Talk:Windows Media Audio

message: In the bullet point quoted below, the text "a roughly equivalent quality than MP3" seems to contain a grammatical error, or is at least very confusing.
"At mid-low bitrates (64 kb/s or more, less than 128 kb/s), latest private tests (80 kb/s (2005/07), 96 kb/s (2005/08)) show that WMA has a lower quality than the lossy audio codecs AAC (HE and LC) and Vorbis, a roughly equivalent quality than MP3, and a better quality than MPC."
: oops, OlJanx 07:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Correct 

message: This screenshot is a bit weird. VLC can't even play a multichannel WMPro file (or was this added recently?). Anyway, it's inappropriate. Add one of Windows Media Player, the native player for these codecs!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.147.223 (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot of VLC player 

message: I've added links to the largest, double blind and independent listening tests I know of twice now, and both times they've been backed off and replaced with nonsense about how the difference has not been determined.  Anyone who has looked at the evidence can see this is not the case.
Could I get some clarification how exactly citing the conclusions from double blind tests is biased?  Its not as if the people evaluating the formats even knew what formats they were, so how could they be biased?  As far as I am aware, these are the two largest, and most comprehensive tests of the formats, and they have been reviewed and accepted by developers working on a number of open and closed source audio codecs as well as virtually the entire audio testing community and most of the less insane audiophile webistes.  Calling the results biased is ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.135.157.10 (talk • contribs) .
:The link is fine, but the prose is grossly unencyclopedic.  It has all the appearance of trying to add a non-netural POV to the article, and you will get a lot of push-back on that. Warrens 18:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked article wasn't nearly as cut-and-dried as the most recent revision of the Wikipedia article made it seem.  I've kept the link, but added some clarifying text in an effort to reach an NPOV medium. Raider Duck 18:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whats with this NBPOV ?

message: At least from my personal experience, Windows Media Audio has horrible high ends. Any track with a lot of cymbals sound absolutely horrible, and very liquidy. This may have changed since I last used it, so, I don't want to write about it unless this can be verified by other people.--68.196.38.13 18:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Sound

message: Hi,
I have a WMA file that I've recorded and I want to split it into smaller files.
It would be great if someone could please add either some links/discussion of tools, or a link to a page that has same?
Thanks in anticipation, Ben Aveling 08:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for link to tools 

message: I'm looking for software for converting audio files - particularly MP3's - into WMA Pro. Is there a program that will allow me to do this?
--HenrikSH 16:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMA Pro conversion software request 

message: I am removing the section discussing Janus (v10) DRM because the DRM technology is not a part of the codec technology, just like Apple's FairPlay technology is completely unrelated to the AAC codec technology.
* You are probably right, in a way. Janus seems to be the tech used for portable devices. I added a link to Windows Media DRM in the See Also-section. --apecat 17:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Janus (DRM) 

message: The goal of Wikipedia project is to make an encyclopedia, not a well of rumors and slanders. I propose to remove Sound quality section as long as there is no claim originating from a reliable professional source such as an independent sound studio or university research paper.
--Ondrejsv 15:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete Sound quality section 

message: There are no sources for them.  I'd like to see some sources for statements like "WMA Standard is the second most popular digital audio compression format after MP3"
::I found this webpage with the following:
::From: http://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/sample/DOMIS/update/2004/02feb/0204chpadm.htm
::"More than 500 models of consumer electronic device, from car stereos to home theater systems, now support Windows Media Audio (WMA) or WMV, including products from Matsushita/Panasonic, Pioneer, and Thomson/RCA—a number that has increased 150% since Jan. 2003. In addition, more than 4 million WMA-capable portable music players from companies such as Creative Labs and iRiver have shipped since 1999, making it the second most popular format for these devices after MP3. (Three and a half million portable MP3 players shipped in 2003 alone, according to Jupiter Research.)"
::The article is rather old. I don't know if you consider this to be a "reliable source" though. : )Nicholas2020 10:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was the second most popular format for a long time, and may still be, but its hard to nail it down.  Do we count by number of users?  Number of tracks?  Hardware licenses sold?  IMO simply saying something like "WMA Standard and AAC are the most popular formats after MP3" would be better. 152.3.198.221 02:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do other people think about this proposal for edit? Nicholas2020 12:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be judged by the number of files. Definitely not number of standalone players, as many people keep/play their audio files on computers or phones. That a device is WMA-capable doesn't mean people actually use it to play WMAs. Also, these data are from 2003. I would suspect Apple has taken over in the meantime, especially since AAC is a standard now so everything that is MPEG-4 compliant plays AAC.--87.162.34.18 11:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AAC was standardized in the late 90s, so I don't see what 2003 has to do with the standardization process.  Anyway, lots of MPEG4 compliant software  and hardware does not support AAC.  While AAC is a part of the MPEG4 standard, so is MP3, MIDI and VQF.  Generally devices pick the codecs they need, and many of them chose MP3 over AAC (since there is a separate fee for each and its cheaper to use fewer).  Most set top Divx mpeg4 players for instance chose mp3 over aac for cost reasons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.198.221 (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: Is it possible to upload WMA files? 208.138.31.76 15:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, and no. The Discussion Page is also not the place to ask such questions. May I suggest you use Bittorrent or something? And don't get sued by the RIAA. - 68.228.41.70 07:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF? I did not mean music files from P2P networks. I just meant if WMA files can be uploaded. WMA is as popular as MP3, and Cortado is EXTREMELY buggy, which pisses me off. --208.138.31.76 (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMA on Wikipedia 

