lossless format

[Guest]

Mike


Let me see if I can show a little more RESPECT for you as you seem to
have for others, I realize you are madly in LOVE with yourself, but just what
is STRAWMAN? TROLL LIKE? Wasting your time? My God I have wasted my time on a
person who has an Uneducated Music ear, Zero Knowledge about sound, and wants
to impress people by putting dabs of knowledge with Tons Of B.S.
Here in the States yoi8u are referred to as a B.S. Artist. If you can't
defend with better facts and less Generalizations and can not help yourself
from getting into silly bashinggames, YOU are the one wo wis wasting people's
time.
I have no doubt I have probably forgotten more about sound reproduction
and preservation than you know, think you know or will know.

Good Day
I was hoping I could learn something from you, I DID NOT...... You are NOT
even close to be someone who could teach your answers lacked substance and
definations and were at BEST Generalizations.

 

[Guest]

Hey Mike read this, guess the Real Audiophiles prefer WAv over WMA but for
choice AC-97.

"Most websites that discuss audio compression talk about MPEG, AC-97
and other types of compression. They get very little -- if at all --
into WMAs."

"I tried encoding to 32 KBPS, 44.1 KHz, mono, decreasing volume to
where it is just recognizable by WMA file, and then amplifying it back
to normal. The arftifacts are kinda interesting there."

"WMA is a "perceptual encoder". It analyses audio, figures out
where the tones are and which tones are most important to the
perceieved sound and then stores these while throwing away
the reset.

I have Adobe Audition 1.0. I generate a silent file. I save it as WMA
20 kbps, 44.1 KHz, mono. I convert file this to WAV and then back to
WMA several times. I make my last conversion to WMA and save it. I
then open this WMA file. Finally I increase the volume of the audio in
the WMA file and play. Intrigueing tones result. These tones are
typical in low bit-rate, high-sample rate WMA files.

Considering how a perceptual encoder works, I do not find this
suprising. I would expect similar results with MP3 and Ogg Vorbis
codecs."


"WMA is part of Microsoft's .ASF family. The encoding/decoding algoritms are
concidered "secret" and are known to Microsoft employees only."



The artifacts are are result of the lossy encoding method used by WMA
files. No fruitful comparison can be made between the lossy encoding
of WMA and low bit rate PCM."

 

[Mike Williams]

Hey Mike read this, guess the Real Audiophiles prefer WAv over WMA but for
choice AC-97.

Like most of my earlier posts, you haven't comprehended the article
either as it talks about producing a lossy compressed WMA file (similar
to an MP3 file), not about making a Lossless WMA file.

 

[Guest]

Mike

That is where yoiu are wrong, I have read many articles on the subject and
WMA is NOT favored by any of them and the only thing any one was able to
find GOOD about it, is it has pleasant tones in the quiet passages where WAV
is noisy. That is it. do you know what DBX expanders and Compressors are and
what they are used for? I thought not.
Many articles talk about how it is NOT an Accurate reproduction.
I will also tell you at this time that if you would study the difference
betwen an Analog Sine WAVE and a digitail WAVE, maybe you will be able to
get thru your hard head what I am trying to convene to you. WMA in my
opinion is NOT the way to go. Maybe YOU should reread what I have written and
stop loving your own narrow minded responses. There REALLY is NO such thing
as any ACCURATE DIGITIAL REPRODUCTION. For people who are willing to settle
for less then you can argue with them. Good ANALOG is by far better than the
VERY BEST DIGITIAL, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that . LPs had a
far better Frquency response than any Digitial File that you can create. I
defy you , to find one. The only reason why CDs made the appearance that they
did was that they were cheaper, for most people had NO clue (like you)
between the cheap conical Needles and the Expenesive Nude Shabitas and how
to balance a tone arm or get the right tracking angles. They also did not
know how to isolate Turntable rumble or what caused it, so CDs were the
popular CHEAP choice and the conveninece came later, but ACCURACY has NEVER
been a strong point of CD or digiitial. Yes! it is betterthan the 1 7/8' IPS
Automotive Cassettes that Cds have replaced, yes! they are less cumbersome
than te 8-track and less likely to get tangled. No! they are NOT better than
VHS-HiFi but do enable you to embed much more onto the disk than was able to
be embedded on Tape. As far as sound, NO COMPARISION.
At this point I am convinced i am communicating with a very limited
individual who has zero knowledge about sound and is Hell bent on WMA
reproduction, you enjoy yourself and your tone deaf reproductions. Someday
maybe you will have a chance to listen to some real Music reproduction and it
will most certainly NOT be from a computer.

P.S. the last post you replied to was NOT from a single source, it was a
compilation from several sources. Nice try though.....

 

[Mike Williams]

That is where yoiu are wrong, I have read many articles on the subject and
WMA is NOT favored by any of them and the only thing any one was able to
find GOOD about it, is it has pleasant tones in the quiet passages where WAV
is noisy. That is it.

I see you're changing the subject again.

do you know what DBX expanders and Compressors are and

what they are used for? I thought not.

Do you realize you're talking to yourself in this paragraph? Perhaps not.

Many articles talk about how it is NOT an Accurate reproduction.

Such as....?

I will also tell you at this time that if you would study the difference
betwen an Analog Sine WAVE and a digitail WAVE, maybe you will be able to
get thru your hard head what I am trying to convene to you.

You've backed down to the point where you're saying you shouldn't be
using WAV files at all, because they're digital. CDs have digitally
encoded audio PERIOD.

 

[Guest]

Mike
Craig A. wrote:
That is where yoiu are wrong, I have read many articles on the subject
and WMA is NOT favored by any of them and the only thing any one was able to
find GOOD about it, is it has pleasant tones in the quiet passages where WAV
is noisy. That is it.

I see you're changing the subject again.

“ I am? How is that? You did not like it when I told Chuck to use Wav and
you insisted he used WMA, so how is this statement changing the subject? Are
you out of school yet? “

do you know what DBX expanders and Compressors are and what they are used
for? I thought not.

Do you realize you're talking to yourself in this paragraph? Perhaps not.

“If you do not know what they are, Yup! Then I am talking to myself and you
openly admit you are NOT a sound expert in the least bit…LOL, do you know the
difference between a Graphic Equalizer or a Paramteric Equalizer? How about
S/N or adjacent image rejection, THD, flat response etc etc? â€

Many articles talk about how it is NOT an Accurate reproduction.

Such as....?

“ Most websites that discuss audio compression talk about MPEG, AC-97 and
other types of compression. They get very little -- if at all --into WMAs.â€

I will also tell you at this time that if you would study the difference
betwen an Analog Sine WAVE and a digitail WAVE, maybe you will be able to
get thru your hard head what I am trying to convene to you.

You've backed down to the point where you're saying you shouldn't be
using WAV files at all, because they're digital. CDs have digitally
encoded audio PERIOD.

“ I am saying there is NO ACCURATE digitial reproduction of Audio, only a
compromise, BUT if you are going to do a back up of Audio and it is of a CD
collection (wav) then I would suggest, regardless of what the Computer Geeks
swear, DO NOT convert any more than you have to and if you do NOT have to,
DONâ€T. SO stay with WAV, have a more universal accepted format and one that
can easily be played on any Car Audio etc as it is with out another
conversion. You may feel you do not lose anything in a conversion, I say you
do. I have NOT changed my position and it seems you have stopped trying to
give info and all you are doing now is barking at the Moon. How old are you?
Have you reached puberty yet?â€

 

[Mike Williams]

Mike
Craig A. wrote:
That is where yoiu are wrong, I have read many articles on the subject
and WMA is NOT favored by any of them and the only thing any one was able to
find GOOD about it, is it has pleasant tones in the quiet passages where WAV
is noisy. That is it.

I see you're changing the subject again.

“ I am? How is that? You did not like it when I told Chuck to use Wav and
you insisted he used WMA, so how is this statement changing the subject? Are
you out of school yet? “

do you know what DBX expanders and Compressors are and what they are used
for? I thought not.

Do you realize you're talking to yourself in this paragraph? Perhaps not.

“If you do not know what they are, Yup! Then I am talking to myself and you
openly admit you are NOT a sound expert in the least bit…LOL, do you know the
difference between a Graphic Equalizer or a Paramteric Equalizer? How about
S/N or adjacent image rejection, THD, flat response etc etc? â€

Many articles talk about how it is NOT an Accurate reproduction.

Such as....?

“ Most websites that discuss audio compression talk about MPEG, AC-97 and
other types of compression. They get very little -- if at all --into WMAs.â€

I will also tell you at this time that if you would study the difference
betwen an Analog Sine WAVE and a digitail WAVE, maybe you will be able to
get thru your hard head what I am trying to convene to you.

You've backed down to the point where you're saying you shouldn't be
using WAV files at all, because they're digital. CDs have digitally
encoded audio PERIOD.

“ I am saying there is NO ACCURATE digitial reproduction of Audio, only a
compromise, BUT if you are going to do a back up of Audio and it is of a CD
collection (wav) then I would suggest, regardless of what the Computer Geeks
swear, DO NOT convert any more than you have to and if you do NOT have to,
DONâ€T. SO stay with WAV, have a more universal accepted format and one that
can easily be played on any Car Audio etc as it is with out another
conversion. You may feel you do not lose anything in a conversion, I say you
do. I have NOT changed my position and it seems you have stopped trying to
give info and all you are doing now is barking at the Moon. How old are you?
Have you reached puberty yet?â€

I think I'm old enough to have grand-children better qualified to
respond to this inanity. Since you haven't taken the time to check
anything properly, I think a killfile is the bets place for you. Bye!

 

[Guest]

Maybe you should have one of your Grand-children respnd then......

You have offered nothing to re-inforce your statements other than try to
insist that I am wrong. I offer my logic and you call me a Strawman and or
Troll, I have yet to hear anything from you that would be considered even
close to a debate.
So with the lack of any support from you other than a few statements about
this file versus that file, you have offered nothing in support of preserving
Accurate Audio, people who know a little about computers are like Guitar
Players who think they are also Audio Experts.
BYE

 

[zachd [MSFT]]

Your comparison is slightly confused: you're comparing the psychoacoustic
compression (lossy) offered by MP3 and "WMA Standard" (lossy) with
(presumably) "lossless" PCM WAV. Those are totally different markets. If
you want "best sound reproduction", lossless WMA does the mathematically
exact same job as PCM WAV, except that lossless WMA does it more
efficiently. That's actually not arguable, since it's mathematically
provable that lossless WMA when uncompressed provides a bit-perfect
rendering of the original file.

So:
Yes, lossless/source compression will offer better *sound* than any
lossy/degenerated encoding. Thus we see that:
* Original source audio, Redbook audio, WMA Lossless, FLAC, and other
lossless codecs
provide better quality than that same content compressed (degraded) to:
* Any lossy encoding (any compressed WAV, WMA, RA, MOV, OGG, etc)
The second set will provide phenomenally better space usage at some level of
audio degradation.

We all agree on that. The only point of contention that Mike correctly
brought up is that WMA Lossless provides a better targeted solution than PCM
WAV. This is mathematically provable, as WMA Lossless provides the exact
same data, but with better compression.

I respect your knowledge in this arena, but the articles you're referring to
are out of date and are not referencing the WMA Lossless technology Mike is
referring to, which is the source of much of your confusion here. =)

 

[zachd [MSFT]]

I've actually got code in the Win32 MP3 codec, so I must disagree. =)
Lossless WMA and MP3 (a lossy psychoacoustic codec) are not equatable.
Lossless WMA does not degrade a bit of the original sound. A file converted
into and out of the Lossless WMA format will be bit-exact with the original
audio and have no degradation (loss) whatsoever. That is why it is called
"lossless". As you and I both know, a psychoacoustic codec throws out
everything it thinks you can't hear, and thus is "lossy". A file converted
into and out of any lossy format (be it MP3, WMA Standard, any non-PCM WAV,
RA, etc) will result in audio degradation. That degradation is not present
and does not occur with any lossless format.

