Talk:Windows Media Audio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.
Peer review Windows Media Audio has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Compare this "neutral" page to the page to AAC, and you'll see zealotry at work!

-- What are your problems with this article? It seems neutral to me. Try not to post flamebait without some sort of evidence to back it up. RenesisX

Contents

[edit] Please Correct

In the bullet point quoted below, the text "a roughly equivalent quality than MP3" seems to contain a grammatical error, or is at least very confusing.

"At mid-low bitrates (64 kb/s or more, less than 128 kb/s), latest private tests (80 kb/s (2005/07), 96 kb/s (2005/08)) show that WMA has a lower quality than the lossy audio codecs AAC (HE and LC) and Vorbis, a roughly equivalent quality than MP3, and a better quality than MPC."

oops, OlJanx 07:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whats with this NBPOV ?

I've added links to the largest, double blind and independent listening tests I know of twice now, and both times they've been backed off and replaced with nonsense about how the difference has not been determined. Anyone who has looked at the evidence can see this is not the case.

Could I get some clarification how exactly citing the conclusions from double blind tests is biased? Its not as if the people evaluating the formats even knew what formats they were, so how could they be biased? As far as I am aware, these are the two largest, and most comprehensive tests of the formats, and they have been reviewed and accepted by developers working on a number of open and closed source audio codecs as well as virtually the entire audio testing community and most of the less insane audiophile webistes. Calling the results biased is ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.135.157.10 (talk • contribs) .

The link is fine, but the prose is grossly unencyclopedic. It has all the appearance of trying to add a non-netural POV to the article, and you will get a lot of push-back on that. Warrens 18:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The linked article wasn't nearly as cut-and-dried as the most recent revision of the Wikipedia article made it seem. I've kept the link, but added some clarifying text in an effort to reach an NPOV medium. Raider Duck 18:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Sound

At least from my personal experience, Windows Media Audio has horrible high ends. Any track with a lot of cymbals sound absolutely horrible, and very liquidy. This may have changed since I last used it, so, I don't want to write about it unless this can be verified by other people.--68.196.38.13 18:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I've found this is a problem with all popular lossy audio formats, including AAC and MP3. I find that I have a acute sense of hearing in the really high frequencies that most people don't hear though (dog whistles, old cathode ray tubes, and damaged capacitors really bother me) so it may be that the engineers that created these formats didn't take into account that the range of hearing of individuals varies widely.

[edit] Request for link to tools

Hi,

I have a WMA file that I've recorded and I want to split it into smaller files.

It would be great if someone could please add either some links/discussion of tools, or a link to a page that has same?

Thanks in anticipation, Ben Aveling 08:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WMA Pro conversion software request

I'm looking for software for converting audio files - particularly MP3's - into WMA Pro. Is there a program that will allow me to do this?

--HenrikSH 16:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flawed Comparison

I just deleted the following from this page:

Due to the nature of the compression, Windows Media Audio and MP3 files at 128 kilobits persecond have virtually no difference in sound quality. However, the difference between WMA at 64 Kbits and MP3 at 128 Kbits is also nearly indistinguishable. The quality comparison of the two music compression formats can be found on the microsoft website [1]

If you look at the files, you will see that this is not a fair comparison. The 128kb/s samples are fine (and both sound virtually the same.) However, while the 64kb/s samples do have the same bitrate, they have different sample rates. The wmas are 44100Hz and the mp3s are 22050Hz. With the 32 and 20kb/s samples, it is 22050Hz wma vs. 11025Hz mp3. The cuts in the higher frequencies are very significant in the given samples which are fairly high guitar (type) music.

Please correct me if I'm missing something.

[edit] Janus (DRM)

I am removing the section discussing Janus (v10) DRM because the DRM technology is not a part of the codec technology, just like Apple's FairPlay technology is completely unrelated to the AAC codec technology.

