Reviews of Microsoft Windows Media Encoder

1. 
   Somnambulator

   Reviewing 9.0 Beta (Sep 21, 2002)

   after encoding, ogg wins handsdown. wma's compression and quality is good, if not great. cd-quality IS between 64-96kbps. ogg's is around 64. ogg is def better, BUT OGG TAKES ALMOST 3 TIMES LONGER TO ENCODE! wma is fine for me. plus, try burning any ogg file to cd and have it play in a cd player...most new mp3-enabled players now support wma.
2. 
   jrepin

   Reviewing 9.0 Beta (Sep 20, 2002)

   I also think Ogg Vorbis is the right format for the future. It is the best quality format there is and is also very advanced. I like the ability to peel Ogg Vorbis. That means you don't have to reencode if you would like to convert a higher quality Ogg Vorbis file to lower quality one. Tags are also made better in ogg Vorbis then in MP3. And being completely free format is very important nowdays as big corporations are trying to limit us as much as they can with their propriatery formats laws written by them.
3. 
   Cobra_PL

   Reviewing 9.0 Beta (Sep 20, 2002)

   OGG (http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/) is better tah WMA9
   1) OGG files can be both played an encoded on WIN9X, 2000, XP, linux, bsd, mac. WMA9 Encoder works on w2k and XP only :(
   2) OGG is free for commercial and private use
   3) OGG needs less CPU power than any WMA
   4) OGG has better quality (compare WMA9 vs OGG 40 Kbps(!) )
4. 
   Peltec

   Reviewing 9.0 Beta (Sep 20, 2002)

   All I can say is that the 96Kbps .wma is *Damn Good*.

Discuss Microsoft Windows Media Encoder

1. Oct 25, 2009 - 7:46 AM
   charmingirl

   This program is nearly a 5. It's useful, quick, and simple. It's a great way to store all your lists and bits of info. sexy costumessexy LingerieGreat improvements over ver. 1.6! Keep it going, author, but don't add too much fluff!