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

    • Segra 1.6.2 by Razvan Serea Segra is a free, open-source OBS-powered game recorder offering fast gameplay capture, instant clips, AI highlights, deep game integration, and seamless uploads—perfect for gamers, streamers, and content creators. Lightweight, fast, zero bloat. Segra key features: Automatic Game Recording: Begin capturing gameplay the moment your game launches, with zero manual setup. Instant Clipping: Save important moments instantly using a customizable hotkey—perfect for highlights, montages, or quick shares. Segra AI Highlights: Let Segra automatically detect kills, assists, deaths, and key events to generate polished highlight reels without manual editing. Gameplay Uploads: Upload recordings and clips directly to Segra.tv for fast sharing and cloud access. Deep Game Integration: Enjoy advanced game-data tracking across hundreds of supported titles, enabling smart highlight generation and stat-informed clipping. High-Performance Capture: Record up to 4K at 144 FPS using OBS-powered technology with minimal performance impact, supporting NVENC, AMD VCE, and custom quality controls. Segra Editor: Edit recordings easily with timeline controls, segment management, and event-based navigation to build the perfect clip. Customization Options: Adjust hotkeys, output formats, storage paths, codecs, capture quality, and performance settings for a tailored recording experience. Segra 1.6.2 changelog: UI: Improved the transition from the loading skeleton to the real content card. Security: Added Segra.dll code signing and automatic VirusTotal upload. Settings: Fixed the settings header to highlight Account when scrolled to the top. Recording: Updated OBSKit.NET to 1.4.1. Download: Segra 1.6.2 | 74.5 MB (Open Source) View: Segra Homepage | Github | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Hey Google, these are the Gemini features I want in 2026 by Aditya Tiwari Google Gemini has been around for over three years. The AI chatbot started its journey back in 2023 (as Bard) when ChatGPT was already a talk of the town. However, it quickly attracted criticism after misrepresenting facts about the James Webb Space Telescope. The search giant spent a year fine-tuning Bard before rebranding the chatbot and its underlying generative AI model to Gemini, drawing inspiration from NASA's first human spaceflight program. Note that Bard was initially powered by LaMDA and PaLM 2; Google has since added several new features and integrations to Gemini. That said, there is scope for improvement and a gap for new features. I have been using Gemini for a while now and have realized that the chatbot lacks several features, making it harder for me to research across topics. These are mostly function-over-form updates that can improve the overall experience. Delete individual messages from a conversation Image via DepositPhotos.com One good thing about Gemini is that it can maintain context throughout the conversation. But things might get chaotic when you want to ask a related question, but don't want it to be part of your conversation in the long run. You can't ask that related question in a fresh chat because Gemini will lose the active conversation context of what you're trying to research. If Google allowed you to delete individual question/answer pairs, you could simply ask about a sub-topic and remove it from the conversation to create a smooth flow of important stuff. Offline mode Image via DepositPhotos.com A big pain of using Gemini daily is that everything loads from the cloud. It takes time for your chats to appear, and you can't view your conversation history while offline. To get a better idea, you can open the Gemini app and see how it looks without an internet connection. While Gemini models run in the cloud, it wouldn't hurt if Google could store chats (at least the text part) on the device so we can refer to them when offline. Google can also offer a lightweight version of its AI model to help with basic drafting, summarization, and other tasks. It has the Gemini Nano model, which can perform on-device processing on Google Pixel, Samsung, and some other Android brands, but it's a system feature and not related to the cloud-based Gemini app. Make temporary chats permanent I can't thank Google enough for taking the time and effort to add incognito mode or temporary chat mode to the Gemini app. It lets you have conversations without worrying that the topics will end up in your chat history or used for model training (at least on paper). Google claims that it doesn't use your temporary chats to "personalize your Gemini experience or train Google’s AI models." However, the data is stored "up to 72 hours to respond to you and to process any feedback you choose to provide." That said, I often start researching something in a temporary chat, only to realize the chatbot's answer is good enough to refer to later. Sadly, Gemini doesn't have an option to make such temporary chats permanent. In other words, I won't be able to follow up on it if I close the temporary chat. I'm left with alternatives like copying the answers into notes or another app. My digital life will get a lot better if Gemini gets a button to make temporary chats permanent. Collapse answers for a cleaner view You're heavily invested in your research game and suddenly feel the need to go up in the chat to recall something. This is when the conversation thread starts to feel like an overwhelming, unending wall of questions and answers. What if Google added a way to collapse Q&A pairs in the Gemini chat thread? It would look quite clean and easy to navigate. You'll quickly get an overview of everything you have discussed with the chatbot. Add buttons to jump between messages Suggested mockup of the feature. This reminds me of a small but useful Gemini feature that Google could add to its chatbot: the ability to hop between prompts in a conversation. Just add simple up- and down-arrow buttons, similar to YouTube Shorts, so people can quickly scroll through the messages. A table of contents or Chat Overview It's hard to get a bird's-eye view of everything you have discussed with the chatbot during a lengthy conversation. This is where a table of contents, or Chat Overview, displayed at the top of the screen, possibly in a drop-down button, might come in handy. You'll be able to get an overview of the chat and jump between messages, serving as an alternative to the up/down arrow buttons. Temporary mode for Gemini Live Image: Google You can use Gemini Live to have real-time conversations with the chatbot, which feels like you're talking to someone in the same room. However, a downside is that Gemini Live doesn't work in Temporary Chat mode, so all your conversations end up in the chat history. Google should consider expanding the temporary chat mode to include Gemini Live. Default to a specific chat One thing that feels somewhat annoying to me is that Gemini always opens in a new chat, whether on web or mobile. Sometimes, you want to return to your last chat. Google can take cues from web browsers, which let you choose whether you want to go to a new tab or a specific web page(s). Gemini can also have options to default to a specific chat when reopened. That said, generative AI chatbots have endless possibilities given the vagueness of their work. You can mold them the way you want by attaching different connectors, adding custom instructions, and including source files. It remains to be seen what Google has in store for future updates and whether anything from this wishlist gets the green light. The search giant released a stream of new Gemini updates in recent months, including Gemini 3.5 Flash and Gemini Omni Spark, adding that it now has 13 products with more than a billion users each. What do you want to see in the Gemini app? Tell us in the comments.
    • Thank you for the post. Just a FYI that links to an outside site or promoting specific software is considered spamming here. Asking general questions is fine.
    • I have been thinking about AI detector tools as a software workflow rather than a single "AI score" widget. When someone pastes text or uploads a document, the UI can return a report with a probability-style score, sentence highlights, reliability notes, and limitations. The useful part is that it can point a reviewer toward passages worth reading again. The risky part is that a polished score can look more certain than it really is. For people who build or review web apps, what should happen before the user copies or exports that kind of report? The minimum I would expect is: A clear input boundary for pasted text versus document files. Limits shown near the workflow, including minimum text length and maximum file size. A report label that says the result is a signal, not proof of who wrote the text. Sentence highlights and evidence notes alongside the global score. Reliability notes when the sample is too short or lacks enough sentence variety. False-positive and false-negative caveats that remain visible in copied/exported summaries. I am trying to avoid the pattern where a clean report card becomes the whole product story. For AI detection, "review this evidence in context" seems more honest than "trust this score." Would you keep the warning text visible on every report, or make it collapsible so the main result stays easier to scan? Disclosure: I work on a small AI detector/reporting workflow, but I am intentionally not linking it here. I am asking about software and report design, not promoting a site.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      sumytbe earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      B4dM1k3 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      DarkWun earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      507
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      181
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      86
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!