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: WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test (Read 21035 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

I quickly performed a wma9 standard and wma9 called PRO test, based on the 12 same samples of the AAC 128 kbps listening test, launched by Roberto Amorim.
I used dBpowerAmp for this (I'm still on Win98SE, and WMEncoder 9 didn't work on this platform).
Settings are :
    [/li][li]WMA9 "Standard" 128 two-pass[/li][li]WMA9 "PRO" 128 two-pass[/li][/list]File bitrate is pretty reliable (128 kbps in all case). Microsoft named the 2-pass mode as 'VBR' ; I suppose 'ABR' to be a better name.

    I didn't spent too much time for this test (20 minutes). Don't put too much attention is the absolute notation ; hierarchy was my only goal.

    Code: [Select]
                          STD   PRO
    01. 41_30          * 3.2   4.2
    02. Atrain         * 2.0   3.0
    03. Beautyslept    * 4.5   4.9
    04. Blackwater     * 2.0   4.1
    05. Death2         * 1.8   1.0
    06. Flooressence   * 2.8   3.5
    07. Layla          * 1.8   3.5
    08. Lifeshatters   * 2.0   2.5
    09. MidnightVoy    * 1.3   2.0
    10. Thear1         * 2.8   4.5
    11. TheSource      *  Ø     Ø  ²
    12. Waiting        * 1.5   2.5

    ² tried two time, and was confused two time for each encoding  8-|


    WMA9 PRO wins easily. Only failure was with Death2.WAV - absolute killer for wma9pro at 128 kbps (wma9 std is really bad too).
    => WMA9 PRO is, according to my subjectivity (ear, training, tastes), the best competitor of the WMA lossy family at ~128 kbps.

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #1 –
    Quote
    => WMA9 PRO is, according to my subjectivity (ear, training, tastes), the best competitor of the WMA lossy family at ~128 kbps.

    I don't understand your conclusion, do you mean that from this test, WMA9 Pro and WMA9 are the two top codecs @ ~128kbps ?

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #2 –
    Quote
    Quote
    => WMA9 PRO is, according to my subjectivity (ear, training, tastes), the best competitor of the WMA lossy family at ~128 kbps.

    I don't understand your conclusion, do you mean that from this test, WMA9 Pro and WMA9 are the two top codecs @ ~128kbps ?

    Sorry for my bad english.
    I just said that WMA9 PROFESSIONAL is better than WMA9 STANDARD, at least for me, and on 11 of the 12 samples tested here. In the optic of a general listening test at ~128 kbps, WMA9PRO should be prefered to WMA9 'STD'

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #3 –
    Ok. Thank you for the clarification.
    So, at ~128kbps the worst aac codec (~3.5) sounds generally better than wma9pro (~3.2) which sounds generally better than wma9 (assuming results are comparable).

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #4 –
    Quote
    Ok. Thank you for the clarification.
    So, at ~128kbps the worst aac codec (~3.5) sounds generally better than wma9pro (~3.2) which sounds generally better than wma9 (assuming results are comparable).

    I repeat my preliminary warning :
    « [span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%']Don't put too much attention is the absolute notation ; hierarchy was my only goal.[/font][/span] »

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #5 –
    Thanks a lot for this test, Guruboolez. It will be very useful to the extension test.

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #6 –
    Quote
    Thanks a lot for this test, Guruboolez. It will be very useful to the extension test.

    I'm now testing, for fun, and in the same conditions, vorbis GT2 and vorbis PCVS. Results are coming soon



    EDIT : results are posted here.

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #7 –
    A comparison with Lame at preset 144 would be very interesting.
    I'm a owner of a Jukebox 3 from Creative and have to decide between two possibilities to save space (convert over 200 CD's):

    WMA9-2-pass at 128kbps (ABR) or preset 144.
    At this moment, I prefer Lame, would be nice to know your opinion in this case ;-)

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #8 –
    excuse me ?

    AlfO4: does the jukebox 3 take <EDIT> WMA9PRO ?
    I don't think so....

