[project86]

I was given a demo CD from an aquaintance that contained files in WMA Lossless format. I've never really dealt with it, and am curious if anyone uses it, and what it's benefits are (if any). I have an older iRiver player that supports it.

I've been meaning to convert the files to FLAC and see if the size is significantly different, but haven't had a chance.

One interesting aspect is when you use WMP to sync the files to a player that doesn't support the format: It ends up converting them to 320K standard WMA, which is a format I've never heard of. I kind of like that feature. With FLAC, if you try to sync to a device that doesn't support it, you just get errors and no transfer happens. Other than that novelty I don't really see any benefit to it, but I am curious.

 

[crapback]

I use wma lossless for my zune120 and that's about the only reason. I'm going to do a little more research on the subject now that you got me thinking. You might find this interesting as well. I haven't really looked into lossless format comparisons much so this is a new read for me also.
Lossless comparison - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase

 

[SirDrexl]

It's probably close to other lossless codecs, just MS's proprietary version like Apple Lossless. As with any of them, compatibility will probably be the biggest factor in which to choose, but I like the open, free nature of FLAC.

One thing I don't like that I read about it was that it uses the same .WMA extension as the lossy .WMA. I like how you can see a file with a .FLAC extension and know that it's lossless. Plus, it gets a different icon, which I find helpful.

Here's a post on another forum: WMA-Lossless versus FLAC (and other lossless jargon) - Electric Mole Forums It looks like if you use MS's converter, they're locked down? That's not good.

 

[leftear]

The only reason like was said before, is if you have a zune. I rather use "WMA to MP3 Converter" programs when i found Wma files.

 

[Jon L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirDrexl /img/forum/go_quote.gif One thing I don't like that I read about it was that it uses the same .WMA extension as the lossy .WMA. I like how you can see a file with a .FLAC extension and know that it's lossless.

I get around that .wma extension issue by not having any lossy WMA files

I like the WMA lossless format myself, as it is comparable to Flac in sound quality and file size, etc. Another good reason to use it is if one uses Foobar 0.8.3 with Win XP. 24-bit Flac files created with the latest Flac versions are NOT playable on Foobar 0.8.3. Some of the 24bit/96kHz music files from HDTracks behave this way, so for these, I convert them to WMA Lossless 24 bit files via DBpoweramp.

 

[BluesDaddy]

I use WMA Lossless. My whole CD collection is ripped to WMA lossless for use on my Zune. Lossy I stick with MP3 for compatability reasons. I also keep them lossy and lossless on two different HDs.

 

[germanium]

WMA lossless here. Tried WMA VBR lossy compression & was worse than WMA or MP3 CBR lossy files in terms of low level linearity & was plainly audible even on my now defunct Zune player. This was true even at the highest bitrate of WMA VBR lossy files (over 400KB/s).I believe the WMA lossless is or is very near bit perfect. Some albums that I have have a very strong 19KHZ FM pilot signal that bleeds in on them from the studio & lossless WMA preserves this but none of the lossy formats tried preserves this signal.

Contrary to what some are saying I share lossless WMA files with my other computers all the time with no problem. They are not locked down that way. There is a small delay when using other programs other than WMP when scrolling to various points in a song. WMP does not have that delay so not everything that that article that was previously linked in this thread is true.

 

[Stoin]

Lossless is lossless so, as has already been pointed out, you pick whichever format works best for you. I don't like stuffing my HDD with both lossless (listening at home) and lossy formats (for portable use) and I find WMP works fine at transcoding when needed.

Plus, I like WMP more than the alternatives I've tried (and there are many) and it doesn't offer decent FLAC support (bit of a pain, but dBPower Amp can convert FLAC). I know that Foobar is meant to be better, but I've never got it to work for me. With Win7 I can use my laptop as a remote control for my media PC. Now where's that Archos 9 I want to use as a remote...

...oh, I'm broke and dont' have one. Yet.

 

[Deep Funk]

I'm playing with WMA at the moment. WMA 320 is only slightly better than WMA 128 to my ears. I tested it with some old Run DMC tracks. WMA 320 seams to have a lower volume output though.

WMA Lossless is very good. To my ears it's like listening to the CD. I'm playing John Mayer's 'Heart of Life.'

WAV Lossless is very good too. The same sensation Like WMA Lossless is hitting my ears. I'm playing Bootsy Collins' 'Body Slam.'

I'm using my MDR V6-es for sound. I prefer WMA Lossless by a slight margin. This requires some testing. (All the music came from the original CDs!)

 

[Prog Rock Man]

I have WMA and Apple Lossless on my laptop. I use both formats as I have had problems with itunes, so gave up and started importing onto WMP. I can hear no difference at all.

 

[somestranger26]

Quote:

Originally Posted by project86 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was given a demo CD from an aquaintance that contained files in WMA Lossless format. I've never really dealt with it, and am curious if anyone uses it, and what it's benefits are (if any). I have an older iRiver player that supports it. I've been meaning to convert the files to FLAC and see if the size is significantly different, but haven't had a chance. One interesting aspect is when you use WMP to sync the files to a player that doesn't support the format: It ends up converting them to 320K standard WMA, which is a format I've never heard of. I kind of like that feature. With FLAC, if you try to sync to a device that doesn't support it, you just get errors and no transfer happens. Other than that novelty I don't really see any benefit to it, but I am curious.

Lossless is lossless is lossless; FLAC and WMA Lossless filesizes are negligibly different.

 

[Deep Funk]

WMA Pro can be sweet from what I read. For my 'special music' I'll make a library in WMA Lossless or FLAC. WMA Pro could be enough for everything else.

I'll have to check it out. It is supposed to be lossy.