I would suggest that your statement clarified would be:
"I would NEVER suggest WMA Standard or MP3 to anyone who wants to preserve
the BEST sound reproduction."
WMA Lossless provides a mathematically better solution to PCM WAV (since WMA
Lossless offers significantly better lossless compression), but you may
personally prefer WAV and that's all good. But for an audiophile: WMA
Lossless does exist, and it's a great solution if you want Perfect Sound.
=)

Cheers,
-Zach

 

[zachd [MSFT]]

What article is this? That sounds pretty old - it's referring very
specifically to "WMA Standard". Mike is referring specifically to "WMA
Lossless". This is the source of your confusion. WMA Lossless is a
mathematically-precise encoder, is not perceptual, and is not lossy. =)

There's also a couple more flavors of WMA - since almost any "mid-range"
codec is going to produce absolute garbage in the 20kbps range, there's neat
stuff like WMA Voice for that data range. I remember years ago when ACELP
Sipro came out in that range - it blew everything else out of the water.

Anyways, converting any uncompressed format to horribly compressed format N
times is going to be extremely lossy and cause major degradation.
Thankfully, WMA Lossless has no perceptual compression and is not lossy, so
that example is not relevant. You're welcome to try - the results should be
happily boring as far as I'm aware. =)

-Zach

 

[Guest]

Zachd

Thank you for a very interesting reply. I enjoyed reading it and actually
was able to pick up on some interesting info.
I have no idea where the articles are from, I read many and just cut and
pasted from a few. Don't recall which ones.
NoW! my reply to you and I do this with respect.
Chuck made mention he was wanting to archive his CD COLLECTION, I have
reminded Mike this several times. That means you have a PCM WAV original
file...correct? Now you support WMA Lossless and you make a copy of the PCM
WAV file. fine NO loss. Now Chucks wants to make some Cds of his Archived
Collection to play in his car or his Home, so he converts back to PCM WAV and
if PCM WAV as you say is not 100% accurate, let's say for conversation that
it is 95%. So the Original CD PCM WAV was 95% accurate of the Master Studio
Recording or of the Press Source. Now you copied a 95% accurate file to
lossless WMA and preserved 100% accuracy of the 95% accurate file, now you
convert it back to PCM WAV and get 95% of the 100% of the 95%, which is the
same as 95% of 95%. My point, you have added distortion to conversion steps
and that is all I was trying to say. I said it several times but the
conversation seem to be more of a defending WMA versus WAV. I said " keep it
orginal and DO NOT convert, conversions will ALWAYS add distortion and if you
are saying PCM WAV is not 100% and yet that is what the Market has chosen for
Audio CD Players, then it is best to leave it as it is.
But! you bring up a question, and Mike wasn't willing to help me here and
you seem to have a great handle on thisgs.
If I copy (digitial) My WAV CD to my HARD DRIVE, I was under the
impression that a digitial copy is a mirror image. and nothing os lost. So if
I copied PCM Wav to HD and kept it in PCM WAV format, it is a 100% accurate
copy of the file. ANd if I copy it back to a CD in a Burn operation, then I
only pick up the distortion of the CD recorder only. For nothing is
abosolutelyu 100%, because there are Motors and even if the motors are DC
Servo with a computer checking speed accurancy there is some variance and
that gets amplified with each copy. Agree?
Now if I am wrong in assuming that a copy of a PCM WAV to hard drive is
NOT accurate and you lose, then taht is all Mike ever had to say and didn't.
So ddoes it or does it not copy accurate? Even if copied in WMA Lossless ythe
DC Servo is still a factor but the inaccuracy of reproducing is not. That is
what I meant by the Jpeg versus the Tif.
That is the only point I need to have cleared up. Mike at this point
started referring to me as a Strawman or a Troll and that is when I started
laying out my Credientials, which in fact are all Analog and not digitial.
Thanks for your reply and your very informed answer.
--
I Have forgotten so much of what I once knew.
"A Stranger is a Friend you haven''t met yet."

