Why do people use WMA? How does it compare to other codecs? etc., [split from “Windows Media Player 12 VBR Codec?”, thread 99192] Options

[eahm]

Pardon my ignorance and please, this is a real question: why people use WMA? I've hear many people using it and I didn't used once.

[greynol]

It's about as well thought-out as choosing wma as you primary lossy encoder.

[Mach-X]

It's about as well thought-out as choosing wma as you primary lossy encoder.

Ahem. While WMA Standard hasn't been updated in ages, wma pro is fully competitive with any modern codec for file size/transparency. Without providing actual results of extensive listening tests, it outperformed lame, autov vorbis and fhg aac at quality level 50. A user who tends to reside within the microsoft ecosystem would benefit greatly with wma pro as it plays on any zune device, xbox, windows phone or windows pc. It's not a horrible codec to utilize at all. It would seem as though we've exposed a chink in your bipartisan armour?

[Engelsstaub]

...wma pro...plays on any zune device, xbox, windows phone or windows pc. It's not a horrible codec to utilize at all. It would seem as though we've exposed a chink in your bipartisan armour?

All of those devices you've mentioned also support industry-standard codecs like MP3 and AAC. I *believe* the reasons why WMA is unpopular is twofold:

1. Many don't trust using WMA because of Microsoft's track-record of supporting and updating their audio products.

2. iDevices and Android phones are the majority of the market for such codec use. Neither natively supports WMA but both support MP3 and AAC out of the box. (BTW regarding "bipartisan:" greynol is a known user of Windows and, based on previous comments I've read, does not have a lot of love for Apple. Just saying...)

This post has been edited by Engelsstaub: Feb 2 2013, 07:15