  • You are probably right, in a way. Janus seems to be the tech used for portable devices. I added a link to Windows Media DRM in the See Also-section. --apecat 17:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Sound quality section

The goal of Wikipedia project is to make an encyclopedia, not a well of rumors and slanders. I propose to remove Sound quality section as long as there is no claim originating from a reliable professional source such as an independent sound studio or university research paper. --Ondrejsv 15:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Are you the same one who edited this section a few hours ago? I don't see anything wrong with the hydrogenaudio listening tests. In fact, both Apple Computer and Nero AG have paid close attention to these tests and worked to improve their codecs as a result. Why do you consider this "rumors and slanders"? --Mcoder 17:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the problem is how these "tests" were done and by who. They are not prepared by a professional who knows which parameters to test and can carefully prepare sound samples. Also, to deduce results, you must also know something about statistics and reliability levels. Besides this, these tests are only subjective "good/bad" checks, no analysis or real research has been done. And frankly, you absolutely don't know the people who ranked the samples. --Ondrejsv 14:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Not including comments on the Hydrogenaudio-endorsed test results would be a mistake, considering the authority of Hydrogenaudio, which is as close you get to "professional audio" discussion on the web. I think Wikipedia definitely should provide information that exposes the complete bullshit which is used by those selling proprietary audio formats. --apecat 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Regarding the test process for the group tests referenced: the double-blind listening comparison program used in these tests (abchr-java) has the capability of performing both time-synchronization and level-matching, which are required to perform proper listening tests. See http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html for the original Windows version of the abc/hr program. The codec parameters are either solicited directly from the codec developer or chosen by consensus from within the community interested in the comparison during a long period of pre-test discussion. It is true that the people who agree to test the samples are an unknown quantity -- a self-selected group of (I'm assuming) audio enthusiasts using various equipment and listening environments. But this may actually be more applicable to real life than a group of trained listeners sitting in a standardized environment. Results tampering is minimized by encrypting the test results (an encryption key is provided after the results have been analyzed). The statistics are not difficult (blocked multiple comparison). See http://ff123.net/friedman/stats.html for the web version of what is used for the analysis, along with source code for the truly interested, and yes, confidence levels are provided. All raw test data is made available so that independent analysis can be performed, if desired. In the end what matters is not whether the tests were performed professionally or in a educational research setting, but whether they are meaningful. I don't think it's fair at all to imply that these test results are no better than "rumors and slanders." Ff123 06:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have yet added another {{fact}} template to the section.... *sigh* Kilo-Lima|(talk) 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

There are no sources for them. I'd like to see some sources for statements like "WMA Standard is the second most popular digital audio compression format after MP3"

I found this webpage with the following:
From: http://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/sample/DOMIS/update/2004/02feb/0204chpadm.htm
"More than 500 models of consumer electronic device, from car stereos to home theater systems, now support Windows Media Audio (WMA) or WMV, including products from Matsushita/Panasonic, Pioneer, and Thomson/RCA—a number that has increased 150% since Jan. 2003. In addition, more than 4 million WMA-capable portable music players from companies such as Creative Labs and iRiver have shipped since 1999, making it the second most popular format for these devices after MP3. (Three and a half million portable MP3 players shipped in 2003 alone, according to Jupiter Research.)"
The article is rather old. I don't know if you consider this to be a "reliable source" though. : )Nicholas2020 10:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It was the second most popular format for a long time, and may still be, but its hard to nail it down. Do we count by number of users? Number of tracks? Hardware licenses sold? IMO simply saying something like "WMA Standard and AAC are the most popular formats after MP3" would be better. 152.3.198.221 02:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
What do other people think about this proposal for edit? Nicholas2020 12:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be judged by the number of files. Definitely not number of standalone players, as many people keep/play their audio files on computers or phones. That a device is WMA-capable doesn't mean people actually use it to play WMAs. Also, these data are from 2003. I would suspect Apple has taken over in the meantime, especially since AAC is a standard now so everything that is MPEG-4 compliant plays AAC.--87.162.34.18 11:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
AAC was standardized in the late 90s, so I don't see what 2003 has to do with the standardization process. Anyway, lots of MPEG4 compliant software and hardware does not support AAC. While AAC is a part of the MPEG4 standard, so is MP3, MIDI and VQF. Generally devices pick the codecs they need, and many of them chose MP3 over AAC (since there is a separate fee for each and its cheaper to use fewer). Most set top Divx mpeg4 players for instance chose mp3 over aac for cost reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.198.221 (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Choosing the right WMA format

I want to store my CD collection on my PC in the WMA format. Which would be the better option: Standard, VBR or pro? I value quality over disk usage.