What article is this? That sounds pretty old - it's referring very
specifically to "WMA Standard". Mike is referring specifically to "WMA
Lossless". This is the source of your confusion. WMA Lossless is a
mathematically-precise encoder, is not perceptual, and is not lossy. =)

There's also a couple more flavors of WMA - since almost any "mid-range"
codec is going to produce absolute garbage in the 20kbps range, there's neat
stuff like WMA Voice for that data range. I remember years ago when ACELP
Sipro came out in that range - it blew everything else out of the water.

Anyways, converting any uncompressed format to horribly compressed format N
times is going to be extremely lossy and cause major degradation.
Thankfully, WMA Lossless has no perceptual compression and is not lossy, so
that example is not relevant. You're welcome to try - the results should be
happily boring as far as I'm aware. =)

-Zach
--
Windows Media Development Team (speaking for myself only)
See http://zachd.com/pss/pss.html for some helpful WMP info.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[zachd [MSFT]]

NoW! my reply to you and I do this with respect.

Understood. And vice versa. =)

Chuck made mention he was wanting to archive his CD COLLECTION, I have
reminded Mike this several times. That means you have a PCM WAV original
file...correct? Now you support WMA Lossless and you make a copy of the
PCM
WAV file. fine NO loss. Now Chucks wants to make some Cds of his Archived
Collection to play in his car or his Home, so he converts back to PCM WAV
and
if PCM WAV as you say is not 100% accurate, let's say for conversation
that
it is 95%.

Nope, that isn't the case. PCM WAV =100%=>Lossless WMA =100%=>PCM WAV. The
data is unchanged, which is the point of losslessness.

PCM WAV is 'uncompressed'. If you're talking about any other "compression"
within WAV, then you are talking about lossy - WAV isn't inherently lossless
and in fact is utterly irrelevant - it's just a file container. The "PCM"
part of the discussion is all you really care about here.

My point, you have added distortion to conversion steps
and that is all I was trying to say.

Yeah, and that's what Mike and I were pointing out is inaccurate. =)

I said " keep it
orginal and DO NOT convert, conversions will ALWAYS add distortion and if
you
are saying PCM WAV is not 100% and yet that is what the Market has chosen
for
Audio CD Players

A: No, conversions don't always add distortion. The entire logic behind
lossless is that it does not distort at all. If it introduces distortion,
it's not lossless. By the very definition of lossless, your issues are not
and cannot be concerns, but rather represent a misinterpretation as likely
influenced by the earlier article you mentioned. =)
B: PCM is pretty much 100%, so we both can agree that this whole
argument/discussion just goes away. =)

If I copy (digitial) My WAV CD to my HARD DRIVE, I was under the
impression that a digitial copy is a mirror image. and nothing os lost. So
if
I copied PCM Wav to HD and kept it in PCM WAV format, it is a 100%
accurate
copy of the file. ANd if I copy it back to a CD in a Burn operation, then
I
only pick up the distortion of the CD recorder only. For nothing is
abosolutelyu 100%, because there are Motors and even if the motors are DC
Servo with a computer checking speed accurancy there is some variance and
that gets amplified with each copy. Agree?

No, actually. You're slightly confused - you would only pick up CD recorder
distortion if sound was being produced. But it's data being written - D to
D, and as such is about as absolutely lossless as anything in this world can
ever be. This is equivalent to those software CDs you see in the stores -
they don't have distortion, and there won't be any here either. =)

So:
CD <-> PCM WAV <-> CD
CD <-> WMA Lossless <-> CD
should both present that "100%", but WMA Lossless is much more efficient, so
for archival purposes WMA Lossless is as mentioned probably a better choice.

Cheers,
-Zach

 

[Guest]

Zach

Excellent response, Thanks. Very Very imformative and logical.
You have me still just a tad confused.

"Nope, that isn't the case. PCM WAV =100%=>Lossless WMA =100%=>PCM WAV.
The data is unchanged, which is the point of losslessness."


I guess I didn't grab the logic here, if BOTH are 100% then why do you say
WMA Lossless is better?

