WMA lossless

[davidslym]

Just how good is WMA lossless? I have 600 or so CDs in this format. I have looked at other highly reccomended lossless methods. However they all seem to require that I find other files to add to them. WMA is so easy. It is there in Media Player 11 and I just rip. Easy, am I being too lazy?

[funkstar]

have a look at some of the other WMA Lossless threads on here, there are quite a few.

Does anyone know how accurate WMP is at ripping CDs? If you are really concerned about being true to the original master, EAC and FLAC are your best bet. It does take some work, to you it might not be that important, to others it is vital.

[johann]

Note that EAC can rip to WMA lossless too, that will be as good as FLAC since lossless is lossless.

[Robin Bowes]

johann wrote:
> Note that EAC can rip to WMA lossless too, that will be as good as FLAC
> since lossless is lossless.

....except FLAc is played natively and WMA lossless must be transcoded.

R.

[mikeruss]

Use http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm very very easy to use and convert to FLAC - IMO. Once installed install http://www.dbpoweramp.com/codec-central-flac.htm

[bobschneider]

johann wrote:
> Note that EAC can rip to WMA lossless too, that will be as good as FLAC
> since lossless is lossless.

....except FLAc is played natively and WMA lossless must be transcoded.

R.

If both WMA and FLAC are losses, shouldn't there be no loss in the transcoding? If with either one you can reconstruct the original file bit for bit, why would transcoding change this? It will take more processor power, but I don't see any other downsides.

Now, transcoding lossy formats is another matter entirely...

[Mark Lanctot]

If both WMA and FLAC are losses, shouldn't there be no loss in the transcoding? If with either one you can reconstruct the original file bit for bit, why would transcoding change this? It will take more processor power, but I don't see any other downsides.

Downsides: no FF/REW. Also more complicated because you're running one or more other processes, so more to go wrong.

This is a problem for some and not for others though.

[johann]

johann wrote:
> Note that EAC can rip to WMA lossless too, that will be as good as FLAC
> since lossless is lossless.

....except FLAc is played natively and WMA lossless must be transcoded.

R.

And your point being?

[johann]

Downsides: no FF/REW. Also more complicated because you're running one or more other processes, so more to go wrong.

This is a problem for some and not for others though.

For use in other senses than Squeezebox, then WMA might have pros and FLAC uses and IMO, it should be considered where else in in what other formats I want to play my music.

For instance, iTunes convert songs to Apple lossless automatically if you want to and WMA plays natively in many many devices.

So for some WMA is better form some not.

[Robin Bowes]

johann wrote:
> Robin Bowes;181501 Wrote:
>> johann wrote:
>>> Note that EAC can rip to WMA lossless too, that will be as good as
>> FLAC
>>> since lossless is lossless.
>> ....except FLAc is played natively and WMA lossless must be
>> transcoded.
>>
>> R.
>
> And your point being?

.... that your statement "WMA lossless ... as good as FLAC" does not tell
the whole story.

Whether or not either format is "as good as" the other depends on other
factors.

For use with the Squeezebox or Transporter FLAC would seem to have the
upper-hand since it is decoded natively on the client device which means:

1. No transcoding on the server
2. FF/REW work
3. Reduced bandwidth usage (assuming WMA lossless is decoded to .wav)

R.