IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
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
rjamorim
post Nov 11 2004, 21:39
Post #2


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Digisurfer
post Nov 11 2004, 22:16
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 371
Joined: 10-August 04
From: Canada
Member No.: 16174



Think I'll continue to trust my own ears, thanks. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Nov 12 2004, 09:59
Post #4


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



That is some very good news: They are no claiming twice the mp3 efficiency anymore.

Previously, Microsoft was claiming that 64kbps wma = 128kbps mp3.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zurman
post Nov 12 2004, 11:11
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 238
Joined: 22-February 04
Member No.: 12193



QUOTE (detokaal @ Nov 11 2004, 12:13 PM)
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
*

They probably made their tests with Xing biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zver
post Nov 12 2004, 18:44
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 12-June 03
From: toronto
Member No.: 7141



QUOTE (Zurman @ Nov 12 2004, 02:11 AM)
QUOTE (detokaal @ Nov 11 2004, 12:13 PM)
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
*

They probably made their tests with Xing biggrin.gif
*

Xing enoded files to 160k would easily beat wma@96 smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
negritot
post Nov 12 2004, 19:05
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 209
Joined: 2-January 04
Member No.: 10890



QUOTE (Gabriel @ Nov 12 2004, 12:59 AM)
That is some very good news: They are no claiming twice the mp3 efficiency anymore.

Previously, Microsoft was claiming that 64kbps wma = 128kbps mp3.
*

So according to them, the quality of their codec has actually gone down. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mithrandir
post Nov 13 2004, 01:35
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 669
Joined: 15-January 02
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 1032



QUOTE (Gabriel @ Nov 12 2004, 03:59 AM)
That is some very good news: They are no claiming twice the mp3 efficiency anymore.

Previously, Microsoft was claiming that 64kbps wma = 128kbps mp3.
*

Don't get too excited; it seems they are saying 96kbps wma vbr = 160kbps mp3 cbr. That's a very bold claim.

This post has been edited by mithrandir: Nov 13 2004, 01:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Nov 13 2004, 01:51
Post #9


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (Zurman @ Nov 12 2004, 07:11 AM)
They probably made their tests with Xing biggrin.gif
*


I see the misconception that Xing is a very bad encoder is still rampant here. :B

If you want to talk about shit, mention Blade, QDesign, dist10... but not Xing.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brink
post Nov 14 2004, 01:40
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Brazil
Member No.: 16894



QUOTE
I see the misconception that Xing is a very bad encoder is still rampant here. :B

I remember a test that compared these codecs, and dismistified this claim. It's still avaiable?


--------------------
Alguém pare o mundo que eu quero descer!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Nov 14 2004, 01:43
Post #11


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (Brink @ Nov 13 2004, 09:40 PM)
QUOTE
I see the misconception that Xing is a very bad encoder is still rampant here. :B

I remember a test that compared these codecs, and dismistified this claim. It's still avaiable?
*


Here you go:
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/mp3-128/results.html

It's worth mentioning that test uses an old version of Xing, from when it was still developed by Xingtech, and it reportedly became much better after it was bought by Real. I repent quite a lot that I didn't test Real's latest version. in my defense, I can say Real Player was being misbehaved and refused to install on my system.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Nov 14 2004, 01:46


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mithrandir
post Nov 14 2004, 01:50
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 669
Joined: 15-January 02
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 1032



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Nov 12 2004, 07:51 PM)
I see the misconception that Xing is a very bad encoder is still rampant here. :B

If you want to talk about shit, mention Blade, QDesign, dist10... but not Xing.
*

Xing garnered a bad reputation because it didn't use short blocks, methinks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Nov 14 2004, 02:27
Post #13





Group: Developer
Posts: 1245
Joined: 16-December 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 4097



Xing's VBR technology seems to have disappeared in Real's mp3 encoder. sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brink
post Nov 14 2004, 03:17
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Brazil
Member No.: 16894



QUOTE
Lame wins, followed by AudioActive, which is more or less followed by Xing, FhG and Gogo.
(...) Also, it seems the constant criticism directed at Xing is exaggerated at best.

Yeah, its really interesting to see Xing close to Fhg. This test uses the old Xing version, and, AFAIK, all the xing critcism started since r3mix.net. I remember everyone saying "stay away from xing". This became a kind of rule for so much time that people forget the improvement made into the codec.


--------------------
Alguém pare o mundo que eu quero descer!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jojo
post Nov 16 2004, 00:43
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 1361
Joined: 25-November 02
Member No.: 3873



doesn't Xing cut everything > 16khz?


--------------------
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Nov 16 2004, 01:07
Post #16


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (mithrandir @ Nov 13 2004, 09:50 PM)
Xing garnered a bad reputation because it didn't use short blocks, methinks.
*


The version I tested didn't use them either.

QUOTE (QuantumKnot @ Nov 13 2004, 10:27 PM)
Xing's VBR technology seems to have disappeared in Real's mp3 encoder. sad.gif
*



You might need to install an MP3 update first, though...

QUOTE (Jojo @ Nov 15 2004, 08:43 PM)
doesn't Xing cut everything > 16khz?
*


If it does, people saw that as an advantage smile.gif


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ivegottheskill
post Nov 16 2004, 13:12
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 6-October 04
Member No.: 17513



I haven't heard of AActive, but it performed rather well in those tests (particularly as a CBR encoder).

Albiet it ended up with the highest average bit rate overall :/


--------------------
<==== Hydrogen Audio Bomb
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
uart
post Dec 18 2004, 17:24
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 794
Joined: 23-November 04
Member No.: 18295



QUOTE
WMA 96 kbps equivalent to 160k MP3 kbps


Weird then that in the multiformat 128kbps-public-listening-tests that "Lame3.96 -V5" actually beat WMA9 when they were both at 128kbps. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Dec 18 2004, 17:41
Post #19


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (uart @ Dec 18 2004, 01:24 PM)
Weird then that in the multiformat 128kbps-public-listening-tests that "Lame3.96 -V5" actually beat WMA9 when they were both at 128kbps. smile.gif
*


True. But in Microsoft's defense (heh), one could claim they used another MP3 encoder. Maybe Blade, or iTunes, or even an old version of Lame. 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.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Dec 18 2004, 17:41


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
danbee
post Dec 18 2004, 18:18
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 225
Joined: 19-February 02
From: plymouth, uk
Member No.: 1355



QUOTE (Jojo @ Nov 15 2004, 11:43 PM)
doesn't Xing cut everything > 16khz?
*


I believe it did, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I used xing for quite a while and was quite happy with the quality... until I discovered LAME of course.


--------------------
:: danbee :: pixelhum.com ::
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
uart
post Dec 18 2004, 18:19
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 794
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

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: 30th July 2014 - 03:03