P2P-Zone - View Single Post

13-06-01, 07:02 PM

My experience with WMA isn't what Microsoft has promised. 128kbps is kinda standard for MP3, but a 64kbps WMA doesn't compare. I think that 10:1 compression is the threshold for any lossy format like JPEG, MPEG, and MP3; anything more than that is crappy. If the Microsoft guys think they can do better without reducing quality they're kiding themselves.

As for integrating an MP3 codec I don't think they should. The FHg codec that came with earlier Win's was not worht the disk space it took up. LAME has exe's, dll's, and even a direct show filter but Microsoft won't want to use those. They'll want thier own codec which will enevitbly suck.

We can do just fine without Microsoft.

13-06-01, 07:02 PM	#2
Mazer Posts: n/a	My experience with WMA isn't what Microsoft has promised. 128kbps is kinda standard for MP3, but a 64kbps WMA doesn't compare. I think that 10:1 compression is the threshold for any lossy format like JPEG, MPEG, and MP3; anything more than that is crappy. If the Microsoft guys think they can do better without reducing quality they're kiding themselves. As for integrating an MP3 codec I don't think they should. The FHg codec that came with earlier Win's was not worht the disk space it took up. LAME has exe's, dll's, and even a direct show filter but Microsoft won't want to use those. They'll want thier own codec which will enevitbly suck. We can do just fine without Microsoft.