96K is pretty bad on OGG and MP3, and very good on WMA, at least for rock music.
Right, MP3 plain sucks at 96 kbps.
As for Ogg vs. WMA, I think Ogg sounds significantly better. The same holds true for 64 kbps as well, and this is RC2 we're talking about. The upcoming RC3, which should be around soon, will improve quality even further.
Don't even get me started on WMA. It mangles everything above 12 kHz even at 192 kbps, and this is painfully obvious on demanding tracks. Maybe your HF hearing isn't all that?
And I would urge everyone to do their own listening tests
After all the windows media format is public knowledge with excellent SDK, server tools and media tools available.
Bah. It's hardly public knowledge if the specs and/or encoding and decoding sources aren't available, and I'm pretty sure they aren't. SDK's, server tools et al aren't enough to make a format public knowledge. There's an SDK for Real Media, too, but the format is still proprietary, as is Windows Media.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, MP3 plain sucks at 96 kbps.
As for Ogg vs. WMA, I think Ogg sounds significantly better. The same holds true for 64 kbps as well, and this is RC2 we're talking about. The upcoming RC3, which should be around soon, will improve quality even further.
Don't even get me started on WMA. It mangles everything above 12 kHz even at 192 kbps, and this is painfully obvious on demanding tracks. Maybe your HF hearing isn't all that?
And I would urge everyone to do their own listening tests
I second that.
Bah. It's hardly public knowledge if the specs and/or encoding and decoding sources aren't available, and I'm pretty sure they aren't. SDK's, server tools et al aren't enough to make a format public knowledge. There's an SDK for Real Media, too, but the format is still proprietary, as is Windows Media.
"Nightfall in Middle-Earth" is based on "The Silmarillion", not LOTR.
Of course it's still fscking great.