WMA10 (I cannot do this myself as WMP11 beta 2 is available only for Windows XP).

Windows Media Audio 10 Professional Encoder?

Reply #24 –
Quote from: Junon on
Quote from: CharlyAR2 on
Is one-pass only and quality bassed, but the quality is pretty good.


Quality-based? It's still using constant bitrates. There's no quality mode (VBR) supporting the WMA Professional codec in Windows Media Player yet. For quality-based encoding you have to use the Windows Media Encoder, which supports just 16 bit multichannel and 24 bit in VBR mode. The only working compromise for variable 16 bit stereo encoding is bit-rate VBR (ABR) with either 48 kbit/s or 64kbit/s.


Really, now, have you checked the "other encoding options" in WMP? I dare say I've been using quality-based VBR for some year or so at home, (WMA Pro, yes) from WMP9 and onwards.

Check your ripping options. It's a bit buried, and I don't have the player on this box, or I'd provide a bit more direction.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston