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: Why is WMA so bad? (Read 43540 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #50 –
WMA has indeed evolved, albeit not with the flurry of development taking place on LAME, for example. I spoke about my codec preferences before, and I'd add some more to that now. The following is my experience with codecs in general. Emphasis on the "my" part. I'm not saying this is the best or only way, though it's the way I'd recommend since it works for me:

AAC: Very high quality at 128 kbps for rock music. Generally not so good with bass heavy genres like rap - audio sounds muddy and the bass reproduction is atrocious. Quality is uniformly excellent for all genres at high bitrates. The main reason I don't use AAC is that few DAPs besides the iPod support it, and my current DAP doesn't support it at all.

MP3: High frequency sounds are terrible at 128 kbps with any encoder. Heavy guitar sounds like noise. Bass is barely passable. As far as I'm concerned, the lower limit of MP3 quality is 160 kbps for any genre, although most songs need at least 192 kbps to sound good. VBR has improved this situation somewhat, but not enough to warrant me changing my personal rules. MP3 does shine at higher bitrates, but I find that in general the codec seems to have a problem with noise/distortion creeping in on the high frequencies, especially with rock songs. Except for the -insane encoding option, heavy guitar usually sounds excessively harsh and I almost always have to kick the treble down a notch to compensate. Since heavy rock is my favorite genre, while I'm happy with MP3 for files I didn't encode myself, it's not my pick for my own ripping purposes.

WMA 9.1: Nearly as good as AAC at low bitrate rock music. Absolutely fantastic at 128 kbps for rap and bass heavy tracks. Very accurate and distortion-free reproduction at higher bitrates with a very clean sound. The Q98 VBR setting is transparent as they come, by my ears. Hence my choice of WMA for personal ripping.

OGG: Decent. Haven't heard enough OGG tracks to form a fair opinion.

FLAC: Sounds as if you're in the studio. VERY GOOD. Unfortunately not very compatible with my current software/hardware/media ecosystem.

MPC: Heard a CD encoded in it. Extremely impressive. Not personally implemented for the same reason as FLAC.

WAV: Perfect, of course. Just too large.
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #51 –
Quote
AAC: [...] Generally not so good with bass heavy genres like rap - audio sounds muddy and the bass reproduction is atrocious.

MP3: High frequency sounds are terrible at 128 kbps with any encoder. Heavy guitar sounds like noise. Bass is barely passable. [...] I find that in general the codec seems to have a problem with noise/distortion creeping in on the high frequencies, especially with rock songs. Except for the -insane encoding option, heavy guitar usually sounds excessively harsh and I almost always have to kick the treble down a notch to compensate. [...]

WMA 9.1: [...] Absolutely fantastic at 128 kbps for rap and bass heavy tracks. Very accurate and distortion-free reproduction at higher bitrates with a very clean sound. The Q98 VBR setting is transparent as they come, by my ears. Hence my choice of WMA for personal ripping.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339587"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I very strongly suggest you reread the Terms Of Service of this forum, particularly number 8, and restrain from posting until you have understood it.

Otherwhise you might find your stay here...short.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #52 –
Quote
FLAC: Sounds as if you're in the studio. VERY GOOD. Unfortunately not very compatible with my current software/hardware/media ecosystem.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339587"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

FLAC = Free Lossless Audio Codec.

Hmm, now let's see if that rings a bell...

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #53 –
Quote
I very strongly suggest you reread the Terms Of Service of this forum, particularly number 8, and restrain from posting until you have understood it.

Otherwhise you might find your stay here...short.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339591"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ah. Man you guys are pretty hardcore. I thought I was doing OK as long as I wasn't flaming, which I don't do anyway. Phew. Sorry about that, I'll bear that in mind in future posts.

EDIT: You can delete that post if you wish. Your site, after all .
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #54 –
Quote
Quote
Try testing OGG at various bitrates and pick the lowest that still sounds good to you. Besides more capacity lower bitrates also tend to increase battery life.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315228"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ogg is a container, Vorbis is the format.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=316793"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What's in a name? That which we call a codec by any other name would sound as sweet; so Vorbis would, were it not Vorbis call'd, retain that dear perfection which it owes without that title.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #55 –
Quote
Ah. Man you guys are pretty hardcore. I thought I was doing OK as long as I wasn't flaming, which I don't do anyway. Phew. Sorry about that, I'll bear that in mind in future posts.

no, it's just that when a "fan" of an encoder (and WMA from all of them) speaks as you do, we would like to be checked with facts (you know, placebo effect)

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #56 –
Quote
no, it's just that when a "fan" of an encoder (and WMA from all of them) speaks as you do, we would like to be checked with facts (you know, placebo effect)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339601"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Cool. I'm new here anyway, so I wasn't really aware of that rule. HA is the first place I've ever been to where codec audio quality is treated as being absolutely objective. Never heard of an ABX test before I came here. I'm used to the "hear it for yourself rule" but hey, it's your site and your rules. I'll abide by them. I've noticed the culture here is different, so when in Rome... .
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #57 –
Quote
Cool. I'm new here anyway, so I wasn't really aware of that rule. HA is the first place I've ever been to where codec audio quality is treated as being absolutely objective. Never heard of an ABX test before I came here. I'm used to the "hear it for yourself rule" but hey, it's your site and your rules. I'll abide by them. I've noticed the culture here is different, so when in Rome... .

no problem. actually, when you say "hear it for yourself rule", that is right, you have to hear it, and do the ABX, maybe you really hear WMA better. Is just that by doing an ABX, you make sure is not something your mind imagines.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #58 –
Quote
OGG: Decent. Haven't heard enough OGG tracks to form a fair opinion.

