[wnmnkh]

I was playing with Windows Media Player 11 and in the rip section I found a new format has added called "Windows Media Audio Lossless"

I wonder how good it is.... it says mathematically lossless. Anyone has tried it?

 

[RockinOut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh I was playing with Windows Media Player 11 and in the rip section I found a new format has added called "Windows Media Audio Lossless" I wonder how good it is.... it says mathematically lossless. Anyone has tried it?

It's been around for quite a while.

Sounds fine to my ears compared to other lossless codecs.

 

[Jon L]

I don't hold it against WMA lossless format just b/c Windows Media Player is no good

It's just as good a lossless format as any other lossless format, and in fact it's necessary (for me) to turn Flac into Apple Lossless.

Flac-->WMA lossless via dBpoweramp
WMA-->Apple lossless via iTunes (the darn thing won't do it from Flac directly)

 

[CSMR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh I was playing with Windows Media Player 11 and in the rip section I found a new format has added called "Windows Media Audio Lossless" I wonder how good it is.... it says mathematically lossless. Anyone has tried it?

Compression's a bit better than FLAC. It takes some more processing power to decode. It also has good tagging, whereas to ensure you have good tagging with FLAC you need to become an expert on the subject. As with many of these free offerings by nerds.

 

[iSleipnir]

Boo! Hiss! Down with partisan lossless formats! We demand free file flexibility for all!

 

[wnmnkh]

I just tried the format.

It is slightly better than FLAC, but it takes very long time to encode. Well, since it is pretty much restricted in WMA... sitck to FLAC again..

 

[JaGWiRE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh I just tried the format. It is slightly better than FLAC, but it takes very long time to encode. Well, since it is pretty much restricted in WMA... sitck to FLAC again..

What do you mean slightly better then Flac? All lossless formats sound the same (duh.. that's why they are lossless), and at the same time the biggest differences in each format is 1.) support for portable players and 2.) encode / decode time and lastly 3.) Compression %.

 

[CSMR]

WMA lossless is not restricted in any way.

 

[wnmnkh]

I mean the compression ratio. I did several test and I could save average of 1mb~2mb. But it is not a big difference.

The problem I encounter is that the format is played only in WMA 11.... No foobar, no winamp. Well, the time will fix this, but it is not a good time to use the format.

 

[stevewm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSMR .......... It also has good tagging, whereas to ensure you have good tagging with FLAC you need to become an expert on the subject. As with many of these free offerings by nerds.

Not sure where you were going with this.....

FLAC's tagging is just as good as any other format. Don't see where you are required to become an "expert" on tagging when it comes to any format. Ease of use depends on the interface in the program you are using, not the format itself.

 

[JaGWiRE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh I mean the compression ratio. I did several test and I could save average of 1mb~2mb. But it is not a big difference. The problem I encounter is that the format is played only in WMA 11.... No foobar, no winamp. Well, the time will fix this, but it is not a good time to use the format.

Hydrogenaudio has a wiki I believe comparing the compression % of each format. Flac is the universal lossless format at this point.

 

[CSMR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevewm Not sure where you were going with this..... FLAC's tagging is just as good as any other format. Don't see where you are required to become an "expert" on tagging when it comes to any format. Ease of use depends on the interface in the program you are using, not the format itself.

No it's not. If you don't become an expert you run the risk of the tags going at the start of the files without padding and having to rewrite the whole file when retagging. I have had this problem and have had to waste time waiting for the computer to retag AND studying how to fix the problem. Whereas WMA specifies a good tagging format.

 

[CSMR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaGWiRE Hydrogenaudio has a wiki I believe comparing the compression % of each format. Flac is the universal lossless format at this point.

WMA is more compressed than FLAC. There are several formats more compressed than FLAC. FLAC achieves a decent balance between compression and required processing power.

 

[CSMR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh I mean the compression ratio. I did several test and I could save average of 1mb~2mb. But it is not a big difference. The problem I encounter is that the format is played only in WMA 11.... No foobar, no winamp. Well, the time will fix this, but it is not a good time to use the format.

WMA is played in foobar, both old and new.

 

[JaGWiRE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSMR WMA is more compressed than FLAC. There are several formats more compressed than FLAC. FLAC achieves a decent balance between compression and required processing power.

Er, I didn't argue about flacs compression. I think that wavpack has some of the best compression.