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: Personal multiformat listening test at ~130 kbps (Read 44865 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Personal multiformat listening test at ~130 kbps

Reply #50 –
Quote
To be honest, i think it's strange that a 24bit file is smaller than a 16bit one, and i would also asume that the Pro codec would generate bigger filesizes/bitrates at the same quality level ? Has anyone done a good test off the WMA9 Std. codec and compared it with the Pro codec, at Q90 (VBR, no 2-pass "ABR") ?

When talking about WMAPro "24bit" just means that it is capable of encoding audio files with 24bit resolution. But since we are talking about lossy mode here: As you probably know, lossy codecs save space by 'throwing away' or adding indaudible information, e.g. low volume signals masked by loud signals. At normal volume information carried by bits # 17 ... 24 is masked anyway. So a lossy compressed file created from a 24bit source won't need more space than one created from a 16 bit source in most cases.

WMA9 Pro is not just an extension of WMA9 Std. It's a different codec. If WMA9 Pro is *better* than Std. it should produce more transparent quality at identical file sizes OR smaller file sizes at identical/comparable quality, shouldn't it? That's exactly what you observed.
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello