Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2

    WMA Lossless vs. FLAC

    There is a lot of buzz around FLAC format and I have to decide what format I am going to use:

    My criteria list is the following:

    1) Sound Quality
    2) Ease of use & Time for ripping
    3) Database for automatic file naming of ripped tracks
    4) Required space

    Any help highly appreciated.

  2. #2
    Senior Member opaqueice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    A place where something is or could be located; a site.
    Posts
    1,815
    Quote Originally Posted by VolkerR View Post
    There is a lot of buzz around FLAC format and I have to decide what format I am going to use:

    My criteria list is the following:

    1) Sound Quality
    2) Ease of use & Time for ripping
    3) Database for automatic file naming of ripped tracks
    4) Required space

    Any help highly appreciated.
    Sound quality is identical in any lossless format. Ripping time isn't affected very much either (because most of the time is the actual rip, not the encoding). Same goes for the database - that has nothing to do with what format you encode to. As for space, all lossless formats are more or less the same - roughly half the space required for WAV.

    So basically it doesn't matter much in any of those categories. What's probably more relevant is the software that supports it. If you want to use itunes, go with ALAC. If you like open source and don't care about itunes, use FLAC. If you like microsoft, use Windows media lossless.

    And remember that you can batch-convert all your files from one format to another more or less whenever you want, so it's really not that big of a deal...

  3. #3
    Senior Member pfarrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Wayne, PA
    Posts
    4,251

    WMA Lossless vs. FLAC

    VolkerR wrote:
    > There is a lot of buzz around FLAC format and I have to decide what
    > format I am going to use:
    >
    > My criteria list is the following:
    > 1) Sound Quality
    > 2) Ease of use & Time for ripping
    > 3) Database for automatic file naming of ripped tracks
    > 4) Required space


    You are combining the tool to rip with the format.

    No need to do that. Most tools can create any format you want.
    The sound quality of all lossless audio is the same.

    The database is not part of the compressed format, it is something read
    by the tool when doing the extraction of the audio data. Nearly all
    tools use CDDB or FreeDB to get data. They work well for pop/rock and
    less well for jazz, classical, etc.

    Space differences are not really meaningful, it varies as much by the
    actual tracks that you are compressing than it does between algorithms.
    And the algorithms are getting better, so over time you can expect all
    will tend to get more and more the same.


    It really becomes a religious issue. My belief is that FLAC is better.
    In part, because Josh, the inventor, frequents these forums.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,304
    I agree that FLAC compresses to 50% of WAV, is easy to encode/decode and has good tagging facilities like other lossless formats.

    On top of that, it is non-proprietary (http://flac.sourceforge.net/), has support on all major OS platforms and is supported by many devices (http://flac.sourceforge.net/links.html#hardware).
    Darren
    Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

    SB Touch

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Olde London Town
    Posts
    1,111
    >On top of that, it is non-proprietary<

    And that's what swings it for me. We've seen with the iPhone, Touch and Classic that Apple is now getting 'corporate' with all manner of DRM, digital signatures and embedded chips to control the use of their products. I wouldn't used ALAC and risk the lock-in to Apple (same as WMA with M$FT)

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    587
    I found ripping much easier with wmp.

    When ABing wma lossless and flac, I seem to remember flac being ever so slightly clearer, wma seemed to have a very slight boom to the bass in comparison IME with, my brain kit and ears

    Have a very carefull listen, if you can't hear a slight difference, as technically I read there is no difference, choose on the other factors


  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2

    Thank you all for your repsonses

    ... highly appreciated.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Deaf Cat View Post
    I found ripping much easier with wmp.

    When ABing wma lossless and flac, I seem to remember flac being ever so slightly clearer, wma seemed to have a very slight boom to the bass in comparison IME with, my brain kit and ears
    It's just the brain here, not the kit or ears. They're both lossless and result in exactly the same audio playback.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •