It's the FLAC versus WMA lossless comparison that I'd like to make. I understand the comparisons with lossy compression and/or with wave files. Thanks. bruce
-- Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. John 1:12 NIV Bruce Toews E-mail and MSN/Windows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Radio Show and Podcast: http://www.totw.net Web Site (including info on my weekly commentaries): http://www.ogts.net Info on the Best TV Show of All Time: http://www.cornergas.com On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Kevin Lloyd wrote: > Hi Bruce. > > I've never used Flak so can't give a comparison as such but comparing WMA > lossless to WAV, typically the WAV file will be encoded at around 1,300kbps > whereas the WMA lossless will typically have been compressed to around > 900kpbs with no change to sound quality obviously. > > As an example, Bruce Springsteen's Born In The U.S.A. is approximately 31 > Meg in size when encoded in WMA lossless for the 4 and a half minutes track > duration. The same file ripped at 320kbps in MP3 is 11 meg in size as a > comparison and I'd expect the WAV file to be around 35 to 40 meg. > > Regards. > > Kevin > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bruce Toews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "PC audio discussion list. " <pc-audio@pc-audio.org> > Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 8:53 PM > Subject: Re: Windows Media Audio > > >> What about the size of compression, how does Flac and Windows Media >> compare? If both are lossless, I'll go with whichever is smallest, period. >> My pro-FLAC bias is based on the simple fact that it was the first >> lossless compression I ever saw. >> >> Bruce >> >> -- >> Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he >> gave the right to become children of God. John 1:12 NIV >> >> Bruce Toews >> E-mail and MSN/Windows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Radio Show and Podcast: http://www.totw.net >> Web Site (including info on my weekly commentaries): http://www.ogts.net >> Info on the Best TV Show of All Time: http://www.cornergas.com >> >> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Scott Blanks wrote: >> >>> I don't often limit myself to a "me too" message, but Kevin has made > nothing >>> but good points in his post. I too have found that, when talking to > people >>> who prefer flak, more often than not they tend to be anti-microsoft, > rather >>> than for flak for a good reason. Go WMA. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Kevin Lloyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "PC audio discussion list. " <pc-audio@pc-audio.org> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 12:46 PM >>> Subject: Re: Windows Media Audio >>> >>> >>> Hi Bruce. >>> >>> The obvious advantages are: >>> WMA is supported by many players and is probably the next most supported >>> format to MP3 >>> WMA supports ID3 tags and so is supported by many software music > databases >>> for managing music collections >>> WMA can be burned directly to audio CD's because most burning software >>> programs support direct conversion from WMA to CDDA - I'm not aware of > any >>> that will do this for Flak >>> WMA sounds damn good - there has been some subjective discussion here on > the >>> comparison between MP3 and WMA, some of which seems very anti-Microsoft >>> based tripe rather than objective considerations and evidence based. > The >>> fact is that MP3 is the oldest encoding technology around and lacks the >>> recent development that's been put into more modern encoders such as > WMA. >>> It's true that DRM is a driver for music sites to adopt WMA but you > can't >>> sell crap quality music so it would not make sense for the industry to > adopt >>> a technology that wasn't going to provide the best quality for the best > file >>> size. I've personally done much testing over the past 5 to 6 years and > have >>> switched from MP3 to WMA based on the evidence of playback on my > computer, >>> on my portable player and on my Linn hi-fi. It was painful to rip my >>> collection all over but I can tell you that the difference in quality is >>> absolutely apparent and that pain has been rewarded. >>> >>> Regards. >>> >>> Kevin >>> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Bruce Toews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "PC audio discussion list. " <pc-audio@pc-audio.org> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 4:26 PM >>> Subject: RE: Windows Media Audio >>> >>> >>> Does WMA Lossless ahve any advantage over FLAC or vice versa? >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-Audio List Help, Guidelines, Archives and more... >> http://www.pc-audio.org >> >> To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> This list is a service of MosenExplosion.com. To see what other lists we > offer, visit us on the web at http://www.MosenExplosion.com > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-Audio List Help, Guidelines, Archives and more... > http://www.pc-audio.org > > To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This list is a service of MosenExplosion.com. To see what other lists we > offer, visit us on the web at http://www.MosenExplosion.com > _______________________________________________ PC-Audio List Help, Guidelines, Archives and more... http://www.pc-audio.org To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This list is a service of MosenExplosion.com. To see what other lists we offer, visit us on the web at http://www.MosenExplosion.com
