Unfair EULA

>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/win...omparison.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 - no way,
>they can also 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

> 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/win...omparison.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 - no
> way,
> they can also 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

> 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/win...omparison.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 - no
> way,
> they can also 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

>You should just freaking say whatever you want, I sure as heck would.

>I think it's a rouse to get interest in his
> test. Lack of volunteers, apparently, is
> his real beef. This he-aac thing is sort of
> like stereo AM radio -- interesting until you
> heard it and realized it's still not very good.
>
> aa- [Thu, 8 Jun 2006 23:14:30 -0700]:

> >You should just freaking say whatever you want, I sure as heck would.

>
> He's spam-posted this to other NG(s), so one
> can judge its merit on that alone.
>
> --
> 40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
> iPlay : the ultimate audio player for mobiles
> parametric eq, xfeed, reverb; all on a mobile