dag655321
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Posts
- 253
- Likes
- 0
Yup thats right, and I did the test to prove it. I needed to, just to convince myself that I had not wasted a whole lot of time ripping 100+ CDs to the WMA Lossless format. I have read a lot of posts claiming that WMA Lossless was not truly lossless, and I just cold not stand not knowing for sure. So here is how I conducted the test.
I used Easy CD-DA extractor to rip a song into a .wav file on my computer. I then converted the .wav file (also using Easy CD-DA) into a WMA lossless and a .flac file (just for reference). I then used Winamp 5.0."whatever the latest version is", to convert the WMA lossless and .flac files back into .wav files. I then loaded the three .wav into Matlab and did a mathematical comparison. I checked the WMA against the .wav and the .flac against the .wav. The result was a 100% bit for bit perfect copy in each case. I could not find a single point in either the WMA lossless or the .flac file that differed from the original .wav file. If that is not a truly Lossless codec, then I don't know what is.
Not that anyone cares, but the reason I use WMA lossless is threefold. Number one, it can be played back on any PC using something simple like Winamp or even windows media player without needing a plugin. Second, Nero can burn audio CDs directly from WMA lossless files, so I do not need to reconvert them to .wavs to make a CD. Third, iTunes will automatically convert WMA lossless files to any of the iPod compatible formats, so I can move music onto my iPod without having to re-rip them. Therefore IMO WMA Lossless is the most useful lossless codec.
I used Easy CD-DA extractor to rip a song into a .wav file on my computer. I then converted the .wav file (also using Easy CD-DA) into a WMA lossless and a .flac file (just for reference). I then used Winamp 5.0."whatever the latest version is", to convert the WMA lossless and .flac files back into .wav files. I then loaded the three .wav into Matlab and did a mathematical comparison. I checked the WMA against the .wav and the .flac against the .wav. The result was a 100% bit for bit perfect copy in each case. I could not find a single point in either the WMA lossless or the .flac file that differed from the original .wav file. If that is not a truly Lossless codec, then I don't know what is.
Not that anyone cares, but the reason I use WMA lossless is threefold. Number one, it can be played back on any PC using something simple like Winamp or even windows media player without needing a plugin. Second, Nero can burn audio CDs directly from WMA lossless files, so I do not need to reconvert them to .wavs to make a CD. Third, iTunes will automatically convert WMA lossless files to any of the iPod compatible formats, so I can move music onto my iPod without having to re-rip them. Therefore IMO WMA Lossless is the most useful lossless codec.