When is wmv10 going to be launched?

[pieter1976]

I am waiting for a new codec.

[DAvenger]

I am waiting for a world without war and famine. Seriously, WMV10? Where did you hear about it?

[JaTeMaTec]

Originally posted by pieter1976
I am waiting for a new codec.

Same answer as DAvenger and addition:
Where do we need that v10 - is v9 (basic, professional or lossless) missing some functionality or needs more quality or speed? AFAIK : NO!

(I could throw up a question like where the M$ DirectX 10 is hiding. And again: why - what wrong is with 9.0b. - OK - game enthusiasts could unagree with me after following the new hw evolving etc...)

Peace!

[pieter1976]

I am hooping that a new version can bring some better compression ratios. So that they can compete with rv10 and vp6.
Microsoft must be working on a new codec because it is a market that they what to dominate. In that case you need to have the best compression ratios.

[Sirber]

If you don't like WMV9, why don't you use xvid/RV10/VP6 ? :rolleyes:

[JaTeMaTec]

Originally posted by pieter1976
I am hooping that a new version can bring some better compression ratios. So that they can compete with rv10 and vp6.

Yep - the lossy video codec - i agree with you at that point that M$ has made pretty good work with v9 video and mostly: it doesn't cost anything that can not be said of rv10 (or the price of Helix Producer and other implementations making kinda same work as free Windows Media Encoder or SW's using it).

/Edit : XviD and DivX 5.1.1 Free Version are free too and damn good when configured ok...

Maybe still a point - now just google yourself to MS pages to read the rumours out - i quess that at this year late summer (with DX10).

You can track latest resouces at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/default.aspx

Peace!

[Sigmatador]

Originally posted by DAvenger
I am waiting for a world without war and famine.

+1 :D

[JaTeMaTec]

Originally posted by Sigmatador
+1 :D

World's Shortest reply i quess, but i can still figure that out with a smilie back :D

Peace (& Howmany) !

[bond]

i dont expect that much from a +1 version
its like if divx5 wouldnt have released version 5.1 but divx6...

in fact big companies love to label and sell the same codecs, extended by a few enhancements and bugfixes, as something like a brand new codec
but these are not new codecs! the developers cant change that much technically cause they have to stay backwards compatible.

thats also the reason why m$ released two codecs: the backwards (to wma8) compatible and bad wma9 codec and the new better quality wma9 pro audio codec, which is comparable to other high class codecs, like aac or vorbis
in fact noone really uses wma9 pro: the music stores and hardware decoder supporting it all use the normal crap wma9, bringing the same or maybe little better quality as mp3 at 128kbps

[JaTeMaTec]

Yes - sometimes versioning is like "taken from da wind". Nothing very special happens to the app (or codec in this discussion), maybe as much as when upgrading from x.1 to x.2.

Btw : I just today downloaded VCDEasy (Commercial) v2.0.0 and that app had really a huge changelog when comppared to previous versions both at functionality, GUI (and bugfixes) - the prev. was v1.1.7.2 and one before just v1.1.7 (previous published at 11-2003).

I too prefer the M$ v9 pro codec, because i heard the differences immediately (against mp3 alike basic version) after i tried a few ear-abx's and foobar2k abx with same wav's converted with same q-factors.

Still i don't use them much actually, because xvid, 3ivx and divx are all better with avi-containers and VBR LC AAC (Nero, Faac or QT) are much better audio codecs. My choise today is 3ivx D4 4.5.1 Plus (commercial) ABR 200 and Nero Digital AAC LC with preset Extreme::High and when broadcasting or making portable video i drop 3ivx to 75-100 and Nero AAC to LC 48-64 kbps...

Peace!

[Sagittaire]

Codecs WM9 are already very Powerful

WMV9 is a very good codec for all bitrate
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64789

WMV9 is better than XviD 1.0 for me


WMA9 Pro is certainly the best audio codec at this time

- 8 KHz -> 96 KHz
- 16 or 24 bit
- 1.0 -> 7.1 chanels
- CBR, VBR quality, VBR 2pass and lossless mode

Quality of the WMA9 pro in 5.1 is incredible with weak bitrate

[Sirber]

WMA9 Pro beats HE-AAC?

[JaTeMaTec]

Originally posted by Sagittaire
Codecs WM9 are already very Powerful.
Quality of the WMA9 pro in 5.1 is incredible with weak bitrate

//EDIT// Sirber said it all with much less words - i like that! :)

Have you compared it against latest AAC (M4A) 5.1 channel VBR LC implementations with both low and high bitrates?

IMHO that one sounds better with lesser bitrates (=filesizes) and evolves all the time leaving mp3 and ogg (& wma) with all their weaknesses far behind.

But : It is just an opinion tested with my environment - we cannot race, which lossy codec will win the nearest lossless implementation - only time will tell that!

Peace!

[Sirber]

Lazyness and Simpliness are good things :D

[MaXiMuS]

wma is the best codec for DRM :devil:

[bond]

Originally posted by Sagittaire
WMV9 is better than XviD 1.0 for mehm there can be surely different opinions on video codecs, as video quality is very subjective
in my tests xvid clearly showed much more details than wmv9 on medium bitrates

everyone should do its own tests (i recommend the great avscompare tool to do it)

WMA9 Pro is certainly the best audio codec at this timehohoho this statement can surely not be left this way ;)

in fact all the listed things can be done with aac too
and aac can have up to 48 channels not only 7.1 :D

wma9 pro does not offer lossless, m$'s lossless codec is a totally independant different codec than wma9 std and pro!

Quality of the WMA9 pro in 5.1 is incredible with weak bitrateon hydrogenaudio they have a good rule (which is there for a reason) that quality statements on audio codecs are not valid without showing so called ABX results, meaning doing a double blind listening test and posting the results

rjamorim conducted two tests with wma9 std and pro with many people sending in their abx results with the following results:

wma9 std @64kbps (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/results.html): wma9 is by far worse than he-aac, also not to forget that m$ claims cd quality at that bitrate :rolleyes:

wma9 pro @128kbps (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html): wma9 pro is on par (maybe little worse) compared to aac

this is of course not a listening test about multichannel, but from this results i think someone can already speculate (!) that wma9 pro offers maybe the same quality as lc-aac for multichannel but worse quality than he-aac, which doesnt mean that it is bad of course

rjamorim already thought about conducing a multichannel listening test, maybe if we all bug him he will do it :D

wma is the best codec for DRM exactly!
also if wma and wmv will win the race for the next dvd standard, m$ will be able to reach a quasi monopoly situation like it already has with windows, giving them the power to control the a/v market as they wish :devil:

[Sagittaire]

- WMV9

WMV9 better than XviD in PSNR, OverallPSNR, SSIM and VQM test. For me WMV9 visualy better than XviD in medium/high bitrate and very better than XviD for low bitrate ...
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64789


- WMA9 Pro

test for 128 Kbps
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=14091&hl=wma9+pro

[bond]

i hope you didnt get me wrong, i didnt want to offend you :)

Originally posted by Sagittaire
- WMV9

WMV9 better than XviD in PSNR, OverallPSNR, SSIM and VQM test. For me WMV9 visualy better than XviD in medium/high bitrate and very better than XviD for low bitrate ...
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64789yes you already pointed to that great thread, i personally would have used 2 b-frames and qpel (the latter is more than very important for sharpness, even if it hurts psnr!!!)
but yes, the test shows that in the harry potter sample wmv9 reached better results using the quality measuring tools you quoted and using the specific settings you used, nothing wrong with that...


- WMA9 Pro

test for 128 Kbps
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=14091&hl=wma9+proyes, i also quoted rjamorims 128kbps test and this pretty well shows that wma9 pro is on par with aac or vorbis and in no way better as you stated
in the ha thread one person tested baroque music only, i dont think it is really usable for overall statements on audio codecs quality (like it is the case with rjamorims test)

[JaTeMaTec]

Hmmm...?

Audio:
One likes Wma 9...
One likes AAC (M4V+M4A=MP4) (Nero, Psytel, Faac, QT)...
One likes Ogg or Musepack....
One likes other implementations...

Video:
One likes Wmv 9...
One likes Real (or RV v.x)...
One likes 3ivx or XviD or DivX5...
One likes other implementations...

I still choose AAC for my purposes (broadcasting A/V with low bitrates and good quality AND storing HQ-Files inside MP4 containers with higher bitrates (5.1 or 6.1) - and latest 3ivx plus abr with video - and combine these to MP4 Video containers.

