Why is wma so bad ?
I can't understand why all lot of people thinks that the wma is fuck up
format.
could somebody enligthen me
please do not remind me of m$
stay to the facts
As long as the wma files are drm free, makes no real difference to me as I use WMP anyway...
I think people prefer not to use .wma cuz only WMP player can play them... right? Apple and Linux users are SOL, so why not use the universal mp3 format?
I've ripped a lot of CDs using WMP to create .wma files - they're not that bad IMHO...
i use wma on my mp3 player because its really easy to save space
an 80kbps wma file is rouchly equivalent to a 128kbps mp3 file
Why use a proprietary format that only windows can play, while OGG gives you the smaller files and is open source.
"One would like to believe in the freedom of music."
-Rush "Spirit of Radio"
My profile in Cnet's "Three I can't live without"
:blah :blah i am new to the forum i just wanted to say hi to all! :shy
Welcome epilef19!
No, no, no...that's what Microsoft say.Originally Posted by QuickSurfer
Here more info on what rate .wma = what rate .mp3....
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=17181
wma sounds bad. thats why it is so bad. the high pitches sound tinny.
besides, wma is made by who? microsoft... aac and mp3 are made by who? audio professionals.
i'll take something developed by audio guys over something software guys made.
nsap @ filesharingtalk.com
www.hydrogenaudio.org will answer alot of your questions.
The bad thing about WMA is the way it encodes. Other lossy codecs offer much better audible sound quality than WMA, the forerunners being VBR mp3 and VBR AAC. Others are better still but consume more space, as they are virtually lossless.
High Efficiency AAC (HE-AAC) was designed to sound great at low, low bitrates and would serve you much better than the overhyped WMA and mp3 formats at these bitrates.
WMA can be played with any player that supports it. Almost all of them do: Winamp, foobar, QCD, and of course, WMP.
WMV can't easily be converted to MPEG for use in DVD players and will yield crappy results because it is such a lossy codec. That's why i hate it.
I have noticed that wma doesnt carry over much bass from the original wave for some reason. I encoded a cd track(real cd not burned) as a 128wma and the base wasnt the same as that in the 128mp3. But for songs without alot of bass its pretty good I guess. Its only really alive now because 1. It supports DRM 2. It saves download time for the online services since they tend to be a bit smaller.
:fire
I don't like VBR mp3.
Some people tell me that Real Audio has lots of bass but the high end Treble is mission. I never really tested the wma format.
Oh, hi to all the new people that just sign up with ZP. I hope we can help you out as best we can.
:hole
I really wouldn't care if wma is Microsoft if it sounded good. It all comes down to the sound. It just does not have a good quality sound. Tinny as others say.
The best lossy codec I have heard is mpc. you should compare that with mp3.
VBR mp3 has a very high quality level for the amount of space it consumes, as compared to other formats like Musepack, APE, or WAV.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks