IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?
detokaal
post Nov 11 2004, 21:13
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 191
Joined: 9-November 03
Member No.: 9748



According to this article it is. . .

"Microsoft had just released Version 9 of Windows Media Audio, and earlier testing had assured us of the codec's capabilities. We settled on a 96-kbps constant bit rate for the broadest possible compatibility versus the variable-bit-rate option, which we estimated would give us equivalent quality to MP3 at 160 kbps with most music types."

Read it Here
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
uart
post Dec 18 2004, 18:19
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 810
Joined: 23-November 04
Member No.: 18295



QUOTE
I remember they had a WMA comparision up where the MP3 files were encoded with Lame 3.6x or something, that was completely deprecated at the time, versus WMA's latest version.


Yeah, that's why I was really glad to see the comparison of the the up to date codecs in your public listening tests. It was just the information I was looking for as I recently got a cheap portable mp3 player that only accepts either mp3 or wma.

Since I only want to use 128k on this player I was seriously considering WMA, (mostly because I'm always hearing those stories like the above about how great wma is), but after seeing those listening tests I'm more than happy to stick with lame and use -v5 for the portable.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- detokaal   WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?   Nov 11 2004, 21:13
- - rjamorim   RE: WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps?   Nov 11 2004, 21:39
- - Digisurfer   Think I'll continue to trust my own ears, than...   Nov 11 2004, 22:16
- - Gabriel   That is some very good news: They are no claiming ...   Nov 12 2004, 09:59
|- - mithrandir   QUOTE (Gabriel @ Nov 12 2004, 03:59 AM)That i...   Nov 13 2004, 01:35
- - Zurman   QUOTE (detokaal @ Nov 11 2004, 12:13 PM)Accor...   Nov 12 2004, 11:11
|- - zver   QUOTE (Zurman @ Nov 12 2004, 02:11 AM)QUOTE (...   Nov 12 2004, 18:44
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Zurman @ Nov 12 2004, 07:11 AM)They pr...   Nov 13 2004, 01:51
|- - mithrandir   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Nov 12 2004, 07:51 PM)I see...   Nov 14 2004, 01:50
- - negritot   QUOTE (Gabriel @ Nov 12 2004, 12:59 AM)That i...   Nov 12 2004, 19:05
- - Brink   QUOTE I see the misconception that Xing is a very ...   Nov 14 2004, 01:40
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Brink @ Nov 13 2004, 09:40 PM)QUOTE I ...   Nov 14 2004, 01:43
- - QuantumKnot   Xing's VBR technology seems to have disappeare...   Nov 14 2004, 02:27
- - Brink   QUOTE Lame wins, followed by AudioActive, which is...   Nov 14 2004, 03:17
- - Jojo   doesn't Xing cut everything > 16khz?   Nov 16 2004, 00:43
|- - danbee   QUOTE (Jojo @ Nov 15 2004, 11:43 PM)doesn...   Dec 18 2004, 18:18
- - rjamorim   QUOTE (mithrandir @ Nov 13 2004, 09:50 PM)Xin...   Nov 16 2004, 01:07
- - Ivegottheskill   I haven't heard of AActive, but it performed r...   Nov 16 2004, 13:12
- - uart   QUOTE WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps Wei...   Dec 18 2004, 17:24
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (uart @ Dec 18 2004, 01:24 PM)Weird the...   Dec 18 2004, 17:41
- - uart   QUOTE I remember they had a WMA comparision up whe...   Dec 18 2004, 18:19


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th November 2014 - 18:53