WMA vs FLAC

WMA vs FLAC

Any thoughts on the best file for archiving music???


--




"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous
mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it
is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

Re: WMA vs FLAC

WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
> Any thoughts on the best file for archiving music???

Isn't FLAC lossless ? And WMA isn't ?

I guess it depends on how much space you want to save. Why not just LPCM
WAVs

geoff

Re: WMA vs FLAC

geoff wrote:
> WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
>> Any thoughts on the best file for archiving music???
>
> Isn't FLAC lossless ? And WMA isn't ?
>
> I guess it depends on how much space you want to save. Why not just LPCM
> WAVs
>
> geoff
>
>


As Geoff says use linear PCM Wave files with a sample-rate of at least
44.1 kHz and a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit.

If you must compress, use WMA but do so with the following wisdom:

Beware all digital audio compression formats other than WMA, stink badly!!

Here are my rules for digital audio:

A. Whether compressed or not, the audio must be monaural and with a
sample-rate of at least 44.1 kHz.

B. The only compression allowed is WMA. No other compression format is
permitted.

C. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of at
least 16-bit

D. If compression is used, then the sample-rate of the compressed and
the uncompressed version of the audio must be the same.

E. If compression is used, the only thing that should be decreased is
the bit-resolution. The sample-rate must remain unchanged

Let's say a song that was originally recorded in stereo is given to me.
The song must to be converted to mono* via the following steps:

1. Record audio from CD [or other stereo audio source] into Wavelab,
Adobe Audition [or other audio software] into a file. For simplicity
let's call this file "Track1.wav"

2. Make a copy of Track1.wav and save the copy as "Track1B.wav"

3. Open Track1.wav and reduce the gain of its audio by 77.5%

4. Convert Track1.wav to monaural audio

5. Save Track.1

6. Open Track1B.wav and reduce its audio gain by 50%

7. Invert the phase of the left channel of Track1B.wav

8. Convert Track1B.wav to mono

9. Save Track1B.wav

10. Create a new stereo wave file whose bit-resolution is 16-bit and
sample rate is 44.1 kHz. For simplicity let's call this file "untitled.wav"

11. Copy and paste the audio of Track1.wav into the left channel of
untitled.wav

12. Copy and paste the audio of Track1B.wave into the right channel of
untitled.wav

13. Convert untitled.wav to mono

14. Save untitled.wav

*Songs that were originally-recorded in stereo need to be converted to
mono via the above 14 steps because different sounds are recorded
differently in the L and R channels. The audio that is originally panned
to the center is significantly louder than the audio whose phase is
different in the left & right channels. This is why I reduce the
loudness of non-inverted stereo audio file by 77.5% [before converting
it to mono].

In the stereo file whose left channel has its phase inverted, I decrease
the loudness only by 50% and then convert it to mono. Usually -- the
lead vocals, bass, and percussion are recorded identically in both the
left and right channels. The piano, chorus, guitar, and synth pads are
usually recorded differently in the left and right channel.

Re: WMA vs FLAC

Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
> geoff wrote:
>> WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
>

For a moment I thought green-guy is seriously responding end
contributing to a discussion, but then:

> A. Whether compressed or not, the audio must be monaural..........


> B. The only compression allowed is WMA. No other compression format is
> permitted.

TROLL

Robert

Re: WMA vs FLAC


"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote in message
news:480d75a9$0$12958$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> geoff wrote:
>> WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
>>> Any thoughts on the best file for archiving music???
>>
>> Isn't FLAC lossless ? And WMA isn't ?
>>
>> I guess it depends on how much space you want to save. Why not just LPCM
>> WAVs
>>
>> geoff
>
>
> As Geoff says use linear PCM Wave files with a sample-rate of at least
> 44.1 kHz and a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit.
>
> If you must compress, use WMA but do so with the following wisdom:
>
> Beware all digital audio compression formats other than WMA, stink badly!!
>
> Here are my rules for digital audio:
>
> A. Whether compressed or not, the audio must be monaural and with a
> sample-rate of at least 44.1 kHz.
>
> B. The only compression allowed is WMA. No other compression format is
> permitted.
>
> C. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of at
> least 16-bit
>
> D. If compression is used, then the sample-rate of the compressed and the
> uncompressed version of the audio must be the same.
>
> E. If compression is used, the only thing that should be decreased is the
> bit-resolution. The sample-rate must remain unchanged
>
> Let's say a song that was originally recorded in stereo is given to me.
> The song must to be converted to mono* via the following steps:
>
> 1. Record audio from CD [or other stereo audio source] into Wavelab, Adobe
> Audition [or other audio software] into a file. For simplicity let's call
> this file "Track1.wav"
>
> 2. Make a copy of Track1.wav and save the copy as "Track1B.wav"
>
> 3. Open Track1.wav and reduce the gain of its audio by 77.5%
>
> 4. Convert Track1.wav to monaural audio
>
> 5. Save Track.1
>
> 6. Open Track1B.wav and reduce its audio gain by 50%
>
> 7. Invert the phase of the left channel of Track1B.wav
>
> 8. Convert Track1B.wav to mono
>
> 9. Save Track1B.wav
>
> 10. Create a new stereo wave file whose bit-resolution is 16-bit and
> sample rate is 44.1 kHz. For simplicity let's call this file
> "untitled.wav"
>
> 11. Copy and paste the audio of Track1.wav into the left channel of
> untitled.wav
>
> 12. Copy and paste the audio of Track1B.wave into the right channel of
> untitled.wav
>
> 13. Convert untitled.wav to mono
>
> 14. Save untitled.wav
>
> *Songs that were originally-recorded in stereo need to be converted to
> mono via the above 14 steps because different sounds are recorded
> differently in the L and R channels. The audio that is originally panned
> to the center is significantly louder than the audio whose phase is
> different in the left & right channels. This is why I reduce the loudness
> of non-inverted stereo audio file by 77.5% [before converting it to mono].
>
> In the stereo file whose left channel has its phase inverted, I decrease
> the loudness only by 50% and then convert it to mono. Usually -- the lead
> vocals, bass, and percussion are recorded identically in both the left and
> right channels. The piano, chorus, guitar, and synth pads are usually
> recorded differently in the left and right channel.

FLAC is lossless, reduces the disk space requirements by around 50 percent,
has support for tagging, and is rapidly becoming the standard for lossless
music, unless you are using Apple's lossless codec anyway.

I currently store in excess of 500 gigabytes of lossless music this way.


Mark Z.

Re: WMA vs FLAC

Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
> geoff wrote:
>> WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
>>> Any thoughts on the best file for archiving music???
>>
>> Isn't FLAC lossless ? And WMA isn't ?
>>
>> I guess it depends on how much space you want to save. Why not just
>> LPCM WAVs
>>
>> geoff
>>
>
>
> As Geoff says use linear PCM Wave files with a sample-rate of at least
> 44.1 kHz and a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit.

Actually I wondered that myself, but it wasn't a choice. I installed
Exact Audio Copy and it offered FLAC and WMA for archiving. I ASSume
that I don't have to "archive" at all and could leave it as a ripped WAV
file.

>
> If you must compress, use WMA but do so with the following wisdom:
>
> Beware all digital audio compression formats other than WMA, stink badly!!

Odd, you're the first seemingly person knowledgeable person to say
that. Outside of Usenet most answers were Flac, then WMA followed by Ogg.

>
> Here are my rules for digital audio:
>
> A. Whether compressed or not, the audio must be monaural and with a
> sample-rate of at least 44.1 kHz.
>

Why in the world would anyone want to make all of their music mono???

--

"I have no need to purchase any bulk e-mail software
and use it to piss off the Internet community and lose
my Internet account. If I want to piss off somebody,
I'll do it on a one-to-one basis." - Norman L. De Forest

Re: WMA vs FLAC

WindsorFox<SS> wrote:


> Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:


>>
>> Here are my rules for digital audio:
>>
>> A. Whether compressed or not, the audio must be monaural and with a
>> sample-rate of at least 44.1 kHz.
>>
>


> Why in the world would anyone want to make all of their music mono???


I want both speakers to emit the same signal. I don't like it when one
speakers sounds different from the other. That's why.

Re: WMA vs FLAC

Then why not sell your stereo equipment, buy a mono amp, a mono preamp,
a mono cd (Goooood Luck) or an old 78rpm turntable and ONE speaker and
your will have your mono sound.

Mono cannot in any way represent the sound you get when you go to a live
concert. Stereo on the other hand while not real life is pretty close to
what you get in a live concert: You can pinpoint the performers on the
stage, try that in mono...


Green Xenon [Radium] a écrit :
> WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
>
>
>> Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Here are my rules for digital audio:
>>>
>>> A. Whether compressed or not, the audio must be monaural and with a
>>> sample-rate of at least 44.1 kHz.
>>>
>>
>
>
>> Why in the world would anyone want to make all of their music mono???
>
>
> I want both speakers to emit the same signal. I don't like it when one
> speakers sounds different from the other. That's why.

Re: WMA vs FLAC

"Jocelyn Major" wrote ...
> Then why not sell your stereo equipment, buy a mono amp, a mono preamp, a
> mono cd (Goooood Luck) or an old 78rpm turntable and ONE speaker and your
> will have your mono sound.
>
> Mono cannot in any way represent the sound you get when you go to a live
> concert. Stereo on the other hand while not real life is pretty close to
> what you get in a live concert: You can pinpoint the performers on the
> stage, try that in mono...

Give him a break. He may be deef in one ear.

Re: WMA vs FLAC

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Jocelyn Major" wrote ...
>> Then why not sell your stereo equipment, buy a mono amp, a mono preamp, a
>> mono cd (Goooood Luck) or an old 78rpm turntable and ONE speaker and your
>> will have your mono sound.
>>
>> Mono cannot in any way represent the sound you get when you go to a live
>> concert. Stereo on the other hand while not real life is pretty close to
>> what you get in a live concert: You can pinpoint the performers on the
>> stage, try that in mono...
>
> Give him a break. He may be deef in one ear.
>


What??


--

"I have no need to purchase any bulk e-mail software
and use it to piss off the Internet community and lose
my Internet account. If I want to piss off somebody,
I'll do it on a one-to-one basis." - Norman L. De Forest

Re: WMA vs FLAC



Richard Crowley a écrit :
> "Jocelyn Major" wrote ...
>> Then why not sell your stereo equipment, buy a mono amp, a mono preamp, a
>> mono cd (Goooood Luck) or an old 78rpm turntable and ONE speaker and your
>> will have your mono sound.
>>
>> Mono cannot in any way represent the sound you get when you go to a live
>> concert. Stereo on the other hand while not real life is pretty close to
>> what you get in a live concert: You can pinpoint the performers on the
>> stage, try that in mono...
>
> Give him a break. He may be deef in one ear.
>
>
Oups! Sorry I did'nt think about that.

Re: WMA vs FLAC

Jocelyn Major wrote:


> Then why not sell your stereo equipment, buy a mono amp, a mono preamp,
> a mono cd (Goooood Luck) or an old 78rpm turntable and ONE speaker and
> your will have your mono sound.


I have no problem with stereo equipment. The originating signal entering
the equipment should be mono.

Also, why need a mono CD. All I have to do is convert a stereo file to
mono [using some audio software] and then burn in into a CD. Yes, the
CD's audio will be stereo but both channels will sound exactly the same
and hence both speakers will playback the same signal.

You have heard of dual-mono, haven't you? Dual-mono is a stereo channel
pair in which both the left and right track are exactly the same.

Re: WMA vs FLAC

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:30:59 -0700, "Green Xenon [Radium]"
<glucegen1@excite . com > wrote:

The usual. For a fixed-pitch font:
_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do not |
/ O O\__ | feed the |
/ \ | Trolls |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

-from Ryan McGuire, April 1984

Chris Hornbeck

Re: WMA vs FLAC

Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
> Jocelyn Major wrote:
>
>
>> Then why not sell your stereo equipment, buy a mono amp, a mono
>> preamp, a mono cd (Goooood Luck) or an old 78rpm turntable and ONE
>> speaker and your will have your mono sound.
>
>
> I have no problem with stereo equipment. The originating signal entering
> the equipment should be mono.
>
> Also, why need a mono CD. All I have to do is convert a stereo file to
> mono [using some audio software] and then burn in into a CD. Yes, the
> CD's audio will be stereo but both channels will sound exactly the same
> and hence both speakers will playback the same signal.
>
> You have heard of dual-mono, haven't you? Dual-mono is a stereo channel
> pair in which both the left and right track are exactly the same.

Yes, and there is a reason that no one uses dual mono.

--

"I have no need to purchase any bulk e-mail software
and use it to piss off the Internet community and lose
my Internet account. If I want to piss off somebody,
I'll do it on a one-to-one basis." - Norman L. De Forest

Re: WMA vs FLAC

WindsorFox<SS> wrote:


> Yes, and there is a reason that no one uses dual mono.
>


Why?