WMA support status?

[danmint]

Does anyone have any idea of the status for wma support in rockbox?  Is anyone working on it  still?  Haven't seen any action on the patch lately.  Just wondering

[saratoga]

No one is currently working on it.  There is talk of trying to get someone for the google summer of code event who is interested in an integer based WMA decoder, but thats it.  Most likely WMA support in Rockbox is far away.

[Didgeridoohan]

I'm really sorry, but I can't help but dig out an old quote from Linus Nielsen Feltzing:

"Someone with a clue needs to step forward and do this. The problem is that people with a clue don't use WMA."

Sorry... A bit drunk...

[danmint]

I'm really sorry, but I can't help but dig out an old quote from Linus Nielsen Feltzing:

"Someone with a clue needs to step forward and do this. The problem is that people with a clue don't use WMA."

Sorry... A bit drunk...

Don't be sorry, bit drunk me self  I respect the people that have a clue, but for those of us that don't, (or were bs'd into believing wma was superior), I believe the support would be beneficial, and I don't think the wma format is going away in the near future.  I wouldn't rip into wma today, but I suspect I am not alone in having many wma's in my digital collection.   Hopefully someone will make it a priority, it would be a good opportunity to make a name for themselves.  Another thought is people with a clue wouldn't use mp3 either...

[saratoga]

I'm really sorry, but I can't help but dig out an old quote from Linus Nielsen Feltzing:

"Someone with a clue needs to step forward and do this. The problem is that people with a clue don't use WMA."

Sorry... A bit drunk...

Don't be sorry, bit drunk me self  I respect the people that have a clue, but for those of us that don't, (or were bs'd into believing wma was superior), I believe the support would be beneficial,

No one questions that; we'd like to see WMA support if only because most DAPs support it.  However, since theres evidently no one who both uses WMA and is able to write a decoder for it, its unlikely to happen soon.  

[soap]

Another thought is people with a clue wouldn't use mp3 either...

MP3 is universally supported by audio players, and while it might not be the most advanced codec when judged on technical specifications alone, the existence of a mature encoder (LAME) makes up most the difference.
Vorbis, AAC, MPC, and MP3 all reach transparency at about the same bitrate.

[CSMR]

All the tests I have seen have put Vorbis (with the later aotuv encodings), AAC and MPC ahead.
I haven't seen anything about reaching transparency. Most tests are done at under 200kbs at which none of the codecs are transparent (last I heard).

Trouble with wma is it is a lot of different codecs. Wma standard is the most popular and well supported but not the best choice for encoding.

[saratoga]

All the tests I have seen have put Vorbis (with the later aotuv encodings), AAC and MPC ahead.

This is the most recent widely accepted cross format listening test:

http://www.listening-tests.info/mf-128-1/results.htm

As you can see, all major formats tied for first place.

I haven't seen anything about reaching transparency. Most tests are done at under 200kbs at which none of the codecs are transparent (last I heard).

In the above test, all codecs were essentially transparent at 128k.  People encode at higher bitrates to guard against the occasional problem samples, because of habit, or for peace of mind.  

[soap]

All the tests I have seen have put Vorbis (with the later aotuv encodings)

I love the idea of Vorbis, but unfortunately developement is essentially dead.  (At least for the time being.)
The aotuv tunings are just that, tunings.  LAME, on the other hand, routinely bores and strokes the engine of MP3, proving that active, consistent, development of a more mature encoder can make lemonaid out of lemons.  

AAC might not be nearly as warm and cuddly as Vorbis, but Nero is showing, much as the LAME project does, that working and reworking an encoder can produce significant improvements in output quality, even while the specification remains unchanged.  AAC is, most likely, the successor to MP3.  Cell phones support it almost universally now, iPods support (a subset) of it out of the box, and the quality at low-bitrates is improving quickly.  The transparency battle has already been fought, and it was a stalemate, with favor going to the one with most penetration (MP3).  The low bitrate war is already in full-swing, and unless Vorbis awakes from its multi-year coma, it doesn't have a chance.  (MP3 isn't even showing up to this fight.)

Superior technology is rarely enough of a mega-weapon to win a war*, and superior specifications even less so.  Marketshare and mindshare almost always rule the day, and Vorbis offers no compelling reason to those other than ideological converts.

But that's just my opinion, I might be wrong.



*Not to mention that Vorbis, as it stands today, is not superior to AAC in terms of features.

EDIT:
Deleted my later message, would delete this one too if it hadn't already been replied to.  I've already gone far enough off-topic.

[CSMR]

saratoga

Yes lame does look pretty good in that test and is not behind the others (significantly).
The best the test could do is not disprove transparency. I don't know the rules of that test. Would the original wav have got 5 exactly?

Here is a test including the same LAME and vorbis encoder which doesn't get transparency for any codec at 180kbs:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36465
Average equipment but probably good ears and experience. LAME is significantly (statistically) inferior to aotuv vorbis. And everything abxable from wav.

I think this shows that those codecs are not transparent at 180kbs, so also presumably not at 128kbs.
"Transparent to some" no doubt, but not to all, so... not transparent.

[CSMR]

I love the idea of Vorbis, but unfortunately developement is essentially dead.  (At least for the time being.)
The aotuv tunings are just that, tunings.  LAME, on the other hand, routinely bores and strokes the engine of MP3, proving that active, consistent, development of a more mature encoder can make lemonaid out of lemons.

Yes that is unfortunate but will LAME it ever become better than what is currently available with aotuv vorbis?

AAC might not be nearly as warm and cuddly as Vorbis, but Nero is showing, much as the LAME project does, that working and reworking an encoder can produce significant improvements in output quality, even while the specification remains unchanged.  AAC is, most likely, the successor to MP3.  Cell phones support it almost universally now, iPods support (a subset) of it out of the box, and the quality at low-bitrates is improving quickly.  The transparency battle has already been fought, and it was a stalemate, with favor going to the one with most penetration (MP3).  The low bitrate war is already in full-swing, and unless Vorbis awakes from its multi-year coma, it doesn't have a chance.  (MP3 isn't even showing up to this fight.)

Superior technology is rarely enough of a mega-weapon to win a war*, and superior specifications even less so.  Marketshare and mindshare almost always rule the day, and Vorbis offers no compelling reason to those other than ideological converts.

But that's just my opinion, I might be wrong.

*Not to mention that Vorbis, as it stands today, is not superior to AAC in terms of features.

Oh yes I've heard AAC is now pretty good. I don't think that popularity wars are won over the issue of transparency at all. Just interesting to some people in some situations. I've looked at this stuff over the last few days because my H140 has run out of space with lossless music. AAC I heard doesn't work completely in rockbox (?) and aotuv vorbis looked better than the others. Nothing idological! And the vorbis stuff will sit peacefully on my H140; no venturing out to wage any format wars!

[saratoga]

Yes lame does look pretty good in that test and is not behind the others (significantly).

Its not behind at all.  (Read the link I posted, its all in there)

The best the test could do is not disprove transparency. I don't know the rules of that test.

Why not read them then before you come to conclusions?

Would the original wav have got 5 exactly?

No.

Here is a test including the same LAME and vorbis encoder which doesn't get transparency for any codec at 180kbs:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36465
Average equipment but probably good ears and experience. LAME is significantly (statistically) inferior to aotuv vorbis. And everything abxable from wav.

One person, older version of LAME.  

Also, picking arguably the most experienced expert in digital audio compression listening tests and claiming his hearing is indicative of people as a whole is not particularly fair.  guruboolez is part of the reason MP3 and Vorbis are as good as they are today, but I wouldn't use him as the standard of transparency.  With enough training, essentially no codecs are transparent.

I think this shows that those codecs are not transparent at 180kbs, so also presumably not at 128kbs.
"Transparent to some" no doubt, but not to all, so... not transparent.

Provided you have not updated your codecs in 2 years and are guruboolez, this is a valid conclusion.

[Lear]

AAC I heard doesn't work completely in rockbox (?) and aotuv vorbis looked better than the others.

AAC works, but there are some limitations:

• Only LC-AAC (i.e., what the iPod supports) play real-time.
• Very long files don't work (1.5+ hours or something).
• The files must be "streamable" (the metadata is located before the audio data).

Other than that, files encoded by iTunes, Winamp or Nero should work fine.

[CSMR]

Its not behind at all.  (Read the link I posted, its all in there)

I read it and that is why I said it is not significantly behind. Looking at the bars on the chart, it is a little behind but not significantly. I didn't say it was behind though then, only now. Very marginal.

Why not read them then before you come to conclusions?

No explanation or link on the web page that I can find. I haven't made any conclusions based on what I don't know.

One person, older version of LAME.

3.97 in both cases. Only a few moths difference between the tests.

Also, picking arguably the most experienced expert in digital audio compression listening tests and claiming his hearing is indicative of people as a whole is not particularly fair.  guruboolez is part of the reason MP3 and Vorbis are as good as they are today, but I wouldn't use him as the standard of transparency.  With enough training, essentially no codecs are transparent.

Provided you have not updated your codecs in 2 years and are guruboolez, this is a valid conclusion.

Yes I am sure newer codecs are better and many people would not to be able to distinguish sound as well as guruboolez.

[scorche]

(My opinion on everything of course):

Arguing about what bitrate is transparent is completely useless.  It depends much too heavily on the equipment, the type of music/sound, and the person.  It also depends on if you have something accurate (such as an actual performance) to base your findings off of.  With my $20 pair of headphones, about 160-192kbps was transparent to me.  However, with my rig now (lineout, amp, nice headphones), I have found that not even APX or 320kbps MP3s are transparent to me anymore (I have abx tested this, but the 320 was a real interesting bugger to try and detect).

So really... why argue this when there are way too many factors to account for which make saying "this bitrate is transparent" impossible?