[dag655321]

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.

 

[J-Pak]

Who said WMA lossless wasn't "true" lossless? Ask about it on HydrogenAudio you won't have one person telling you it's not lossless

 

[Twombly]

I noticed recessed highs and severe bass degradation using WMA Lossless. To me, FLAC is simply warmer and more sparkly.

 

[Helter Skelter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twombly I noticed recessed highs and severe bass degradation using WMA Lossless. To me, FLAC is simply warmer and more sparkly.

Which makes zero sense to me if they're both truly lossless (as they are).

I call placebo effect.

 

[RedLeader]

agreed, if you're using the same audio player, how can 2 truly lossless files be different? It's technically impossible.

 

[DrewWinters]

It is possible that the playback of two lossless formats is different even if the information itself is all still intact. Do a mathmatical comparison of the .flac and .wma files and I'm sure you'll find that they are different, even if they are not different once converted.

Now, to be fair, this means that one or both of the conversion algorithms for .wma and/or .flac are simply incapable of reproducing accurately the sounds which have been accurately preserved.

Still, my guess is placebo effect as well. Sorry Twombly.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I may be completely wrong about this... is the audio output of the audio player in PCM format (i.e. .wav) or does it also have to convert PCM into whatever it outputs? If the former, then it would almost certainly result in the same output for either format. If the latter, then it would use a different conversion for each format - one or both of which could be simply inept at doing so even though the .wma/.flac -> .wav works perfectly. <shrug>

 

[Guust-Fi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter Which makes zero sense to me if they're both truly lossless (as they are). I call placebo effect.

Agreed, btw can anybody explain to me how some people claim to experience an improvement in audio quality after freezing there cd's?
Isn't this nonsense as well?

 

[dag655321]

Not to throw anyone under the bus, but this is what I was replying to:

http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=146041

scroll down to post #17.

 

[mkozlows]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twombly I noticed recessed highs and severe bass degradation using WMA Lossless. To me, FLAC is simply warmer and more sparkly.

And storing the files on a FAT filesystem leads to bloated bass, which is why I make sure to keep all my files on an NTFS filesystem.

I also prefer SATA drives to IDE -- the music is a lot faster and transients are more responsive with SATA.

Whatever you do, though, don't use DDR (Double Data Rate) memory on your computer: It leads to a weird echoing resonance in the sound.

 

[Dave_M]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twombly I noticed recessed highs and severe bass degradation using WMA Lossless. To me, FLAC is simply warmer and more sparkly.

You're just being sarcastic aren't you? Maybe you were listening to .wma files that were not lossless. Does the lossless WMA have the same file extension, anyone?

 

[Dave_M]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkozlows Whatever you do, though, don't use DDR (Double Data Rate) memory on your computer: It leads to a weird echoing resonance in the sound.

You should try using RDRAM from the early P4 systems. It gives the music a lovely warm, full bodied tone

 

[skudmunky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkozlows And storing the files on a FAT filesystem leads to bloated bass, which is why I make sure to keep all my files on an NTFS filesystem. I also prefer SATA drives to IDE -- the music is a lot faster and transients are more responsive with SATA. Whatever you do, though, don't use DDR (Double Data Rate) memory on your computer: It leads to a weird echoing resonance in the sound.

ROFL! Funniest post I've read in a while!

 

[RedLeader]

see, DDR may introduce a resonance, but the sibilance with SD is painful to say the least. If you use DDR2, the bass is INCREDIBLE!

 

[J-Pak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twombly I noticed recessed highs and severe bass degradation using WMA Lossless. To me, FLAC is simply warmer and more sparkly.

Statements like this are why Headfi'ers are laughed at on other forums

 

[elmoe]

lol. Yeah, format doesn't change anything at all as long as its lossless, just as there is no real and unreal lossless, if its lossless its lossless lol