message: I think the entire page needs a rewrite. From the here-and-there POV comments to the endless section on a stupid comment Microsoft made a long time ago to promote WMA, this page is slipped to crap. Needs a rewrite. - 68.228.41.70 08:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Needs Work 

message: Unlike the other articles on Wikipedia on audio/media formats, this article does not contain any information on how Microsoft licenses WMA. Can someone add it please? I could not find accurate information on Microsoft's website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.181.45 (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "streamingmedia%com Windows Media Best Practices" :
** 
** <ref name="edn">
DumZiBoT (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: Does the term "WMA Pro" refer to WMA Professional, or WMA Protected? --Atlantima (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMA Pro 

message: i've added the fact tag to the "Sound Quality Claims" part of the Criticism paragraph - i've never seen anyone claim that 128kbps MP3 is commonly thought of as transparent. until someone can actually find a source for that bit, it's just baseless speculation. Onesecondglance (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If my memory serves me, in the early days, 128 kbps MP3 was commonly called “CD quality” in programs that allowed you to create MP3s. I think it had more to do with 128 kbps being the minimum bitrate at which early encoders would allow you to use 44.1 kHz (the sampling rate specified in the Red Book audio standard). Users misunderstood it as meaning that the end result would sound as good as a CD in every way. — NRen2k5(TALK), 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Why are there no example/sample audio files in the article? -- 172.190.31.159 (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why No Example Audio Files? 

message: Surprisingly, Windows Media Audio 9 Lossless has less contents than this article on WMA Lossless subject. Why don't we merge them? Fleet Command (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Supported + Done, it was also suggested on Talk:Windows Media Audio 9 Lossless years ago. The fine points of WMA vs. WMA9 lossless (if there are any) are unclear. –89.204.130.223 (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Windows Media Audio  9 Lossless 

message: In the section Windows Media Audio Lossless the following FALSE claim is written:"When decompressed, the audio signal is an exact replica of the original." Only if the "original" signal is digital can there be "an exact" replica, and even then you'd need to use world class clocks and electronics to obtain it, neither of which is going to happen. No ADC conversion is "exact", just as no DAC is exact going the other way. I think this line should be either deleted, or modified to indicate that the replica can result in a signal indistinguishable from the original (although this claim should have pretty strong references to back it up: average human ear? audiophile? electronics (sampling at, say, 1000 Terahertz)?) (and I won't get into the fact that a finite process can NOT compute an infinite series (such as a cosine))173.189.72.93 (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly that part is a mess. AFAICT there is only one loseless codec not two as the section may lead people to believe. That said, I think this is a bit of a silly debate. The wording may not be the best, but it's clearly referring to the original digital audio, not some other theoretical audio signal. Probably the wording in the section above is a little better "The result is a bit-for-bit duplicate of the original audio file" although also not quite right. (It's only bit-for-bit when decoded. Also file should be used with care since the actual decoding output could be in a different format from the audio file, probably audio stream would be a better choice.) BTW, your 'is digital' and 'world class clocks and electronics' is a little weird. If I generate a 8kHz tone with some software, I don't need 'world class clocks and electronics' to obtain it. I just need to keep the output of my software and only ever encode it losslessly. The same as if I use some midi rendering software to render my midis. (Probably the samples for the midi rendering were originally analog, but the only logical definition of the original audio signal of my rendered midi is the output of the software I used, no matter what form the samples were in. And of course you could use samples that were only ever digital or use FM to render your midi or whatever.) You seem to be making the assumption an audio signal must generated physically to be an audio signal. BTW I choose midi rendering because it's an example of a complicated audio signal which can easily be considered music, which is so far any original audio that it seems clear it's silly to refer to some original physical audio signal. But in reality a lot of music nowadays has similarities with different parts being recorded in different sessions, some parts maybe being generated mostly digitally, auto tune and other processing etc; such that the final output audio signal is clearly and intentionally different from any one physical audio signal you can identify. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request 

message: I would like to bring to your attention that Ref #53 is now a dead link. Ref53 Frank (User Page) (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref #53