IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
No Wma?
JEN
post Sep 22 2002, 12:04
Post #1





Group: Banned
Posts: 1131
Joined: 19-September 02
Member No.: 3407



How come theres no wma section in this forum.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChS
post Sep 22 2002, 12:21
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 247
Joined: 26-January 02
Member No.: 1172



ohmy.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AgentMil
post Sep 22 2002, 12:25
Post #3





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 584
Joined: 19-December 01
From: Australia
Member No.: 688



Yeah come to think of it, why not? biggrin.gif


--------------------
-=MusePack... Living Audio Compression=-

Honda - The Power of Dreams
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
elfin
post Sep 22 2002, 12:27
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 52



I guess, this forum is about high quality audio.
So WMA doeasn't qualify.
tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
David Nordin
post Sep 22 2002, 13:08
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 751
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Falkenberg
Member No.: 3810



QUOTE (elfin @ Sep 22 2002 - 12:27 PM)
I guess, this forum is about high quality audio.
So WMA doeasn't qualify.
tongue.gif

yaman! biggrin.gif


--------------------
http://davidnordin.wordpress.com/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JEN
post Sep 22 2002, 13:12
Post #6





Group: Banned
Posts: 1131
Joined: 19-September 02
Member No.: 3407



or is it because its by microsoft?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cobra
post Sep 22 2002, 13:27
Post #7





Group: Banned
Posts: 344
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3365



WMA quality is bad, it does not work on non-windows platform...

PS. Bill G. paid for Windows Media 9 c.a. 500 000 000$ huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Continuum
post Sep 22 2002, 13:43
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 473
Joined: 7-June 02
Member No.: 2244



- Earlier versions of WMA were not suitable for near-transparent encoding (maybe that has changed with v9; there is a lossless mode now)
- There's no RealAudio forum either
- It's quite proprietary
- The filthy 64kbit = cd-quality lie ph34r.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CiTay
post Sep 22 2002, 13:57
Post #9


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 2378
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 3



And don't forget the whole DRM issue.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spoon
post Sep 22 2002, 14:41
Post #10


dBpowerAMP developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2749
Joined: 24-March 02
Member No.: 1615



Good point why not?

Bill G is committed to Take_Over_all_Formats, and he puts his bucks down constantly year in, year out. You might laugh but, WMA could be the format to beat, look what happened to netscape vs IE. A well funded development should always come out on top.

Put it this way, if WMA was the OpenSource format, with its quality of WMA2, 7, 8, 9 there would have been a section opened on it...

>'it does not work on non-windows platform'

It does, for portable mp3 players it is the most supported format next to mp3...


--------------------
Spoon http://www.dbpoweramp.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Sep 22 2002, 16:04
Post #11


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3760
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



Well the vast majority of users of WMA prior to 9 would be hardly likely to have found their way to a forum like this, would they? WMA 9 does look quite promising, but the output from previous versions and the words 'high quality' were mutually exclusive! wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
harashin
post Sep 22 2002, 16:19
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 339
Joined: 20-February 02
From: Kyoto, Japan
Member No.: 1362



Look at this poll.


--------------------
Folding@Home Hydrogenaudio.org Team ID# 32639
http://folding.stanford.edu/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ssamadhi97
post Sep 22 2002, 21:39
Post #13





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1203
Joined: 10-February 02
From: Endless Water
Member No.: 1305



might be coincidence, but for each category there's at least one codec dev lurking or posting on this forum. i just can't see this happening with WMA.. tongue.gif


--------------------
A riddle is a short sword attached to the next 2000 years.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NeoRenegade
post Sep 23 2002, 15:48
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 723
Joined: 29-November 01
Member No.: 563



You mean there are actually people who work on WMA?

With its quality, I would have thought it just popped up at random, like as if somebody's cat decided to lie down on the keyboard.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ssamadhi97
post Sep 23 2002, 17:33
Post #15





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1203
Joined: 10-February 02
From: Endless Water
Member No.: 1305



QUOTE (NeoRenegade @ Sep 23 2002 - 03:48 PM)
You mean there are actually people who work on WMA?

dunno. i was guessing wildly. wink.gif


--------------------
A riddle is a short sword attached to the next 2000 years.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Sep 23 2002, 18:27
Post #16


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



Theres no WMA section for the following reasons:

1. It's non-cross platform. This means, you can't get encoders and tools for other platforms to create and manipulate WMA files. Sure, it plays on some portables but that's only half of the equation.

