WMA 9.2 Lossless or WAV?


Recommended Posts

I'm looking to encode my CD collection but I want the highest quality and a format that'll play on any Windows based device without having to install any codecs, just not sure which one of the two I should choose? The research I've done seems to point to WAV but I figured I would see what you guys think.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1206173-wma-92-lossless-or-wav/
Share on other sites

FLAC *should* work fine. Is there a Windows RT device? If not, it *should* work depending on the app(s) used on PCs/tablets/phones.

The FLAC codec isn't baked in any version of Windows, it's one you must download and install and I'm looking to avoid that.

Ogg Vorbis is lossless as well and much smaller than wav, I just can't remember if it's supported by WMP by default. Now, if you're a purist and have HUGE amounts of space (almost endless if your collection is big), go for wav.

 

EDIT:

Forget what I said in the stroked through sentence, ogg IS lossy.

Edited by Gladiatorus

Ogg Vorbis is lossless as well and much smaller than wav, I just can't remember if it's supported by WMP by default. Now, if you're a purist and have HUGE amounts of space (almost endless if your collection is big), go for wav.

 

EDIT:

Forget what I said in the stroked through sentence, ogg IS lossy.

 

Go for FLAC. It's lossless as well, incredible format, and you cannot tell the difference from .wav files unless you want to dive into some audiophile mumbo-jumbo nonsense where the 0's and 1's aren't "aligned" the same way.

If you want a lossless format that'll play on any Windows device (I guess this includes RT and Phone) without having to install a codec, WMA Lossless is pretty much your only choice.  WAV wastes too much disc space and doesn't provide a distinct advantage.

 

However, WMA Lossless is a closed format and I would recommend you look into more open format that have wider community support.

I hate the guy with the WMA archive of music. I have to re-convert it all. If you plan to stick with windows for eternity and not share your archive with a non-windower, go for it.

 

Otherwise go flac. Its better because its supported on everything (requiring some codecs). DBPowerAmp is really powerful windows conversion software too. Theres a trade-off, If you go WAV you better have a LOT of disc space where if you go with a codec you don't.
 

I admire the lossless ambition, but is it going to benefit you? Maybe make a WMA, FLAC, WAV, MP3 and OGG and see which if any sound better/worse on your setup. Unless you have really high end gear lossless is like watching a bluray on a CRT.

Ogg Vorbis is lossless as well and much smaller than wav, I just can't remember if it's supported by WMP by default. Now, if you're a purist and have HUGE amounts of space (almost endless if your collection is big), go for wav.

 

EDIT:

Forget what I said in the stroked through sentence, ogg IS lossy.

.ogg is a container format which can contain lossless FLAC data.

Hey,


 


WMA Lossless fits exactly what you describe. You can convert raw WAV files into WMA Lossless files by using Expression Encoder. It might be out of support, but it is still better than coding your an app from scratch (or at least, faster to start the actual conversion process). However, support for it is quite limited, although yes, all Windows devices can play WMA Lossless. Link: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=27870


 


An alternative might be to use FLAC since it has good support on many devices, even by default (excluding Windows). But you can easily add support for it by installing third party media players (like MPC-HC on Windows, for example). You can get an encoder/decoder from here: http://www.rarewares.org/lossless.php Just use the simple "-8 -e -p -V -w --" command line parameters when encoding. You can automate this process by parsing files through a simple .NET desktop app, shortcuts, batch files, etc.


 


Personally, I use FLAC for archival and playback on my Windows devices, and 320kbps MP3s on my Windows Phone, since I doubt the ear buds that came with it are capable of reproducing the high quality audio that is usually present in lossless audio files.


I hate the guy with the WMA archive of music. I have to re-convert it all. If you plan to stick with windows for eternity and not share your archive with a non-windower, go for it.

 

Otherwise go flac. Its better because its supported on everything (requiring some codecs). DBPowerAmp is really powerful windows conversion software too. Theres a trade-off, If you go WAV you better have a LOT of disc space where if you go with a codec you don't.

 

I admire the lossless ambition, but is it going to benefit you? Maybe make a WMA, FLAC, WAV, MP3 and OGG and see which if any sound better/worse on your setup. Unless you have really high end gear lossless is like watching a bluray on a CRT.

Why would you need to convert someone else's archive of music ?

 

either way he needs it for all his devices, lie RT and WP in which WMA lossless is it. 

 

Also outside of idealistic (but it's not open waaaah) reasons, there's no reason to chose FLAC or monkey over WMA if WMA's suits his purpose. personally lossless is just an archive format anyway. sure you'll use it on devices that can directly access the archive like your computers, but when transferred to a mobile device you encode the lossless to a high quality MP3 or similar. 

 

however if the majority if your devices or even some of them are windows, then you might as well go for WMA as then you have the option of using the uncompressed files you you need to. and the WMA's work on all other devices as well. 

.ogg is a container format which can contain lossless FLAC data.

 

That's true, but it's primarily used for vorbis.  It sounds really great, too, and used to be my preferred lossy format, but since it never got widespread support I switched to aac.  Doesn't really matter, though; Windows can't read the ogg container without installing codecs, which defeats the purpose of the thread.

Thanks for all the advice guys! But... I'm even more confused because I wanted to see the size difference for myself and I got this.

post-11064-0-55636700-1395681239.jpg

The top is WMA 9.2 lossless at 96 kHz and 5.1 channel 24 bit VBR and the bottom is WAV uncompressed with all settings set to as source. What did I do to make the WMA lossless burn WAY bigger then the WAV? Shouldn't it of been the other way around?

Thanks for all the advice guys! But... I'm even more confused because I wanted to see the size difference for myself and I got this.

attachicon.gifUntitled.jpg

The top is WMA 9.2 lossless at 96 kHz and 5.1 channel 24 bit VBR and the bottom is WAV uncompressed with all settings set to as source. What did I do to make the WMA lossless burn WAY bigger then the WAV? Shouldn't it of been the other way around?

Do you really have 96Khz 5.1 24-bit audio CDs?  :huh: Upsampling will do nothing for you. Just use the same settings as the source, 44.1khz 16-bit stereo.

Do you really have 96Khz 5.1 24-bit audio CDs?  :huh: Upsampling will do nothing for you. Just use the same settings as the source, 44.1khz 16-bit stereo.

Indeed. Always rip as source, or else the rips aren't 1:1. 24/96 rips are usually that big, so there's your problem.

 

P.S. I have that CD too! But notice its total size in my music library - that's as a 1:1 perfect FLAC rip of my source CD.

 

post-102811-0-35891400-1395683158.png

post-102811-0-35891400-1395683158.png

Do you really have 96Khz 5.1 24-bit audio CDs?  :huh: Upsampling will do nothing for you. Just use the same settings as the source, 44.1khz 16-bit stereo.

I have a couple believe it or not but I have no idea why I was thinking of just leaving the setting on for everything haha. Needless to say when I turned it down it made a BIG difference taking the folder size down to 520 MB. I'm surprised though that WAV isn't much bigger, I might go with that.

Indeed. Always rip as source, or else the rips aren't 1:1. 24/96 rips are usually that big, so there's your problem.

 

P.S. I have that CD too! But notice its total size in my music library - that's as a 1:1 perfect FLAC rip of my source CD.

 

post-102811-0-35891400-1395683158.png

They were such great albums!!!

My FLAC's only 3MB smaller than your WAV - that's not bad at all actually! :D

 

Indeed, especially that Crawlspace track... err Sevendust track before they called themselves Sevendust. :p I need to find the original soundtrack album in my collection but I need to know where I misplaced my CDs.  :wacko:

My FLAC's only 3MB smaller than your WAV - that's not bad at all actually! :D

 

Indeed, especially that Crawlspace track... err Sevendust track before they called themselves Sevendust. :p I need to find the original soundtrack album in my collection but I need to know where I misplaced my CDs.  :wacko:

Got to love mid 90's industrial rock haha.

Personally, I would go with an opensource lossless codex, such as flac.

It's not built in to windows, but there's codec's / players for just about every device.

On Windows, I perfer http://www.xiph.org/dshow/ and you get full flac support in WMP, and more (Ogg, Vorbis / Google's WebM) formats.

 

The one exception would be WindowsRT / Windows Phone given how new (relatively) it is. 

 

Apple also released an opensource, lossless codec called ALAC but outside of Apple products, doesn't seem to be taking off. 

http://alac.macosforge.org/

 

And as other's pointed out, Microsoft has it's Lossless WMA, as well, but it's not open source.

Personally, I would go with an opensource lossless codex, such is flac.

It's not built in to windows, but there's codec's / players for just about every device.

 

The one exception would be WindowsRT / Windows Phone given how new (relatively) it is. 

 

On Windows, I perfer http://www.xiph.org/dshow/ and you get full flac support in WMP, and more (Ogg, Vorbis / Google's WebM) formats.

I do agree, but in this case the size differences between compressed FLAC and uncompressed WAV may not ultimately matter... as long as Synthetic has the hard drive space for it. :p Honestly, he's probably on the right track now. :) The only issue I can think of, if I remember right, is WAV and its support of ID3 metadata and embedded album art but like I said, I can't remember.

Got to love mid 90's industrial rock haha.

Indeed. I need to find some new stuff, heh. *goes and listens to some Ministry*

I do agree, but in this case the size differences between compressed FLAC and uncompressed WAV may not ultimately matter... as long as Synthetic has the hard drive space for it. :p Honestly, he's probably on the right track now. :) The only issue I can think of, if I remember right, is WAV and its support of ID3 metadata and embedded album art but like I said, I can't remember.

Indeed. I need to find some new stuff, heh. *goes and listens to some Ministry*

Yeah I feel pretty good now going with WAV. Thanks a ton as always guys! I think I'll be hitting up some Skinny Puppy myself.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Spotify really have turned in to a butthole of a company. Assuming this isn't a bug then this is a low act for Premium users. Honestly, YT Premium which includes YT Music is a genuine alternative. In any event, the internet enshitification continues unabated...next up, the banning of VPN's.
    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!