| Author |
Topic: RealAudio G2 vs. Windows Media Player |
Rich Paton
From:
Santa Maria, CA.,
|
Posted 17 Feb 2000 2:31 am |
|
I was checking out an audio feed (via V90 dial-up, connected @ 48000) using RAG2, and noticed that the station offerd it in Windows Media Player also. I tried it just for the halibut.
The RA feed had the typical scratchy, narrow bandwith tone, but on the WMP, the sound was outstanding, approaching that of the FM receiver in my stereo system. From 3 1/2" Yamaha "computer" speakers!
Is this due to server-side issues, or is the Media Player format thatmuch better?
Thanks up front, Rich |
|
|
|
Jay Ganz
From:
Out Behind The Barn
|
Posted 17 Feb 2000 8:09 am
|
|
I found the Windows Media Player consistantly
better also (soundwise & picturewise). |
|
|
|
Dan Tyack
From:
Olympia, WA USA
|
Posted 17 Feb 2000 11:12 pm
|
|
I don't work for Microsoft anymore....
But the codec is much superior to the RA equivalent, especially for low bandwidth audio.
Plus the player doesn't send back information to the company about what I am listening to, or give me marketing messages about upgrading every time I use it, or silently installing 10 MB of audio jukebox software when I upgrade the player, or display advertising on every clip, and it doesn't claim all possible audio and video formats, and it doesn't break my system when I uninstall it.
(if you can't tell, I'm not a fan of the Real player).
------------------
www.tyacktunes.com |
|
|
|
Rich Paton
From:
Santa Maria, CA.,
|
Posted 17 Feb 2000 11:58 pm
|
|
| Thanks! I hope more websites adopt it. This technology boggles the mind. I started playing with audio toys back when only the military could afford buy a tranistor. Nowadays you can get a Creative AWE-64 for $10! Go figger! |
|
|
|
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 18 Feb 2000 6:00 pm
|
|
I refuse to use RealPlayer anymore. Too much advertising and spam! They always want you to upgrade, too.
Windows Media Player is a no-nonsense application. I like it.
------------------
-b0b-  ... click www.b0b.com/products
-System Administrator |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 18 Feb 2000 6:55 pm
|
|
I find that the Windows Media player is superior in sound quality, but files take almost twice as long to download if you copying online. And they take up a lot more disk space than the RA player files. I'd have to say it's a toss up as to which one to use.
Both are far from perfect! |
|
|
|
Jim Smith
From:
Midlothian, TX, USA
|
Posted 18 Feb 2000 8:58 pm
|
|
| Will the Windows Media Player play Real Audio files? |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 19 Feb 2000 5:29 pm
|
|
| Jim, I just tried it...no, it will not! |
|
|
|
Rich Paton
From:
Santa Maria, CA.,
|
Posted 19 Feb 2000 7:48 pm
|
|
So far, the MediaPlayer files have downloaded faster for me.
I still have 4 1/2 Gbyte left on a 6 Gbyte
HDD, with all the pre-installation software I use, and every file I've ever saved stored on it. I'm not sweating the drive space.... YET
Yes, I keep backups of it all. Wanna take a guess why?...LOL, but not at the time of the crashes! |
|
|
|