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #9 –
    I've tested it :

    The Jukebox takes WMA 9, even with 2-pass-encoding.

    There are no Problems with fast forward/rewind-Function if the actual Firmware is installed.

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #10 –
    Quote
    I've tested it :

    The Jukebox takes WMA 9, even with 2-pass-encoding.

    And what about WMA9 PRO ? I don't think that any portable player in the market supports this format. WMA9 standard is not really interesting at ~128 kbps, compared to LAME --preset ABR, except in encoding speed.

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #11 –
    I'm pretty sure WMAv9 and WMAv9 PRO are backwards compatible with older WMA.

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #12 –
    ...hm doubtfull about pro, would be good though

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #13 –
    Yes, you're right. This Jukebox doesn't support WMA9 pro.

    BTW: a conclusion in this case is, that there' no reason (except speed is important) to use WMA9 standard anyway ?

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #14 –
    Pro seems to be either a different codec or modded so much it won't work on normal WMA players.

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #15 –
    Quote
    I'm pretty sure WMAv9 and WMAv9 PRO are backwards compatible with older WMA.

    I'm not sure at all. Software player can't play 'pro' version without new decoder (try with winamp for exemple). I can't imagine hardware decoder being more responsive. BTW, I asked some people to try with their portable (Additek, iBead, iRiver), and WMA9 PRO files were not played.

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #16 –
    Wow, I had never seen this thread. WMA Pro is significantly better than WMA. Now I know why Roberto's test only used WMA Pro.

    Given that the recording industry seems set on WMA, and to a lesser extent AAC, for digital distribution - does anyone know how we can contact MS and convince them to only allow the higher quality WMA Pro recordings to the industry and, more importantly, get firmware upgrades out into the market ASAP! I have tried but can find no forum.

    I find it intesresting that WMA Pro is not even an option for encoding with WMP - which is what 99% of the people who make WMA encodings use. I use dBPoweramp.

    Any suggestions? I would like to help. WMA Pro for digital distribution and portable use does not seem like such a terrible option. (Yes, I know everyone in this forum wants OGG for distribution but is just not likley to happen).

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #17 –
    Quote
    WMA9 PRO is, according to my subjectivity (ear, training, tastes), the best competitor of the WMA lossy family at ~128 kbps.

    Pardon me, but I find the logic understandable.
    He's just saying that when we do any future 128 kbps tests, we should be pitting wma9 PRO against the other rival codecs as it is IHHO the best of those produced by Microsoft .

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #18 –
    ok, WMP XP doesn't have any encoder called Pro since MS ended BETA test. What do you refer to as pro and non-pro? CBR, VBR, Lossless?

    If memory serves, Lossless was called PRO in the early Betas.
    The Plan Within Plans

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #20 –
    <I'm blind>
    "To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #21 –
    To Spoon's point, there are 3 codecs - WMA 9, WMA 9 Pro, WMA 9 Lossless. 

    The problem is, only the 1st is compatible with portables and the Pro version is where the comparatively high quality is achieved at the 128 VBR level. Lossless is, well...lossless. Great for archiving, not much else.

    So the question is repeated, does anyone know how we can contact MS and convince them to only allow the higher quality WMA Pro recordings to the industry and, more importantly, get firmware upgrades out into the market ASAP

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #22 –
    Quote
    <I'm blind>

    Of course you are! There's a black strip in front of your eyes.

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #23 –
    Quote
    So the question is repeated, does anyone know how we can contact MS and convince them to only allow the higher quality WMA Pro recordings to the industry and, more importantly, get firmware upgrades out into the market ASAP

    IMO, if Microsoft convinced the industry to support only WMA pro now, they would be shooting their own feet.

    I can only imagine that an user will be extremely pissed when he finds out that the WMA pro tune he just bought at some site isn't playable in his portable player.

    I think M$ will only start to seriously advertize WMA pro after it gets widespread support.

    Regards;

    Roberto.

    WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test

    Reply #24 –
    @ezra
    who cares, since wma pro didn't win the contest either. industry should be convinced to drop any wma derivate and use AAC aditionally to the standard mp3.