Unfair EULA

  • Thread starter Sebastian Mares
  • Start date
S

Sebastian Mares

Hello!

As most of you know, there are several audio codecs available today: MP3,
Ogg Vorbis, AAC, WMA, Musepack, etc. Often, there are also more encoders
available that encode to a specific format. For example, you can use Nero
Digital, iTunes or Coding Technologies encoders to create AAC bitstreams. MP3
can also be encoded by LAME, Shine, Blade Encoder, etc. Being an audio
enthusiast and wanting to know which codec and encoder delivers the best
sound quality at a given bitrate, I started to run blind listening tests.
Because these tests are ran blindly, the testers cannot rate MP3 higher than
WMA for example just because they are MP3 zealots or WMA haters - the tester
doesn't know which sample he is listening to. Moreover, the tester cannot
pretend to hear artifacts if he isn't able to pass an ABX test, For example,
if he manages to tell apart sample A from sample B 8 times one after another,
we can almost say for sure that there really is an audible difference between
the two samples. If you want to read more about blind tests, especially about
the ABC/HR or ABX method, there are several documents which you can find with
Google or whatever search engine you prefer.

Probably you are asking yourself now what this has to do with Windows Vista.
Windows Vista and Windows Media Player 11 introduced a new WMA encoder - WMA
9.2 and WMA 10. Even before Microsoft launched these two products to the
public, they published the results of a listening test comparing HE-AAC
against WMA:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/codecs/Comparison.aspx
Microsoft claims that the test was also done blindly and that WMA had a
higher rating that HE-AAC. While in my opinion this test was unfair, since
Microsoft instructed NSTL which settings to use and also provided a very
recent encoder, NSTL didn't discuss the settings with the Nero Digital
developers and also didn't ask for the most recent version of the HE-AAC
encoder. Not wanting to believe the results, especially since listening tests
in the past showed that WMA was often worse than AAC, I could hardly wait for
Windows Vista or Windows Media Player 11 to become available in order to run
my own test. However, the EULA of both Windows Vista and WMP 11 state that I
am not allowed to publish benchmark results without having a written
permission from MS to do so. Not wanting to violate the EULA, I started to
get in touch with several MS developers and also with the licensing
department. Half of the e-mails I sent remained unanswered, for a quarter of
them I received some standard replies that MS is checking the issue
internally and that someone would get in touch with me ASAP and another
quarter contained some vague information that the encoder is still beta and
that it can change at any time and might still contain bugs. Well, the given
arguments are very weak. Nero AG, LAME developers, Vorbis developers etc.
also made beta encoders available for such tests and didn't fear that the
outcome of the result might harm their image. I am also very upset that while
I am not allowed to disclose results of my own tests, Microsoft still has the
results of their test online - most likely using the same beta encoder I want
to use and which might be buggy as well.
I think that with this attitude towards audio enthusiasts and possible
future customers Microsoft is doing more harm than by allowing me to publish
the results of the test. Such test are not made to harm a company - they can
be very helpful. LAME and Nero got tuned because of such listening tests.

I really hope that someone from Microsoft who is responsible for WMA or for
licenses will get in touch with me.

Regards,
Sebastian
 

My Computer

Z

Zack Whittaker

Try submitting this to the Sentiments site - they'd love to hear your
feedback:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=55160

--
Zack Whittaker
» ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
» MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org
» Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk
» This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not
of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared
that up!

--: Original message follows :--
"Sebastian Mares" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
> Hello!
>
> As most of you know, there are several audio codecs available today: MP3,
> Ogg Vorbis, AAC, WMA, Musepack, etc. Often, there are also more encoders
> available that encode to a specific format. For example, you can use Nero
> Digital, iTunes or Coding Technologies encoders to create AAC bitstreams.
> MP3
> can also be encoded by LAME, Shine, Blade Encoder, etc. Being an audio
> enthusiast and wanting to know which codec and encoder delivers the best
> sound quality at a given bitrate, I started to run blind listening tests.
> Because these tests are ran blindly, the testers cannot rate MP3 higher
> than
> WMA for example just because they are MP3 zealots or WMA haters - the
> tester
> doesn't know which sample he is listening to. Moreover, the tester cannot
> pretend to hear artifacts if he isn't able to pass an ABX test, For
> example,
> if he manages to tell apart sample A from sample B 8 times one after
> another,
> we can almost say for sure that there really is an audible difference
> between
> the two samples. If you want to read more about blind tests, especially
> about
> the ABC/HR or ABX method, there are several documents which you can find
> with
> Google or whatever search engine you prefer.
>
> Probably you are asking yourself now what this has to do with Windows
> Vista.
> Windows Vista and Windows Media Player 11 introduced a new WMA encoder -
> WMA
> 9.2 and WMA 10. Even before Microsoft launched these two products to the
> public, they published the results of a listening test comparing HE-AAC
> against WMA:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/codecs/Comparison.aspx
> Microsoft claims that the test was also done blindly and that WMA had a
> higher rating that HE-AAC. While in my opinion this test was unfair, since
> Microsoft instructed NSTL which settings to use and also provided a very
> recent encoder, NSTL didn't discuss the settings with the Nero Digital
> developers and also didn't ask for the most recent version of the HE-AAC
> encoder. Not wanting to believe the results, especially since listening
> tests
> in the past showed that WMA was often worse than AAC, I could hardly wait
> for
> Windows Vista or Windows Media Player 11 to become available in order to
> run
> my own test. However, the EULA of both Windows Vista and WMP 11 state that
> I
> am not allowed to publish benchmark results without having a written
> permission from MS to do so. Not wanting to violate the EULA, I started to
> get in touch with several MS developers and also with the licensing
> department. Half of the e-mails I sent remained unanswered, for a quarter
> of
> them I received some standard replies that MS is checking the issue
> internally and that someone would get in touch with me ASAP and another
> quarter contained some vague information that the encoder is still beta
> and
> that it can change at any time and might still contain bugs. Well, the
> given
> arguments are very weak. Nero AG, LAME developers, Vorbis developers etc.
> also made beta encoders available for such tests and didn't fear that the
> outcome of the result might harm their image. I am also very upset that
> while
> I am not allowed to disclose results of my own tests, Microsoft still has
> the
> results of their test online - most likely using the same beta encoder I
> want
> to use and which might be buggy as well.
> I think that with this attitude towards audio enthusiasts and possible
> future customers Microsoft is doing more harm than by allowing me to
> publish
> the results of the test. Such test are not made to harm a company - they
> can
> be very helpful. LAME and Nero got tuned because of such listening tests.
>
> I really hope that someone from Microsoft who is responsible for WMA or
> for
> licenses will get in touch with me.
>
> Regards,
> Sebastian
 

My Computer

G

Guest

That's like testing which AM radio station puts
out the best signal. Frankly, they are all bad.
48 kbps, no matter how much you polish it, for
music is terrible (for those with normal hearing).

SM- [Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:27:01 -0700]:
>Microsoft claims that the test was also done blindly and that WMA had a
>higher rating that HE-AAC.


Would you expect it to have published a different
outcome? AM radio is still AM radio (polished, or
not). Anyway, what exactly do you think is going
to happen to you if you do "benchmark" this? Just
do it. Publish from the netherlands, host it on
a site in china, and use godaddy's domain-by-proxy
registration. Oh, you already are? hahah

--
40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
iPlay : the ultimate audio player for mobiles
parametric eq, xfeed, reverb; all on a mobile
 

My Computer

S

Sebastian Mares

In that case, I would love to have you in my listening test. Obviously, you
have no idea what you're talking about and most likely come to this
conclusion based on experience with MP3 or WMA Standard.

"[email protected]" wrote:

> That's like testing which AM radio station puts
> out the best signal. Frankly, they are all bad.
> 48 kbps, no matter how much you polish it, for
> music is terrible (for those with normal hearing).
>
> SM- [Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:27:01 -0700]:
> >Microsoft claims that the test was also done blindly and that WMA had a
> >higher rating that HE-AAC.

>
> Would you expect it to have published a different
> outcome? AM radio is still AM radio (polished, or
> not). Anyway, what exactly do you think is going
> to happen to you if you do "benchmark" this? Just
> do it. Publish from the netherlands, host it on
> a site in china, and use godaddy's domain-by-proxy
> registration. Oh, you already are? hahah
>
> --
> 40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
> iPlay : the ultimate audio player for mobiles
> parametric eq, xfeed, reverb; all on a mobile
>
 

My Computer

Z

zachd [MSFT]

"Sebastian Mares" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
> I think that with this attitude towards audio enthusiasts and possible
> future customers Microsoft is doing more harm than by allowing me to
> publish
> the results of the test. Such test are not made to harm a company - they
> can
> be very helpful. LAME and Nero got tuned because of such listening tests.


(said as a friend with respect...)

You actually undercut your argument there - LAME and Nero can tune their
code because they got data. There is no value to LAME or Nero to have
results of beta code tests published. So if your argument is that you want
to improve the WMA codecs, you would simply supply that data to the
Microsoft contacts you're dealing/communicating with. There's no particular
**unique** value in what you're doing. It's interesting, but it's just as
interesting - if not much more - when the released / final version of the
codecs come out.

An MVP requested I redirect you - I don't do that kind of thing ever (I need
the bridges I have and cannot overtax those), but I pointed out that
Zambelli hangs out on the doom9 forums and Amir hangs out on the AVSForums
.... forums.

I do not believe you will find any value or response on your quest from any
non-SDK-specific newsgroups- I simply don't believe that anyone you want to
talk to pays much/any attention to these newsgroups. And even then, Doom9
or AVSForums probably are light years better choices.


Fiiiiinnnnnnaalllllly: bear in mind that everyone you're dealing with is
really busy. I respect this may be a top project for you, but those cats
you're attempting to get in touch with are juggling a lot of things as Vista
moves on closer to release. They're all good people, but I work at
Microsoft and know that I've got cut them slack when I deal with because
they've got so very much to do on their place. *shrug* - that's just a
little insight I thought might be helpful. I've got mails going back months
that I haven't had time to deal with. It's there and I'll get to 'em in
time, but -- there's a lot of priorities to deal with. =)

-Zach
--
Windows Media Development Team (speaking for myself only)
See http://zachd.com/pss/pss.html for some helpful WMP info.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 

My Computer

G

Guest

he-aac has lots of distortion. If you need
others to hear this for you, you shouldn't be
conducting the test. hah You wouldn't expect
a guy with glasses that magnify his eyes several
times to conduct a sight test, would you? I
think you should step down and let someone that
has decent hearing do this (if it must be done).

Just kidding guy, but he-aac does sound very
bad. I know you nero-fans over on ha think
it's great to see how small you can get your
lossy files, but you have to draw the line
when distortion becomes so obvious. he-aac,
at least from what I've heard out of nero
(which frankly, never works the same way
between releases, and never seems to get
better, only different), is a waste. Maybe
for those that are hearing impaired? Sure.
Just like I don't expect a leagally-blind guy
to care if a jpeg is high-quality or not, I
don't expect the hearing-impaired guy to care
about the quality of his music files.

SM- [Thu, 8 Jun 2006 23:53:02 -0700]:
>In that case, I would love to have you in my listening test. Obviously, you
>have no idea what you're talking about and most likely come to this
>conclusion based on experience with MP3 or WMA Standard.


Obviously.

--
40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
iPlay : the ultimate audio player for mobiles
parametric eq, xfeed, reverb; all on a mobile
 

My Computer

S

Sebastian Mares

Again, I would like to point out that it seems that you have no idea what you
are talking about.
As listening test conductor, I can be deaf, my hearing is not important at
all. My job is to set up the testing programs, to encode the samples, to
collect the results, process them and then publish the results. It's the
other people who do the testing. Some people have excellent hearing (like
guruboolez on Hydrogenaudio), some don't. After the test is over, there are
several tools that are used in order to say with confidence that codec A is
better then B.

Also, of course there will always be people who will notice artifacts more
than others, but it always comes down to how many people notice them. Someone
with good ears might say that MP3 at 128 kbps is crap, however, the majority
of the users encode to 128 kbps because for the majority, there is no big
difference between the source and the target.

"[email protected]" wrote:

> he-aac has lots of distortion. If you need
> others to hear this for you, you shouldn't be
> conducting the test. hah You wouldn't expect
> a guy with glasses that magnify his eyes several
> times to conduct a sight test, would you? I
> think you should step down and let someone that
> has decent hearing do this (if it must be done).
>
> Just kidding guy, but he-aac does sound very
> bad. I know you nero-fans over on ha think
> it's great to see how small you can get your
> lossy files, but you have to draw the line
> when distortion becomes so obvious. he-aac,
> at least from what I've heard out of nero
> (which frankly, never works the same way
> between releases, and never seems to get
> better, only different), is a waste. Maybe
> for those that are hearing impaired? Sure.
> Just like I don't expect a leagally-blind guy
> to care if a jpeg is high-quality or not, I
> don't expect the hearing-impaired guy to care
> about the quality of his music files.
>
> SM- [Thu, 8 Jun 2006 23:53:02 -0700]:
> >In that case, I would love to have you in my listening test. Obviously, you
> >have no idea what you're talking about and most likely come to this
> >conclusion based on experience with MP3 or WMA Standard.

>
> Obviously.
>
> --
> 40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
> iPlay : the ultimate audio player for mobiles
> parametric eq, xfeed, reverb; all on a mobile
>
 

My Computer

S

Sebastian Mares

Hey Zach!

I also talked to Zambelli and he is doing his best to get in touch with
someone from the licensing department or whatever. I also saw his posts on
Doom9 (actually, Ivan from Nero told me about his reply on D9). I didn't
visit AVSForums, though.

Anyways, your argument about testing beta software... If you say that it's
so useless, how come Microsoft has no problem publishing the results of the
HE-AAC vs. WMA test? Why is it suddenly unimportant that beta software was
used? And about the testing methods - Microsoft got in touch with NSTL and
told them exactly which settings to use and also provided them with an
encoder that wasn't available to the public at that time, while NSTL didn't
consider asking Nero (IIRC, they used the Nero HE-AAC encoder) which settings
to use and also didn't ask Ivan / Gian-Carlo / Juha / Menno if a newer
encoder is available?
While I agree that testing final products is more important, testing beta
encoders is also useful because I doubt that dramatic changes in quality are
going to happen. Such tests at least show the direction of the development.
If you have a look at Hydrogenaudio, you will see that there are a lot of
people who are interested to see how the new WMA codec performs. And as I
mentioned already, having the results can also help MS to improve their
codec. If it wasn't the large crows to scream for tabbed browsing and RSS
feeds, I doubt MS would've implemented it in IE 7. You say that if I want to
help MS, I should send the results. I can do that, but what is so wrong if
others also know what MS has / is been working on? Like I said before, the
thing that upsets is most is not that I am no allowed to publish the results,
but that you are given some arguments that suddenly don't apply when
Microsoft is publishing them. "WMA is great, but dare you try to test
yourself or we will sue you." What kind of attitude is that?

I understand that MS employers are busy, but several months passed already
and I am not asking for a lot.

BTW, why do I always get to see "An error occurred while sending your post"
after posting? Happens with both Firefox 1.5 and IE 7 Beta.

"zachd [MSFT]" wrote:

>
> "Sebastian Mares" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]
> > I think that with this attitude towards audio enthusiasts and possible
> > future customers Microsoft is doing more harm than by allowing me to
> > publish
> > the results of the test. Such test are not made to harm a company - they
> > can
> > be very helpful. LAME and Nero got tuned because of such listening tests.

>
> (said as a friend with respect...)
>
> You actually undercut your argument there - LAME and Nero can tune their
> code because they got data. There is no value to LAME or Nero to have
> results of beta code tests published. So if your argument is that you want
> to improve the WMA codecs, you would simply supply that data to the
> Microsoft contacts you're dealing/communicating with. There's no particular
> **unique** value in what you're doing. It's interesting, but it's just as
> interesting - if not much more - when the released / final version of the
> codecs come out.
>
> An MVP requested I redirect you - I don't do that kind of thing ever (I need
> the bridges I have and cannot overtax those), but I pointed out that
> Zambelli hangs out on the doom9 forums and Amir hangs out on the AVSForums
> .... forums.
>
> I do not believe you will find any value or response on your quest from any
> non-SDK-specific newsgroups- I simply don't believe that anyone you want to
> talk to pays much/any attention to these newsgroups. And even then, Doom9
> or AVSForums probably are light years better choices.
>
>
> Fiiiiinnnnnnaalllllly: bear in mind that everyone you're dealing with is
> really busy. I respect this may be a top project for you, but those cats
> you're attempting to get in touch with are juggling a lot of things as Vista
> moves on closer to release. They're all good people, but I work at
> Microsoft and know that I've got cut them slack when I deal with because
> they've got so very much to do on their place. *shrug* - that's just a
> little insight I thought might be helpful. I've got mails going back months
> that I haven't had time to deal with. It's there and I'll get to 'em in
> time, but -- there's a lot of priorities to deal with. =)
>
> -Zach
> --
> Windows Media Development Team (speaking for myself only)
> See http://zachd.com/pss/pss.html for some helpful WMP info.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>
>
 

My Computer

S

Sebastian Mares

I just read my initial post again and would like to apologize for my words -
it really wasn't clear who is actually testing. By reading the first post,
one would think that I am doing the testing, but I am not. The test is done
by a lot of people (usually 20 to 30, sometimes more, sometimes less). Then
all results are collected and evaluated using various tools for analysis
(result validation, ANOVA analysis...).

