• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

WMA or FLAC?

G

Gomar

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
315
Lossless I've decided to go with WMA instead of FLAC. My MP3 player
playes WMA but not FLAC; in fact, I dont see a single MP3 player that does.

However, I am still not sure whether to go with lossy WMA or MP3.
WMA 96kbps sounds the same as an MP3 at 128kbps, but is 20% smaller.
I could live with MP3 at 112kbps.
Does an MP3 made from a lossless WMA sound the same as made from WAV?
It takes 2x longer though.
I used CDex to rip to MP3 and WAV at the same time. However, WMA lossless is 10% smaller than using Winrar best-solid on WAVs, and it is playable. Thus, it seems it is best to rip to WMA lossless, and then to rip to MP3 from the CD again.
 
as long as it is a lossless format mp3's made of it should all sound the same. The format is just a way of packaging the data, as long as it is "lossless" shouldn't matter. As for MP3 or WMA, I'd just got MP3. It has the widest range of support. But I mean if your ripping music at that low of quality size really shouldn't be much of an issue no matter the format.
 
Personally I'd go FLAC for pc use and do quick converts to mp3 192 minimal bit rate for portable use. I cant stand anything lower than 160kbps for mp3. Its like you are being cheated out of music.

If you have crappy speakers/headphones it won't matter what the bit rate is.
 
WMA lossless files are 0.055% (5 1/2 %) smaller than FLAC level 0,
but about the same size as level 8.
Does level 8 reduce sound quality? I see that kbps is lower.
Could it be decompressed into the original WAV?
 
Gomar said:
WMA lossless files are 0.055% (5 1/2 %) smaller than FLAC level 0,
but about the same size as level 8.
Does level 8 reduce sound quality? I see that kbps is lower.
Click to expand...

No, you won't lose sound quality since FLAC is lossless. A higher level just chews up more CPU power during the encoding process in an attempt to compress the file more.
 
Gomar said:
WMA lossless files are 0.055% (5 1/2 %) smaller than FLAC level 0,
but about the same size as level 8.
Does level 8 reduce sound quality? I see that kbps is lower.
Could it be decompressed into the original WAV?
Click to expand...

FLAC is always lossless. No quality is lost no matter what settings you use, and files can always be reconverted back to the exact original wav files. Compression levels are just a way to choose between slightly less space as you pick higher levels, or less CPU usage in lower levels.
 
it took much longer to convert from flac to mp3 than from wav. CDex, when set
to rip to compressed file, creates a WAV first, then mp3 from it. Makes sense, as it saves time.
However, if I were to rip to flac first, I'd have to then change the encoder to mp3. Thus, ripping to flac
is a waste of time, not much space is saved as HDDs and DVDs are cheap.
 
I play Flac on my iPod :D


But seriously what is the question again? Are you just asking from a standpoint of quality or from a standpoint of how long it takes to rip? Or is it a matter of use in a PMP?

My view is that in most instances FLAC on PMP is useless. Try it with the equipment you have to determine if the increase in quality is noticeable. In my case I have an iPod with FLAC because of its use with a portable amp and highend headphones in the office. I then also have an iPod with just 320 AAC files because I use that one as portable with Senn PX100's. The PX 100's are good but no way do they show the difference between 320 and lossless.
 
Gomar said:
Thus, it seems it is best to rip to WMA lossless, and then to rip to MP3 from the CD again.
Click to expand...
What? If you ripped to lossless, why on earth would you rip from CD again? Ripping from CD is slow, just convert from your lossless files...

I use FLAC just because it's by far the most supported, and because I hate all of this proliferation of closed formats. There is no reason for my data to be locked into a closed, proprietary format, even if someone has reverse engineered it. Why MS et. al. can't just use the free format is beyond me, and annoying. Ditto ALAC.

Anyway, lossless on a portable just seems silly. Rip to FLAC for archival on your PC, conver to whatever format is convenient for the PMP you happen to have at the time. I would use AAC if your player supports it, otherwise MP3. Good PMP management software can do this conversion on the fly for you.
 
CD --> FLAC is lossless, but there could be errors. EAC can validate your rip.

Lossless --> * will ideally have the same results as every other such process. Ripping from CD or converting from FLAC will give you exactly the same result assuming your FLAC rip was good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top