View Full Version : wma9 poor results at low bitrates compared to wma8

13th September 2002, 22:33
I made two encodes of a same song (wilco - Jesus etc...), and I must agree, from an mp3 (good quality one, but no pure source anyways).
Both are on 32Kbps 44Khz stereo setting, the first using wma8.1, the second using wma9 CBR (I don't remember if I ever met an wma8.1vbr encoder, and I don't remember encoding it with something else wmv8 ancoding utility).
And the wma9 is sure less quality : all the hi frequency dynamics in the wma8 are lost in wma9.
So I ask for you to compare these two samples, as I used wmencoder 7.1 to encode with wma9 codec. Maybe it's wmencoder7.1 that sucks with wma9, so if someone has a similar test on which Wma9 at this rate is superior/equal to the wma8 counterpart, or if someone wants to try the same test I did with the wmencoder 9, I'd greatly apreciate.
Since I almost didn't see any good wma comparison, but the one with mp3 on mp3-tech.com, which has not much interest, given the old generation mp3 belongs to now, I'd greatly appreciate to see some. think about those Win98 guys that can't encode properly...

samples are
wma8 32kbps one (http://vinz.ifrance.com/vinz/test/wma8.rar)
wma9 32kbps one (http://vinz.ifrance.com/vinz/test/wma9.rar)
and if my ISP blocks leeching pass by this page (http://vinz.ifrance.com/vinz/tests.html)


edit : sorry the links were wrong. Now they must be OK