2. It's not high quality. AFAIC it sucks at both low and high bitrates. Hydrogenaudio is mainly for the discussion of high quality audio. Streaming formats are not a major focus here. That doesn't mean that some people aren't interested or that discussions of this can't take place here, but it's not a primary focus of the forum or of most of the users. Maybe this will change in the future.. it mostly depends on interest.

3. WMA resides in the domain of all of this DRM, "copy protection", etc, mess. I can't in good conscience recommend that people use a format which cripples their usage, especially one which also features some of the worst quality of any major audio format. This site, and my intentions for such a resource, include a very large focus on open source or free codecs and utilities. The idea is to give users more options and educate them about more possibilities. WMA doesn't follow this philosophy in any sense that I can imagine.

4. Aside from all this, it appears that there are so few users interested that even if there were no other issues, it's not really worth having a seperate forum for.

5. There's really no community behind WMA as far as I can tell.. and surely not any sort of end-user oriented development community. This is also a very big part of hydrogenaudio.org -- bringing developers and users closer together to increase knowledge and awareness and to help create better software for everyone.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kas
post Sep 23 2002, 20:28
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 28-July 02
Member No.: 2838



Even if WMA 9 was decent, it's not going to get any love around here ... which is odd considering WMA, with Microsoft's suffocating marketing tactics, could some day even up the playing field or even usurp MP3 as the "everyday person's" audio codec. Not that this forum is focused toward the "everyday person".


--------------------
...:: Kas ::...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MadiZone
post Sep 23 2002, 21:28
Post #18





Group: Banned
Posts: 192
Joined: 3-August 02
Member No.: 2917



QUOTE (Dibrom @ Sep 23 2002 - 06:27 PM)
2.  It's not high quality.

Lie!! mad.gif
It produces CD-quality at 64 kbit - Billy told me B)



dry.gif maybe not laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spoon
post Sep 23 2002, 22:00
Post #19


dBpowerAMP developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2749
Joined: 24-March 02
Member No.: 1615



>3. WMA resides in the domain of all of this DRM, "copy protection", etc, mess.

That is only half the arguement, MS are trying to tempt the Music Industry onto the internet, which it is not going to do in the short term without DRM, the reason MS is doing this is to try to dominate that market.

Yes WMP 8/9 default protects any files ripped, which I think is absoutely stupid, if it was not on by default you would not be talking about DRM as it would only be for promo/downloads.

Don't blame a format just because it has the technology to DRM files, it is just a on/off switch, it is easy to create files that are not DRM protected.


--------------------
Spoon http://www.dbpoweramp.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Sep 24 2002, 01:19
Post #20


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (spoon @ Sep 23 2002 - 02:00 PM)
Don't blame a format just because it has the technology to DRM files, it is just a on/off switch, it is easy to create files that are not DRM protected.

If DRM was the only flaw of WMA, it wouldn't be such a big deal, though I do think that a format which encourages the use of DRM (it does this if it uses DRM by default, whether or not it may be turned off is another issue) still doesn't fit in very well with the ideology of this place as I already pointed out.

DRM restricts accessability and usability, plain and simple. Hydrogenaudio works to make high quality audio codecs more accessable, and more usable by gathering valuable tips and information from knowlegable users, and by helping to foster development of free audio manipulation utilities for the good of everyone.

You are right that I am kind of blurring the distinction between DRM and the format itself. However, since DRM is one of the main points Microsoft is pushing in their WMA compaign, it's pretty obvious to me that it's at the core philosophy of the codec design. In looking at it from that perspective, one needs to consider the DRM issue whenever they consider WMA if they are to truly understand what the codec represents -- at least according to the intentions of it's developers.

And at the end of the day, there's also just the issue that vehemently disagree with DRM on a more personal note. I very much disagree with the idea of restricting our rights to use our own media, which we pay for quite fairly, just so these companies can make a few more bucks off us. This is just wrong on so many levels. Since I have the power to actively stand against this type of thing, I choose to use that by showing no interest in WMA, by not supporting in refusing to create a forum for discussion, and by actively steering users away from the format if I can.

