Re: [MP3 ENCODER] mp3 vs. wma
From: "Ross Levis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] there's also no good mp3 DirectMedia codec except for the discontinued FhG pro codec version 1 When you say DirectMedia, do you mean a Windows ACM driver?. If so there are newer versions of the FHG ACM released with some software packages like Nero 4.0 and Cool Edit 2000. They aren't ACM codecs (e.g. they won't show up in Control Panel/Multimedia/Devices). There is a more recent ACM codec around, though. A cracking group called Radium took it upon itself to take the encoder core from Producer Pro and merge it with the official ACM codec. Just a pity they didn't use MP3Enc 3.1 as their base... BTW, QDesign do a rather nice MP2 ACM codec. Under $100, very cheap by their standards... -- Mat. -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
RE: [MP3 ENCODER] mp3 vs. wma
there's also no good mp3 DirectMedia codec except for the discontinued FhG pro codec version 1 When you say DirectMedia, do you mean a Windows ACM driver?. If so there are newer versions of the FHG ACM released with some software packages like Nero 4.0 and Cool Edit 2000. Ross. -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] mp3 vs. wma
I think that WMA is easier to listent too at lower bitrates because the distorion tends to mimick old analog recordings. Even at 160 it sounds hissy, but very acceptable because my ears are used to ignoring the distortion. IMHO WMA at 128 is as good as MP3 at 128, if only because the artifacts are easier to ignore. MP3 is superior above 128. mark stephens - Original Message - From: "Scott Manley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] mp3 vs. wma what are your thoughts? WMA sounds very good on casual inspection, far better than mp3 at about 64kbit, probably about the same as AAC/Mpeg4 at that bitrate. But it doesnt get any better as the bitrate goes up - and there's an annoying hiss that reminds me of listening to old cassete tape. Scott Manley (aka Szyzyg) /-- _@/ Mail -\ ___ _ _ __ __ _ | Armagh Observatory | / __| __ ___| |_| |_ | \/ |__ _ _ _ | |___ _ _ | Armagh | \__ \/ _/ _ \ _| _| | |\/| / _` | ' \| / -_) || | | Northern Ireland | |___/\__\___/\__|\__| |_| |_\__,_|_||_|_\___|\_, | | BT61 9DG. | http://star.arm.ac.uk/~spm/welcome.html |__/ \=/ -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ ) -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] mp3 vs. wma
From: "Ampex" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:39:11 -0500 what are your thoughts? -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ ) Check out this sound and vision online article: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/SoundAndVision/FrameSet/0,1670,_sl_SoundAndVision_sl_Article_sl_0_cm_1653_cm_130_2020_1_cm_00,00.html They did some very thorough tests of PAC, MP3(FhG) and WMA. -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] mp3 vs. wma
what are your thoughts? WMA sounds very good on casual inspection, far better than mp3 at about 64kbit, probably about the same as AAC/Mpeg4 at that bitrate. But it doesnt get any better as the bitrate goes up - and there's an annoying hiss that reminds me of listening to old cassete tape. Scott Manley (aka Szyzyg) /-- _@/ Mail -\ ___ _ _ __ __ _ | Armagh Observatory | / __| __ ___| |_| |_ | \/ |__ _ _ _ | |___ _ _ | Armagh | \__ \/ _/ _ \ _| _| | |\/| / _` | ' \| / -_) || | | Northern Ireland | |___/\__\___/\__|\__| |_| |_\__,_|_||_|_\___|\_, | | BT61 9DG. | http://star.arm.ac.uk/~spm/welcome.html |__/ \=/ -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
