my computer flipped out and I had to reinstall XP, and so... I was planning on getting a Zune or Gigabeat and I thought I'd test wma std vbr 135-215kbps against wma pro 192kbps and even when the vbr level would go up to around 275 on some tracks... it was nothing compared to the pro version, even better than LAME (for my ears). I'm using a good pair of Sennheisers and playing with Foobar2000 (yes foobar plays wma pro). Normally I don't post to rave about something like this, but I was quite shocked at the difference between wma std and pro.

Just my 2 cents...

Please post your ABX results.

WMA Pro has done comparatively well in listening tests in the past, e.g.

http://www.listening-tests.info/mf-64-1/results.htm

http://www.listening-tests.info/mf-128-1/results.htm

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html

However, many people have argued that since WMA Pro doesn't have as wide hardware support as WMA Std, you might as well use an even better codec with similar (i.e. poor) hardware support, or stick with mp3.

I don't know if this is still true.

Cheers,
David.

Are you talking about 16- or 24-bit WMA Pro files?
Why I'm asking this is just that I get only 16-bit output from Foobar and Winamp/MediaMonkey even my LP rip files are encoded to 24-bit/440kbps CBR.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....2768&hl=wma

Could you give the WMA codec info you have installed (Control panel -> Sounds and Audio devices -> Hardware -tab -> Audio Codecs -> Properties -> Properties -tab -> Fraunhfer codec -> General -> About).

Juha

WMA Pro is a lossy codec - it has no limited bit depth.

Really ... then

- why M$ added the 24-bit wma support starting from WMP 10?
- why player w/ wma pro support shows bit-depth as it is encoded?
- why all encoder software (when 24-bit encoder/decoder is installed) has both bit-depth options available?




Juha

No idea, maybe some WMA / codec developer can shed some light. I imagine it is somehow related to the 24 bit decoder and if a file is marked as being encoded with 24 bits, no pocessing has to take place during decoding if the output device also supports 24 bit.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=493514

In general leave the wma codecs alone...they are just a waiste of time in most situations and there are better choices out there...both in terms of usage and software/hardware support.

Getting sick of the WMA nuts and their claims of it's superiority...
JXL

I wonder if zynteg is going to post their ABX results or not. Even so, it is unfair to compare a lower bitrate song to a higher bitrate song. If anything, one should compare 192kbps WMA with 192kbps WMApro. Comparing a 135kbps WMA file to a 192kbps WMApro file is like comparing Lame mp3 at -V 5 and iTunes AAC at 192kbps VBR and then making the bold claim that AAC is better simply because they sound better. Well of course they will sound better, the AAC files (or in your case, the WMApro files) use a much larger bitrate.

So make sure that you make comparisons only if the bitrates are similar. Otherwise there are too many outside variables such as the WMApro files having much larger bitrates.

There are a couple of ABX tests cited above, and one cited in an old thread of mine that shows it's pretty much even with AAC-HE.

Therefore, please cite your ABX tests to support your contrary claim to WMA-Pro.

Thank you.

I think that listening tests published here show a pretty close race between several codecs. I doubt that I would hear much difference. So if you plan using it on a portable player that support different codecs, maybe the choice of codec should be done by other criterias. Like: power consumption, support of gapless playback.