"So:
CD <-> PCM WAV <-> CD
CD <-> WMA Lossless <-> CD
should both present that "100%", but WMA Lossless is much more efficient, so
for archival purposes WMA Lossless is as mentioned probably a better choice."

If BOTH are 100% what makes WMA more effcient? That is where you lost me.

Your explanation about Sound versus Writting is excellent. As I said, I am
an Old Analog and everything was with sound and every piece of equipment that
the sound passed thru added to the Deistortion levels, the Source Voice being
the BEST and from the Mike to the mixer to the Master Reel to the Mater Tape
to the Cutting Lathe to the Turntable to the Amp to the wires to the Speakers
to the room acoustics, all added to the total sum of distortion. Your simple
explanation of WRITTING, explained it and it sunk. Thanks.... We are NOt
dealing with Sound reproduction but in Binary code duplication. I Still
prefer Analog for the preservation of AHrmonics which is NOT present with
Digitial, but with your responses, you have cleared alot of fog from the ole
Brain Housing Group. Thanks
But would you please explain how one of two 100% reproductions can be more
efficient? is it to do with the Quiet passages and how one will throw away
what it precieves as noise?
Looking forward to your reply. Where is a good website to read about this?

 

[Guest]

Zach

Much of my music collection on my Hard drive is from my Vinyl Collection.
My LPs are as good as the day they were purchased. I use a Nude Shabita Styli
by Audio Technica and the combo Cartridge and Stylus were well over $500. MY
turntable is a Direct drive ( I know the belt is a great insolator for noise
where as a Direct drive is not, but I went for a DC Servo and heavy 9 pound
platter and wanted RPM accuracy without slippage) anyways,
My Tone arm is a "S" with a gyrosopic 5 point pivot, I have taking great
strides to have an accuarate Tracking angle and to track with less than 1 1/2
grams. I had Cerwin Vega HED U-15s and much invested in my sound system. I am
now wanting to archive my music into the computer and that is what I have
been doing. I have everything grounded and insolated from each other, I have
tried to ensure I get the best I can and now you have unraveled everything I
was told and learned Four years ago when I started my project. I have done
mass editing and use NO Filters. I prefer to have a Clean Source versus
Filtering. Hard to take spilled milk off of a painting with out removing some
of the artwork too. What is your suggestion.
I am gambling that when all said and done they will have new technology down
the road where I can make playable copies as good as it was when it started.
My LPs are quite capable fo exceeding 70k in frequency repsonse and grant you
that was mainly with CD-4 LPs to have the rear speaker signals embedded and
then read by a CD demodualtor and sent to the rear speakers. I want the
crispness of LP and preserve as much of the acoustic harmonics as I can. What
would YOU do to get them on Hard drive? I had been using VHS HiFi but linear
fast forwarding or rewinding versus instant access has got me spoiled. I want
the best sound repro I can harvest. Your suggestion?

 

[zachd [MSFT]]

"Nope, that isn't the case. PCM WAV =100%=>Lossless WMA =100%=>PCM WAV.
The data is unchanged, which is the point of losslessness."

I guess I didn't grab the logic here, if BOTH are 100% then why do you
say
WMA Lossless is better?

Size. PCM is not efficient - it creates huge files. WMA Lossless is able
to represent that same exact data in much less hard drive space.

Codecs are always a struggle between compression, quality, and performance.
Lossless "codecs" (WMA Lossless and PCM) definitionally are the same as
regards quality. I don't know about the performance metrics - PCM WAV isn't
something I play much of... if you're curious, you could certainly try that
aspect yourself. And the third factor, compression, is where the big
difference is.

But would you please explain how one of two 100% reproductions can be
more
efficient? is it to do with the Quiet passages and how one will throw away
what it precieves as noise?

No. No data can be thrown out if the codec is lossless. The moment any
data, good or bad, is thrown out, the codec is no longer producing a
lossless rendition.

Looking forward to your reply. Where is a good website to read about this?