"[email protected]" wrote:

> he-aac has lots of distortion. If you need
> others to hear this for you, you shouldn't be
> conducting the test. hah You wouldn't expect
> a guy with glasses that magnify his eyes several
> times to conduct a sight test, would you? I
> think you should step down and let someone that
> has decent hearing do this (if it must be done).
>
> Just kidding guy, but he-aac does sound very
> bad. I know you nero-fans over on ha think
> it's great to see how small you can get your
> lossy files, but you have to draw the line
> when distortion becomes so obvious. he-aac,
> at least from what I've heard out of nero
> (which frankly, never works the same way
> between releases, and never seems to get
> better, only different), is a waste. Maybe
> for those that are hearing impaired? Sure.
> Just like I don't expect a leagally-blind guy
> to care if a jpeg is high-quality or not, I
> don't expect the hearing-impaired guy to care
> about the quality of his music files.
>
> SM- [Thu, 8 Jun 2006 23:53:02 -0700]:
> >In that case, I would love to have you in my listening test. Obviously, you
> >have no idea what you're talking about and most likely come to this
> >conclusion based on experience with MP3 or WMA Standard.

>
> Obviously.
>
> --
> 40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
> iPlay : the ultimate audio player for mobiles
> parametric eq, xfeed, reverb; all on a mobile
>
 

My Computer

Z

zachd [MSFT]

"Sebastian Mares" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
> Hey Zach!


Howdy Sebastian. =)

> I also talked to Zambelli and he is doing his best to get in touch with
> someone from the licensing department or whatever. I also saw his posts on
> Doom9 (actually, Ivan from Nero told me about his reply on D9). I didn't
> visit AVSForums, though.


Yeah, Zambelli is a great guy. I figured he'd be a much better person to
talk to here.

> Anyways, your argument about testing beta software... If you say that it's
> so useless, how come Microsoft has no problem publishing the results of
> the
> HE-AAC vs. WMA test? Why is it suddenly unimportant that beta software was
> used?


I would never really take a position on any of the above. I'm interested in
the technical angles of issues, but find debating the "why" to generally not
be an interesting way to spend my time.

Abstractly, it makes sense to me that a company would say "Hey, this is
where our beta is at!" and then wait to let everybody really break the codec
down come RTM. If you saw some of the stupid things that linger for years
after 3rd parties write random things about betas, it would drive you crazy.
It makes my life more difficult, at the least.

But again: this isn't an area that I care about, know about, nor have an
emotional or intellectual investment in. =)

> I understand that MS employers are busy, but several months passed already
> and I am not asking for a lot.


You would be really surprised. You should talk to some of my friends, who
are pretty much ready to never talk to me again. =P Let alone work - if
you're not key to what they have to accomplish at work, you will probably be
put on the back burner. Given that Vista is right around the corner, you're
probably pretty low on the priority list. After all, in a short while you
don't even need to worry about this. =)

> BTW, why do I always get to see "An error occurred while sending your
> post"
> after posting? Happens with both Firefox 1.5 and IE 7 Beta.


No idea. I don't use the web newsreader - I think that's an abomination.
=)

-Zach
--
Windows Media Development Team (speaking for myself only)
See http://zachd.com/pss/pss.html for some helpful WMP info.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 

My Computer

G

Guest

Here are the facts:

- He-aac is low quality, distotion is easily heard

That's all one needs to know.

But, since you main goal is to get some
visibility, I'll oblige.

Three weeks and still no one to do your test?
What's new there? People that care about the
quality are not going to bother -- they already
know what sounds good (and don't use two-dollar
ear pods, either, which is about all I ever see
those taking these HA tests ever seem to have).

48 kbps he-aac or whatever is frankly, pathetic.
Why would you even bother? It's like seeing how
small you can get your jpegs before it looks like
this morning's breakfast, hurled!

Good luck with your test. You should have stopped
at 128 and gone home. haha

--
40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
iPlay : the ultimate audio player for mobiles
parametric eq, xfeed, reverb; all on a mobile
 

My Computer

G

Guest

GIGO

SM- [Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:56:01 -0700]:
>all results are collected and evaluated using various tools for analysis
>(result validation, ANOVA analysis...).


