Posted by Jack on 12/01/07 07:11

Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote in
news:fiphic$rn7$1@reader1.panix.com:

> here's the same segment, done by me. I verified the codecs and
> bitrates this time
>
>
> FLAC via foobar2k
> http://www.badongo.com/file/5364152
>
> 128WMA CBR via FairStars Audio Converter (shows as 129 kbps)
> http://www.badongo.com/file/5364159

For whatever reason that version sounds passable, which deepens the
mystery. I originally encoded the whole song "on the fly" with Windows
Media Player 11, then again with a ripped WAV and GoldWave 5.22. Same
weak results for me both times. Note: the WMP player version number (11)
and the actual WMA codec number (9.2) are not related.

Compare your WMA to my unfortunate one:

http://www.badongo.com/file/5372700 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00 WMA)

> 190MP3 VBR via LAME 3.97 (shows as 183-219 kbps)
> http://www.badongo.com/file/5364184

Anything will sound pretty good at that bitrate. A 128 kbps MP3 would
have been a direct comparison.

I'll have to check out some of those other WMA encoders. I don't
understand how they could be better than Windows' original version,
unless they use older WMA codecs and something odd happened in WMA 9.2.
This is hard to analyze on Usenet.

Jack

[Back to original message]