That's not something I've ever spent much time working on or looking up...
I'm not aware of any good accurate source of information on the Internet -
that's contrary to the purpose of the Internet. ;-)

As regards capturing - go with what you know. I both maintain my CD and
vinyl library and rip with the *lossy* 160kbps WMA Standard because that
gives me the compression I want and a quality I like. This kind of thing is
a very personal equation - just go with what you like, or even just what you
know. =)

-Zach

 

[Mike Williams]

Let me see if I can show a little more RESPECT for you as you seem to
have for others, I realize you are madly in LOVE with yourself, but just what
is STRAWMAN? TROLL LIKE?

Since you can't be bothered checking up extremely common expressions
before you start resorting to abuse:

A "straw man argument" is defined in good dictionaries and sites such as
here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

It does not refer to any person but to a faulty argument. The term is
decades, if not centuries old. It's common enough to have over 7 million
Google references.

Troll-like behaviour is also well-defined:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

The two often go hand-in-hand. Both characterise your argument style on
this thread. I was more patient than most people would be.

 

[unfrostedpoptart]

Zach

Excellent response, Thanks. Very Very imformative and logical.
You have me still just a tad confused.

"Nope, that isn't the case. PCM WAV =100%=>Lossless WMA =100%=>PCM WAV.
The data is unchanged, which is the point of losslessness."


I guess I didn't grab the logic here, if BOTH are 100% then why do you say
WMA Lossless is better?

"So:
CD <-> PCM WAV <-> CD
CD <-> WMA Lossless <-> CD
should both present that "100%", but WMA Lossless is much more efficient, so
for archival purposes WMA Lossless is as mentioned probably a better choice."

If BOTH are 100% what makes WMA more effcient? That is where you lost me.

Hi.

There's tons of usenet articles and websites on this. Search on
lossless audio compression. Anyway, here's a quick version: Lossless
audio formats keep all the information, but they make the file smaller,
basically the same way zip or rar files are compressed data. The math
can be very complicated, but the bottom line is that you can uncompress
the file and end up with exactly the same data you started with.

There are many lossless audio formats, including WMA lossless
(Microsoft's), AAC lossless (Apple's), FLAC, APE, and a few others.
They all will give you perfect data. Where they differ is in how small
they can make the file, how much computer power they require to
create/restore, which programs/players support them, and some other
details (e.g. some are better at fast-forwarding/rewinding than
others). In general, lossless convertors can reduce file sizes between
30% and 50%. As hard drives get bigger and bigger, this will be less
of an issue.

Lossy formats (mp3, regular WMA, AAC, and many others) use models of
the human ear and brain to guess which sounds in a music file will not
be audible to you. They then throw out that data, resulting in a
smaller file that, in theory, sounds just fine. However, you can never
get back to the same data you started with.

For pictures, the same thing is done. gif, tif, bmp, and others are
lossless formats for storing images. jpg, which almost everything
uses, is lossy, and removes details in the pictures that are assumed to
be invisible to your eyes. The same thing is done for video, too.
avi, mpg, and even DVDs use lossy compression. Otherwise, a DVD would
hold about 10 minutes of uncompressed video.

Hope this clears things up.

David

 

[Mike Williams]

For pictures, the same thing is done. gif, tif, bmp, and others are
lossless formats for storing images. jpg, which almost everything
uses, is lossy, and removes details in the pictures that are assumed to
be invisible to your eyes.

TIF is only lossless if it is using a lossless picture codec - TIFs are
not as consistently defined as other picture formats. PNG is a better
example of a lossless format. GIF is lossless only if you work within
its color-space.

Just to confuse matters more, there have been a few Lossless JPG
standards but I don't think any have caught on since PNG generally does
better.

 

[Guest]

Wow. Little did I know my little post would generate two weeks of repartee.
Good for me, though; I'm learning a lot. Sounds to me (sorry, Craig) that
L-WMA is a good option as far as space and quality goes, but I have a couple
of concerns. I have heard a lot about WMP10 having its way with the metadata
attached to the songs, i.e., losing the tags, rewriting the tags, etc. Also,
how big an issue is compatibility insofar as playing WMAs on "regular" CD
players.
Any thoughts? :-D