--HenrikSH 05:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want quality over *absolutely anything else*, WMA Lossless should be chosen. But it needs about 350-400 MB per 80 minutes CD. For 16 bit 2 channel audio (regular CDs), Pro is probably overkill, standard CBR or VBR will suffice. If you are using CBR, a bit rate of 192 Kbps will be enough for most uses. If you have a very high end sound system, you might want to rip at 256 Kbps. I personally prefer using VBR, though. It might not reduce file size (in some cases it might result in little bigger file) but they tend to have somewhat better quality. I rip at the 135-215 Kbps setting (in WMP 11). That works for me.
But since everyone's listening tastes might be different, try encoding 4-5 CDs with the different settings and settle for the one you feel gives the best balance of quality and size, per your needs.--soum talk 06:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to use the lossless format - I consider that overkill. I just got the impression that the Pro format was a vastly superior next generation format. Since it apparently does not take up much more space, it seems like the best option. Of course, there is the problem of lack of hardware support, but I expect to be playing from the PC almost exclusively. Also, there should be good options for converting Pro to for example VBR - right?

I just want to know whether there will be any difference in sound quality at all going from Pro to VBR when ripping the music from CD's - if not, VBR with its smaller file size and better support it is. --HenrikSH 16:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The VBR "codec" you see in WMP11 is really WMA Standard using VBR instead of CBR. The Pro codec has better quality than Standard so you need a higher bit-rate for Standard to get the equivalent quality of Pro.
Since you said you prefer quality over size but not lossless. Try ripping in Lossless and then batch encode to Pro at 256kbps using Windows Media Encoder 9. This is the highest bit-rate setting for stereo, 44.1kHz, 16-bit (CD spec) for this codec.
Having said that though, like Soumyasch said, it really is down to your preferences. Nicholas2020 12:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if you decide to take the Pro path using Windows Media Encoder, don't forget to set 2-pass CBR to squeeze out the last "juice" out of your bit-rate. Nicholas2020 01:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

Trying to get a better rating for this article. What do you think should be done to get anything like FA/A/GA for something as invisible (lack of images) as codecs? Nicholas2020 01:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on the article. What I find lacking is information on the actual algorithm (is there any published study or patent app out there?) And the stream structure may not be accessible to non-techy users. You might consider some jargon busting (like definining what are superframes or bit reservoirs when you mention them). --soum talk 07:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks soum for the feedback! I unfortuneately wasn't the one who worked on the algorithm part so we'll need to get some research data on that. There are obviously some reference "holes" in the article which we need to work on.
I wrote the algorithm part. What would you like to see more of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.198.221 (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The feedback I've got so far is that if we want to get the article to FA we'll need a Histry section, and some images, which is a little difficult because sound isn't the most visual thing for an article. Anyway hope everyone can contribute! : ) Nicholas2020 08:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a great article; it informed me without overwhelming me in technical jargon. Although I don't know a lot about this topic, I would suggest that you expand (if possible) the parts on players, encoders, and digital rights management. Lando5 23:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WMA on Wikipedia

Is it possible to upload WMA files? 208.138.31.76 15:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no, and no. The Discussion Page is also not the place to ask such questions. May I suggest you use Bittorrent or something? And don't get sued by the RIAA. - 68.228.41.70 07:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
WTF? I did not mean music files from P2P networks. I just meant if WMA files can be uploaded. WMA is as popular as MP3, and Cortado is EXTREMELY buggy, which pisses me off. --208.138.31.76 (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Needs Work

I think the entire page needs a rewrite. From the here-and-there POV comments to the endless section on a stupid comment Microsoft made a long time ago to promote WMA, this page is slipped to crap. Needs a rewrite. - 68.228.41.70 08:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing

Unlike the other articles on Wikipedia on audio/media formats, this article does not contain any information on how Microsoft licenses WMA. Can someone add it please? I could not find accurate information on Microsoft's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.181.45 (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)