--
40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
iPlay : the ultimate audio player for mobiles
parametric eq, xfeed, reverb; all on a mobile
 

My Computer

S

Sebastian Mares

It contains arifacts, yes. MP3 at 320 kbps also contains artifacts. As I
said, it all comes down to how many people hear those artifacts and how
annoying they are. If you want to do audio streaming or want to listening to
your tracks on a mobile phone in a noisy environment, such as train stations
or whatever, I doubt you want to have FLAC, WavPack or any other lossless
files with you. I think you are familiar with my other test since you
mentioned it. As you can see, at 128 kbps there is no winner because all
codecs sound more or less the same. At least judging by what the mass said.
This guruboolez on the other hand was able to tell apart various codecs.
Heck, he was also able to recognize Vorbis blindly because of the typical
artifacts it produces. For me, even at 112 or 96 kbps all sound the same.
The point of this test is to find out if 48 kbps really produce some
crap-sounding files or if the quality is good enough for streaming and / or
mobile use. Of course nobody at home would plug his 48 kbps tracks into his
Onkyo or whatever stereo and listen to them in a "music room".

"[email protected]" wrote:

> Here are the facts:
>
> - He-aac is low quality, distotion is easily heard
>
> That's all one needs to know.
>
> But, since you main goal is to get some
> visibility, I'll oblige.
>
> Three weeks and still no one to do your test?
> What's new there? People that care about the
> quality are not going to bother -- they already
> know what sounds good (and don't use two-dollar
> ear pods, either, which is about all I ever see
> those taking these HA tests ever seem to have).
>
> 48 kbps he-aac or whatever is frankly, pathetic.
> Why would you even bother? It's like seeing how
> small you can get your jpegs before it looks like
> this morning's breakfast, hurled!
>
> Good luck with your test. You should have stopped
> at 128 and gone home. haha
>
> --
> 40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
> iPlay : the ultimate audio player for mobiles
> parametric eq, xfeed, reverb; all on a mobile
>
 

My Computer

S

Sebastian Mares

Greetz!

> I would never really take a position on any of the above. I'm interested in
> the technical angles of issues, but find debating the "why" to generally not
> be an interesting way to spend my time.


Well, me too. However, I find it unfair that one set of rules apply to users
and another set of rules apply to developers or publishers. If Microsoft
thinks that its beta software is not "mature" enough for tests, I don't think
they should publish results of a test ran with exactly that software either.
It's natural that people want to have a proof, especially since the winner
comes from the own company.

"zachd [MSFT]" wrote:

>
> "Sebastian Mares" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]
> > Hey Zach!

>
> Howdy Sebastian. =)
>
> > I also talked to Zambelli and he is doing his best to get in touch with
> > someone from the licensing department or whatever. I also saw his posts on
> > Doom9 (actually, Ivan from Nero told me about his reply on D9). I didn't
> > visit AVSForums, though.

>
> Yeah, Zambelli is a great guy. I figured he'd be a much better person to
> talk to here.
>
> > Anyways, your argument about testing beta software... If you say that it's
> > so useless, how come Microsoft has no problem publishing the results of
> > the
> > HE-AAC vs. WMA test? Why is it suddenly unimportant that beta software was
> > used?

>
> I would never really take a position on any of the above. I'm interested in
> the technical angles of issues, but find debating the "why" to generally not
> be an interesting way to spend my time.
>
> Abstractly, it makes sense to me that a company would say "Hey, this is
> where our beta is at!" and then wait to let everybody really break the codec
> down come RTM. If you saw some of the stupid things that linger for years
> after 3rd parties write random things about betas, it would drive you crazy.
> It makes my life more difficult, at the least.
>
> But again: this isn't an area that I care about, know about, nor have an
> emotional or intellectual investment in. =)
>
> > I understand that MS employers are busy, but several months passed already
> > and I am not asking for a lot.

>
> You would be really surprised. You should talk to some of my friends, who
> are pretty much ready to never talk to me again. =P Let alone work - if
> you're not key to what they have to accomplish at work, you will probably be
> put on the back burner. Given that Vista is right around the corner, you're
> probably pretty low on the priority list. After all, in a short while you
> don't even need to worry about this. =)
>
> > BTW, why do I always get to see "An error occurred while sending your
> > post"
> > after posting? Happens with both Firefox 1.5 and IE 7 Beta.

>
> No idea. I don't use the web newsreader - I think that's an abomination.
> =)
>
> -Zach
> --
> Windows Media Development Team (speaking for myself only)
> See http://zachd.com/pss/pss.html for some helpful WMP info.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>
>
 

My Computer

Top