View Full Version : WMA Lossless Support
Do you think D2 will ever support WMA Lossless? I'm using it for my entire collection (I like it more than FLAC) and it is quite annoying that I can't play it on my D2 :(
Philip Seyfi, fs-studio.eu (http://fs-studio.eu/)
I like it more than FLAC
And why is that?
caribou679
05-26-2007, 17:25
Do you think D2 will ever support WMA Lossless? I'm using it for my entire collection (I like it more than FLAC) and it is quite annoying that I can't play it on my D2 :(
Philip Seyfi, fs-studio.eu (http://fs-studio.eu/)
Hi!
Interesting to find this post today because I tried format WMA Loosless in D2 today and the D2 just frooze. I had to use ( for the First TIME!!) the reset button!
I wanted to test format WMA Loosless because the size of cd John Coltrane
"My Favorite Thing" is 275 meg in this format compared to 700 to 800 meg in Flac or WAV.
I have tried with different format of encoding with Cowon and I come back to what works the best for me: WMA 96k (CD quality).
Compared to ogg quality 6 and mp3 192k I do not detect a significant diffeence that warrants those formats.
I use relatively good earphones.
have fun!
GSV3MiaC
05-26-2007, 18:39
WMA 96kb/sec (if you really meant that) is somewhere around .ogg Q=1, NOT .ogg Q=6. And those are only 'Cd quality' if you have old ears (like mine), cheap phones, and are out walking someplace noisy. ACtually .ogg at Q=0 might make you happy (and is smaller than the .wma file).
I'm surprised WMA lossless was so much smaller than FLAC (what level FLAC?) on that album .. not surprised it was smaller than .wav, since everything should be smaller than .wav.
WMA is always smaller than FLAC... :)
WMA Lossless will eat your battery faster. WMA has closed source so any *NIX user will have problem with encoding to WMA Lossless. It has avarage enc/dec speeds compared to FLAC. Don't support ReplyGain and you have to pay for license so why do you need WMA Lossless if there is open source FLAC wich will give you all futures that WMA Lossless have and also better speed/free license and some other things like embed cue sheets and so on ? Is it resonable to save ~2% compresion ratio and resign from this all futures ? If you need to save space use APE - it has better compresion ratio than WMA Lossless!
caribou679
05-26-2007, 21:11
WMA 96kb/sec (if you really meant that) is somewhere around .ogg Q=1, NOT .ogg Q=6. And those are only 'Cd quality' if you have old ears (like mine), cheap phones, and are out walking someplace noisy. ACtually .ogg at Q=0 might make you happy (and is smaller than the .wma file).
I'm surprised WMA lossless was so much smaller than FLAC (what level FLAC?) on that album .. not surprised it was smaller than .wav, since everything should be smaller than .wav.
Hi again!
Sorry for the error I instigated in my post.
Here is the fact:
With program Easy CD-DA Extractor I get for cd of John Coltrane "My Favorite Things" the following compression rates:
WMA 96 kb/s (CD quality)= 32.2 mb
WMA loosless= 281 mb
OGG quality 2 96 kb/s= 31.9 mb
Flac level 5= 281 mb
WAV 16 bit stereo,44,100 hz (cd quality)= 470 mb.
It would make sense to me that the highest the size of the file the more conversion information is available, so this should give a better difference in sound quality and reproduction, using the same player.
My point is that with my 51 years ears I get the difference if I utilise cheap headphones or a cheap player, but not with a Cowon player using a file of higher conversion. I am sorry but it is not significant enough to me in differences.
I listen to jazz, rock, classic, funk, Africa funk etc. using Koss KSC75, Koss the Plug, Creative EP630, Sennheiser CX300, Bose Triport over the ear and IEM (which I find muddy)and soon Crossroads X3.
If in younger ears the difference is noticeable well they are very lucky to live in such an era and I would only suggest to them a carefull warning of lowering
the sound level of those earphones and headphones so to continue to trip for many years in this universe of music...and to really instruct themselves on the working of the ear to not become effect in the future ...
WMA is always smaller than FLAC... :)
WMA lossless= 281 mb
Flac level 5= 281 mb
see, seifip?
OK :) Another reason... WMA has better integration with WMP11 (eg. Playlists, album art, Library, Rip CD to WMA etc.)
Is there a way to have all this with FLAC+WMA?
P.S.: DOn't try to convert me to another player ;)
GSV3MiaC
05-27-2007, 14:56
WMA is always smaller than FLAC... :)
Nope, WMA =Lossless= is usually about the same size as FLAC.
For Caribou679 - I'm with you, as I said I do most of my listening with .ogg at Q=0 or Q=1, which is not detectably worse than the original CD when I am out walking. For archive on my PC I use .ogg at Q=7 or Q=10. FLAC (or WMA lossless, or whatever) shows a marginal quality improvement for a huge disk space increase, which is an issue when you are beaming stuff around for backup. I do have all the CDs sat here anyway, if I need them (it's just more convenient to keep a copy online).
For people who are wedded to WMP10/11 (spit!) then yep, .wma 2-pass-VBR is probably a better option than .ogg. WMP can be made to work semi-nicely with .ogg, but still only semi. 8<.
I wouldn't use wma lossless though - the whole point of lossless is for archive, and who'd want to archive is some proprietary format which billy-boy could pull the plug on faster than you can say 'DRM'?? FLAC, APE, Wavepack .. pick one ..
caribou679
05-27-2007, 21:20
Nope, WMA =Lossless= is usually about the same size as FLAC.
For Caribou679 - I'm with you, as I said I do most of my listening with .ogg at Q=0 or Q=1, which is not detectably worse than the original CD when I am out walking. For archive on my PC I use .ogg at Q=7 or Q=10. FLAC (or WMA lossless, or whatever) shows a marginal quality improvement for a huge disk space increase, which is an issue when you are beaming stuff around for backup. I do have all the CDs sat here anyway, if I need them (it's just more convenient to keep a copy online).
For people who are wedded to WMP10/11 (spit!) then yep, .wma 2-pass-VBR is probably a better option than .ogg. WMP can be made to work semi-nicely with .ogg, but still only semi. 8<.
I wouldn't use wma lossless though - the whole point of lossless is for archive, and who'd want to archive is some proprietary format which billy-boy could pull the plug on faster than you can say 'DRM'?? FLAC, APE, Wavepack .. pick one ..
For GSV3MIAC:
I like when you write " which is not detectably worse than the original cd..."
I too have the original cds of the albums and I do not do any bittorrent or copying of copyright materials. And the D2 is used for travel and walking purpose.
If I listen to and like an artist I will have the decence to pay him ( put my exchange in) by buying a copy of his works so he gets back some form of energy he originally put in the work.
I will check and test the .ogg at level 2 and lower if it gives me better effects than WMA 96k. I never use WMP of any versions, it gives me the creeps...
I was using WMA 96k mostly for file size compared to quality.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.