Posted by Don Pearce on 11/27/07 08:01

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:48:17 -0000, Jack <jack@beanstalk.net> wrote:

>I have been happy with WMA sound quality at 128 kbps (44 kHz CBR),
>believing it to be generally cleaner than its MP3 equivalent. WMA built a
>reputation as excelling at lower bitrates (i.e. 64 kbps) and was also said
>to surpass MP3 at 128 kbps. To my ears, it did/does have a more crystalline
>quality on a lot of music. Subjective? Maybe. I hadn't noticed any real
>distortion on my good quality car stereo (main usage for WMA) until the
>other day.
>
>I was stunned to hear how bad WMA 128 kbps sounds on Neil Young's "Down By
>The River." That track has repetitive dull cymbal/brush hits throughout and
>it's not a pristine recording to begin with. Apparently the WMA (9.2)
>encoder treats those hits as some sort of lo-res background noise. This may
>be compounded by distorted guitar harmonics that chase along.
>
>At certain points the hazy cymbals fade in and out with a breathing effect;
>an artifact nonexistent in the original WAV. It's quite evident between
>3:30 and 4:00 in this 9-minute song. Parts of the song have crisper highs
>and those seem to be handled OK, but it's still a disappointment.
>
>When you increase the WMA bitrate to 160 kbps, it seems to lose this
>affliction, and at 192 kbps sounds close to the CD. But MP3 (tested with
>LAME & FhG) handles that track noticeably better at 128 kbps. With a
>thousand songs encoded at WMA 128 kbps, I'm rethinking formats. This slush
>might show up elsewhere.
>
>Could this be a fluke or has WMA been using tricks to sound better than it
>really does? If anyone knows other "WMA torture tests," please post song
>names.
>
>Jack

You see, what you are supposed to do at this point is post a couple of
ten second samples - one of the original wav and one of the wma. That
way we can do something a bit more helpful than sit here and say
"really?".

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Back to original message]