PDA

View Full Version : WMA Lossless



slaktefjes
2008-08-30, 04:28
Hello,

I have ripped my cd's with window media player in the wma lossess format.
But when I try to play the files, nothing happends.
It works with wav, flac, mp3 etc....

I'm using Squeezebox Duet and have SqueezeCenter 7.0.1 on a QNAP TS-209.

Is there anyone eles that got the same problem?

Thomas N

bpa
2008-08-30, 04:37
WMA Lossless has to be transcoded by the server as it is not a native format.

For servers using x86 based processors transcoding is possible (e.g.Windows libraries can be used by application such as mplayer). Your server is not an x86 based systems and so no transcoding is possible.

Jeff Flowerday
2008-08-30, 11:06
Even if transcoding was supported your NAS probably doesn't have enough power to do it on the fly.

pbhatt
2008-08-30, 11:51
Just purchased and setup the ReadyNas Duo - only to discover that it cannot stream WMA lossless to my Transporter. Looks like I've wasted my time and money on this initiative. The goal was to store my entire music collection (which is primarily WMA lossless) on the NAS and eliminate the need to have the PC on. Didn't do enough homework...

Any suggestions as far as NAS devices that can transcode WMA lossless? Or will I just need to run SqueezeCenter from my PC? Thanks.

andyg
2008-08-30, 11:52
WMA lossless transcoding requires the server to be running Windows. I would recommend FLAC. :)

pbhatt
2008-08-30, 12:06
In hindsight, FLAC may have been a better choice; I was also considering compatability with my Zune player. Unless there is an efficient/accurate way to convert WMAL to FLAC, I'd rather not re-rip my collection.

Given that HP MediaSmart Server is based on Windows Home Server, would that be able to stream WMAL?

andyg
2008-08-30, 12:08
In hindsight, FLAC may have been a better choice; I was also considering compatability with my Zune player. Unless there is an efficient/accurate way to convert WMAL to FLAC, I'd rather not re-rip my collection.


The good thing about lossless is you can transcode between different formats with no quality loss.



Given that HP MediaSmart Server is based on Windows Home Server, would that be able to stream WMAL?

Yes.

bpa
2008-08-30, 12:10
Any suggestions as far as NAS devices that can transcode WMA lossless?


Use one of the small Atom powered PC MSI Wind PC or Asus EEE Pc B202 running XP and attach a disk via USB.

Alternatively A DIY mini-ITX system.

The Thecus N5200 is a NAS with an x86 processor so it can be setup to decode WMA lossless but you would have to illegally copy some Windows DLLs onto Thecus.

pfarrell
2008-08-30, 12:22
pbhatt wrote:
> Any suggestions as far as NAS devices that can transcode WMA lossless?
> Or will I just need to run SqueezeCenter from my PC?

NAS devices are more trouble than they are worth, IMHO. You don't need
to run it on your main PC, just "a pc", which can be built from junk
parts, or be a modern low energy thing with a Via or Intel Atom CPU.

If you check the forum history, there are zillions of posts from folks
trying to use an underpowered NAS what was no cheaper than a real PC
which will work a lot better.

Even a dual core CPU designed for laptop uses is far more than a
SqueezeCenter needs

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

sebp
2008-08-30, 13:33
Pat,

DIY units are better, but there are zillions of posts out there where people don't want to / simply cannot set up a dedicated machine for running SqueezeCenter, so a NAS device is not a so stupid device to run SC on.


Thomas,

Ask Google for Windows software that can convert to FLAC from WMA lossless.
There are plenty.

pfarrell
2008-08-30, 13:49
sebp wrote:
> DIY units are better, but there are zillions of posts out there where
> people don't want to / simply cannot set up a dedicated machine for
> running SqueezeCenter, so a NAS device is not a so stupid device to run
> SC on.

A NAS is just a computer. If you run a NAS, you are running a computer.
If you don't want to build your own, a $300 PC from BestBuy is more than
enough. And it comes with a guarentee.

But a NAS is designed to serve as a file storage, its limited by design
and purpose. That some folks can get SqueezeCenter to run on some of
them does not mean its a good general solution.

The general solution, robust and inexpensive, is to use a cheap computer.

pbhatt
2008-08-30, 14:43
I can see the logic of going with a cheap PC vs. a NAS. However, if you're going to have the cheap PC running 24/7, why not just stick with using your main PC as the media server (assuming sufficient hard drive / memory) and use a cheap external hard drive for backup (which is what I'm doing now)? However, this still doesn't address my issue with microwaving while streaming (since my PC is connected wirelessly)...