It is highly likely that there will never be a WMA forum on Hydrogenaudio unless there are overwhelmingly good reasons for such a thing. Right now, I can't see any. WMA isn't cross-platform. WMA isn't open source. WMA doesn't have a community of concerned listeners. WMA doesn't have a community of end-user oriented developers or any sort of grass roots type projects going on. Rather, the developers of WMA would choose to deceive listeners with so called "objective" tests consisting of spectrogram comparisons, etc. They aren't concerned about quality or making things better for their users. WMA isn't high quality, and doesn't even sound better than MP3. Instead, what we get from WMA is a copy-protected, low quality, closed, proprietery codec whose developers don't really care about audio compression but rather about Microsofts bottom line.

Is this something you want to support?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Sep 24 2002, 01:33
Post #21


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (spoon @ Sep 22 2002 - 06:41 AM)
A well funded development should always come out on top.

What about Ogg Vorbis vs Mp3pro?

MPC vs... just about any other lossy codec?

LAME vs Fhg?

Monkey's Audio vs other non-free Lossless encoders?

Now lets look at the well funded projects:

- WMA (not better than any of the high quality free codecs)
- AC3 (probably the most popular and widely used lossy psychoacoustic encoder, not even as good sounding as mp3)
- AAC (Very advanced but none of the available implementations appear to be better than MPC at average bitrates, nor as good as ogg vorbis or mp3pro at lower bitrates. Yes, this should change with AAC with SBR, but it's not here yet)

Being well funded doesn't automatically mean a better product, certainly not with audio codecs, and not even necessarily in other areas.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EternalBreath
post Sep 24 2002, 01:58
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 17-September 02
Member No.: 3381



QUOTE (Dibrom @ Sep 23 2002 - 04:33 PM)
QUOTE (spoon @ Sep 22 2002 - 06:41 AM)
A well funded development should always come out on top.


Being well funded doesn't automatically mean a better product, certainly not with audio codecs, and not even necessarily in other areas.

True. However, there's a difference between being better and coming out on top.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Sep 24 2002, 02:02
Post #23


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (EternalBreath @ Sep 23 2002 - 05:58 PM)
QUOTE (Dibrom @ Sep 23 2002 - 04:33 PM)
QUOTE (spoon @ Sep 22 2002 - 06:41 AM)
A well funded development should always come out on top.


Being well funded doesn't automatically mean a better product, certainly not with audio codecs, and not even necessarily in other areas.

True. However, there's a difference between being better and coming out on top.

This is true, but by:

"You might laugh but, WMA could be the format to beat, look what happened to netscape vs IE."

I assume that he meant with the "format to beat" part and the reference to netscape vs IE, that WMA would pull ahead because of it being a technically superior product.

Of course, it could come out on top otherwise, but then it wouldn't really be the format to beat (it would already be beaten), at least in anything other than popularity.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KAMiKAZOW
post Sep 24 2002, 02:17
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 18-October 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Cobra @ Sep 22 2002 - 02:27 PM)
WMA quality is bad, it does not work on non-windows platform...

There's Windows Media Player for Mac OS.....
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cygnus X1
post Sep 24 2002, 03:49
Post #25





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 676
Joined: 5-June 02
From: New York
Member No.: 2224



Dibrom took the words out of my mouth in regards to wma! biggrin.gif One additional thing to think about is this: did Microsoft come up with wma out of genuine concern and interest for users of compressed audio, or did it create the format as another way of sticking its foot in the door in yet another area? Look at Windows XP (which I unforunately own).....it tries to be everything to everybody.....

There's a crappy internet firewall, a crappy Zip decompressor, a crappy and bloated Media Player using inferior video and audio codecs whose only purpose is to strengthen Redmond's grip on its users, crappy video compression software (Movie Maker), and crappy e-mail and internet clients. A company cannot be everything to everybody. In trying to be 10294354 things to the billions of PC's in the world, MS continues to put out diluted, inferior products that are nowhere near as good as its competitors, but because they are bundled with Windows, users adopt them.

You want quality at low bitrates? Use Ogg Vorbis. You want quality at high bitrates? Use MPC. You want portable compatibilty and good quality? Use LAME. There's no reason to talk about wma becasue it is useless when considering the aformentioned choices!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Closed 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: 22nd September 2014 - 16:19