2004 at 128 kbit/s showed that WMA was roughly equivalent to LAME MP3; inferior to AAC and Vorbis; and superior to ATRAC3 (software version). Some studies concluded: At 32 kbit/s, WMA Standard was noticeably better than LAME MP3, but not better than other modern codecs in a collective, independent test in July 2004. At 48 kbit/s , WMA 10 Pro was ranked second after Nero HE-AAC and better than WMA 9.2 in an independent listening test organized and supported by Sebastian Mares and Hydrogenaudio Forums in December 2006. This test, however, used CBR for WMA 10 Pro and VBR for the other codecs. At 64 kbit/s, WMA Pro outperformed Nero HE-AAC in a listening test commissioned by Microsoft but independently performed by the National Software Testing Labs in 1999. Out of 300 participants, "71% of all listeners indicated that WMA Pro was equal to or better than HE AAC." However, a September 2003 public listening test conducted by Roberto Amorim found that listeners preferred 128 kbit/s MP3 to 64 kbit/s WMA audio with greater than 99% confidence. At 80 kbit/s and 96 kbit/s, WMA had lower quality than HE-AAC, AAC-LC, and Vorbis; near-equivalent quality to MP3, and better quality than MPC in individual tests done in 2005. At 128 kbit/s, there was a four-way tie between aoTuV Vorbis, LAME MP3, WMA 9 Pro and AAC in a large scale test in January 2006, with each codec sounding close to the uncompressed music file for most listeners. At 768 kbit/s, WMA 9 Pro delivered full-spectrum response at half the bit rate required for DTS in a comparative test done by EDN in October 2003. The test sample was a 48 kHz, 5.1 channel surround audio track. Criticism of claimed quality Microsoft's claims of WMA sound quality have frequently drawn complaints. "Some audiophiles challenge Microsoft's claims regarding WMA's quality", according to a published article from EDN. Another article from MP3 Developments wrote that Microsoft's claim about CD-quality audio at 64 kbit/s with WMA was "very far from the truth". At the early stages of WMA's development, a representative from RealNetworks claimed that WMA was a "clear and futile effort by Microsoft to catch up with RealAudio 8". Microsoft has sometimes claimed that the sound quality of WMA at 64 kbit/s equals or exceeds that of MP3 at 128 kbit/s (both WMA and MP3 are considered near-transparent at 192 kbit/s by most listeners).