Goodsounds
2008-08-30, 15:50
I agree completely with the common sense in the previous two posts. The earlier posts herein are thoughtful and helpful too.

I would observe that techie types are overrepresented in these forums. Suffice it to say, for these products that we all love (I think) to be very successful, they need to be user friendly for the general population. I think they are. But, keep that in mind when offering advice, consider who the reader is, and that they may be looking simply for plug and play solutions.

So, as a non-techie myself, I say to the questions at hand:

1. Yes, forget this NAS baloney, who cares about learning linux to get software to run on something with the computing power of an instant-read thermometer.

2. Yes, a $300 computer, or some junker, will supply a lifetime of music without requiring a lifetime of tinkering with it to work.

3. Yes, using a computer you already have, that is already turned on, is a fine idea. It will work great.

4. Yes, I have my hard hat on, I'm ready for incoming artillery.

Oh, and Yes, your sound streams will be better if you buy more take-out, eat more sandwiches, or just do less cooking (in general) with your microwave.

ModelCitizen
2008-08-30, 16:13
The earlier posts herein are thoughtful and helpful too.....
I would observe that techie types are overrepresented in these forums....
Suffice it to say....
I say to the questions at hand....

Would you mind if I asked where you learnt English?

MC

Goodsounds
2008-08-30, 16:33
Sure, no problem, it's right opposite my name on the posting. Cal is short for California, not Calzone.

How about you?

Mnyb
2008-08-31, 01:14
A dedicated server (be it junk or new built) has another advantage.
It's a very stable environment once running you don't install to much other junk on it. So it will not for example crash due to an illegal game copy your teen is installing and so.. on :)
And you may do some cpu intensive stuff with your main PC sometimes, and possible load it so much the SC get no priority.

atrocity
2008-08-31, 10:27
But a NAS is designed to serve as a file storage, its limited by design
and purpose. That some folks can get SqueezeCenter to run on some of
them does not mean its a good general solution.

The general solution, robust and inexpensive, is to use a cheap computer.

I like both: I run SqueezeCenter on a Linux box, but store the files on a NAS so they're available everywhere on the network.

Phil Leigh
2008-08-31, 10:46
I agree completely with the common sense in the previous two posts. The earlier posts herein are thoughtful and helpful too.

I would observe that techie types are overrepresented in these forums. Suffice it to say, for these products that we all love (I think) to be very successful, they need to be user friendly for the general population. I think they are. But, keep that in mind when offering advice, consider who the reader is, and that they may be looking simply for plug and play solutions.

So, as a non-techie myself, I say to the questions at hand:

1. Yes, forget this NAS baloney, who cares about learning linux to get software to run on something with the computing power of an instant-read thermometer.

2. Yes, a $300 computer, or some junker, will supply a lifetime of music without requiring a lifetime of tinkering with it to work.

3. Yes, using a computer you already have, that is already turned on, is a fine idea. It will work great.

4. Yes, I have my hard hat on, I'm ready for incoming artillery.

Oh, and Yes, your sound streams will be better if you buy more take-out, eat more sandwiches, or just do less cooking (in general) with your microwave.

Not sure about the sandwiches, but I have to agree with the shining beacon of sanity that is this post. Why don't people get that a "NAS" (at least the sort of NAS we are discussing here) is merely half a PC without the useful bits like a method of data entry or a method of display?

Leaving aside green issues and the fact that a NAS and a PC can be made to consume similar amounts of power, I just don't understand why anyone wants to run an application on something that was originally designed to be a slightly-more-intelligent-than-average disk drive...

Phil Leigh
2008-08-31, 10:48
I like both: I run SqueezeCenter on a Linux box, but store the files on a NAS so they're available everywhere on the network.

Wow - another blindingly sensible post! - yes that's what a NAS is designed to be...a file server, not an App Server.

sebp
2008-08-31, 10:53
I like both: I run SqueezeCenter on a Linux box, but store the files on a NAS so they're available everywhere on the network.
So do I.
I'm running SC on both a Mac (so that I can use MusicIP) and a NAS (so that I can listen to my music even when the Mac's off, ie at night).
I could have gone the silent-PC-as-NAS way, but it's like PERL : "there's more than one way to do it". ;)

atrocity
2008-08-31, 19:50
Wow - another blindingly sensible post! - yes that's what a NAS is designed to be...a file server, not an App Server.

The approach also allows the best of both worlds: I find that SqueezeCenter runs infinitely better on an underpowered Linux box than it did on my allegedly more powerful Windows box, but I'm far more comfortable with the manipulation tools (ripping, tagging, etc.) on Windows.