I thinking why Microsoft destroy sound quality in new (after) WMA V2 codecs...Song listen at 64 Kb/s in WMA 2 sound good almost very good but if You encode song in Windows Media Player 10 at (coded WMA 9.1 64 Kb/s CBR) then you give sound poor quality muffled :\ crap. Now songs encode in in Windows Media Player 10 WMA 9.1 at 128 Kb/s CBR sounds like MP3 128 Kb/s so WMA 9 is not better than MP3 but give the same quality. I dont use VBR option because even in new VBR 50 WMA 9.1 when i have songs about 110 Kb/s then sounds worse than MP3 at 128 Kb/s. SO I must encode songs at 128 Kb/s in WMA 9.1 so bye WMA - better choice MP3 because is more flexible. Windows Media Team must write new codec not cutting highest frequency - WMA 9 Series gives the same sound quality like MP3... and Microsoft claims that WMA 9 gives the same quality at half size MP3... oh my good at half size gives quality like old radio - muffled
I didn't really follow all of that (mostly b/c I don't follow WMA), but WMA Std. sucks, always has. WMA Pro is where it is at in terms of best sound quality.
go to www.dbpoweramp.com and download dbpoweramp music converter next go to codec central and download WMA 9 Series codec and rip CD into WMA Pro , Voice, Standard - i like only WMA Pro in 64 Kb/s gives very very good audio quality - Standard Sucks
I wanted them to include it, but its just not supported enough to make it worth adding. Plus, it would confuse the basic WMP user when they get to choose from WMA, WMA Pro, WMA Lossless, WMA VB, and MP3.