Hope we don't start a flame war here just pointing out opinions, old threads and tests made in 'certain conditions'...

The (f.e. rjamorim's) listening tests at Hydrogen's have always been good and pointed to right direction when choosing a codec and a branch of that codec for own purposes! Video quality tests are here at many threads and while combining the results and making some own ABX's, it's easier to choose a good combination.

DRM? - Yes, if M$ would win the race, the world would be (more) full of DRM's in audio AND video, new models / technics to get ppl buy stuff instead of just 'beg, steal or borrow'... That would make the world of videos more complex and all would cost more & more!

Let's stay in business (=in our trousers) and live like in peace and harmony with our codecs. I have made my choice (today's) and my choices will live all the time within this fast evolving world ot technics and in the choice of good codecs. (and maybe taking in account those incoming new codecs like that good-looking (& sounding) BHACorp's new XVD - Very good video and audio at low bitrates with small filesizes...)

(just test it : http://www.bhacorp.com/download/xvd_encoder/index.html - download the trial codec and free player and you will have 30 days time to play with it [with seeing the bottom XVD-logo, which is lowering the real encoding speed about 15 percent])

Peace! JaTeMaTec

[McoreD]

WMV9:
The only drawback in WMV9 is its incredible slowness while encoding. It takes around 8 hours for me to encode a typical 90 mins DVD. Some DVDs take 18 hours or 21 hours. Therefore I have gone back to WMV8 for target bit rates around 800 Kbps 2-pass VBR. For DVDs greater than 90 mts, I use WMV9.

WMA9Pro:
In rjamorim's own words (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html): Let me try to be clear: there was no winner in this listening test. Musepack didn't win. All modern codecs are tied at first place, simple as that.
I am glad the tests and comments ended up that way, so at least from now on, people will not post random comments like "wma is crap, aac is better" or "aac is crap, wma is better".
Since it is proven that WMA9Pro is superior than WMA9Std, I moved from WMA9Std to WMA9Pro for Audio CD ripping (http://www.microsoftusernetwork.com/mcored/knowledgebase/kb-cdatowma9pro.htm).

WMV10:
I won't expect WMV10 to be come so soon. It will be most probably released when it is closer to the Longhorn release.

Cheers,
McoreD

but yes, the test shows that in the harry potter sample wmv9 reached better results using the quality measuring tools you quoted and using the specific settings you used, nothing wrong with that...

Um...I think Sagittaire used "specific settings" for XviD too..may be more. ;)
WMV9:
Adjustments with VirtualDubMod: Maximum quality + Complex + 2 pass
Post-Process desactived or PP1*
XviD 1.0:
Adjustments with VDM: Ultra high + h263 + vhq4 + chroma motion + trellis + bframe 1/150/75 + 2 pass
Post-Process desactived*

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by Sagittaire
WMV9 better than XviD in PSNR, OverallPSNR, SSIM and VQM test. For me WMV9 visualy better than XviD in medium/high bitrate and very better than XviD for low bitrate ... Unveil your real identity, Bill... :D


Bye

[JaTeMaTec]

Originally posted by McoreD
I am glad the tests and comments ended up that way, so at least from now on, people will not post random comments like "wma is crap, aac is better" or "aac is crap, wma is better".

You're absolute right at this part that people should NOT put their own OPINIONS as being the whole truth and nothing but the truth... :)
(/Edit like Soulhunter just named out one of 'such'...)

Like i said: those listening / watching / ABX'ing tests only give us all good know-how to let us be more open, when choosing certain codecs and applications for own purposes. AND this is the situation today, G knows what it will be after half a year (which is a long period in nowadays technical breakdown / evolution speed...). More tests will come and hope we all follow them with wisdom!

So, i won't like to be related into a group praising certain codecs as "simply the best" (part of those who have not even tested the other possibilities). I live within this "technological heaven" eagerly reading, testing, listening, seeing & whatever and i think that's how things should be (unlike ppl claiming MP3 (128k CBR :) ) is the best codec since 1996 and not even knowing anything about AAC, WMA8-9, mpc, ogg, ra2 etc!)

No flaming, no one-sided opinions - just real know-how - that's what these forums are for!

Peace!