I suggest you delve deeper.  You might find a successor to WMA.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #59 –
Quote
Quote
OGG: Decent. Haven't heard enough OGG tracks to form a fair opinion.

I suggest you delve deeper.  You might find a successor to WMA.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339833"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yeah, try WMP Pro, for starters.

It's interesting, the fellow states a preference for WMA, and people are all over him for TOS violations.

A few articles before, somebody else said:

Quote
damn, it's hard to resist the urge to break out a rant over microsoft's inferior stuff. i'm surprised wma is still alive. if it weren't for them shoving it down sheeple's throats noone would touch their stuff with a stick.

my bet: use mp3 as suggested


So, it's ok to flame WMA without even mention of a listening test, but not ok to like it, even without making any claims beyond personal preference?

I submit that something is wrong here.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #62 –
Quote
Quote
damn, it's hard to resist the urge to break out a rant over microsoft's inferior stuff. i'm surprised wma is still alive. if it weren't for them shoving it down sheeple's throats noone would touch their stuff with a stick.

my bet: use mp3 as suggested


So, it's ok to flame WMA without even mention of a listening test, but not ok to like it, even without making any claims beyond personal preference?

I submit that something is wrong here.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340303"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I would say you are right (though the particular post you quoted is so silly I think most moderators would be more tempted to just press "delete").

Someone talking about the "bass" response of certain codec being so or so is just something that makes my horns go off.

Since you seem to know WMA quite well, perhaps it would be a good idea to pop up your advice about what WMA encoder to use in the next listening test. Nothing will shut up (perhaps excessive) criticism up as well as cold, hard, numbers.
 

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #63 –
Quote
Since you seem to know WMA quite well, perhaps it would be a good idea to pop up your advice about what WMA encoder to use in the next listening test. Nothing will shut up (perhaps excessive) criticism up as well as cold, hard, numbers.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340328"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well Media Player 10 has, I'm told, both WMA and WMA-Pro codecs included, but not in very many variations. It also has lossless.

The encoder tool (WMA 9 encoder) has the version 9 WMA codecs. You can also get an update to it that provides Pro 9.1, lossless 9.1, etc.

For most folks, using Media Player 10 is probably the way to go.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #64 –
I don't have any listening test graphs to show, but I stand by how I feel about WMA, which is that it feels wierd, and sometimes quite uncomfortable to listen to.

Now I'm not sure why, but for some reason 128kbps WMA sounds very thin and almost sort-of... tinny to my ears, compared to MP3 128kbps, which although sounding fuzzy, is "smoother".

When you start getting down to the lower bitrates, WMA starts to lose reverb where OGG and MP3 don't, which although the overall quality of MP3 can be lower than WMA at that bitrate, you can still hear reverb and other small things at the same fuzzy level as it were, which makes it more pleasant to listen to. MP3 just gets fuzzier/hissier whereas WMA starts to really mangle the sound. Then again who wants to use low bitrates?

High bitrate WMA is fine, but certainly no better than OGG or MP3 really.

Now moving onto more politcal reasons not to use WMA, well, for a start Microsoft blocked people sending MP3's through MSN Messenger (which was removed in newer versions), and now, if you have SP2 installed, it sees MP3s recieved through MSN as a security threat! In my opinion this is just them trying to get people away from MP3, and "Oh look, WMP can convert my stuff to WMA, how handy, I'll send that format to people instead". I could be wrong but it feels very iffy to me.

EDIT: Clarity.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #65 –
Programming language discussion moved here.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #66 –
Quote
Yeah, try WMP Pro, for starters.

Name me a piece of hardware where this can be played outside of a Windows  PC, DAPs included...

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #67 –
Last warning to all: no more TOS 8 violations in this thread, be it pro-WMA or contra-WMA.

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #68 –
At this point, I'm afraid to open my trap.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #69 –
Quote
At this point, I'm afraid to open my trap.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340658"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If you have something to say, I'd like to hear it.

I'd suggest though, considering the unfortunate shape of this thread, that it'd probably be better to start a new thread first...

Why is WMA so bad?

Reply #70 –
Quote
Quote
At this point, I'm afraid to open my trap.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340658"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If you have something to say, I'd like to hear it.

I'd suggest though, considering the unfortunate shape of this thread, that it'd probably be better to start a new thread first...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340661"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Agreed.