WMA vs FLAC

Re: WMA vs FLAC

On Apr 23, 4:42 pm, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite,com >
wrote:
> WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
>> Yes, and there is a reason that no one uses dual mono.
>
> Why?

Because "dual mono", also known as "matrixed mono,"
is no where near as good as discrete mono. This was
discovered 30+ years ago when the first attempts at
matrixed four-channel audio were attempted. Everyone
at the time found that discrete four-channel stereo was
much better than matrixed four channel audio. It was
generally found that matrix one number of channels
to get another set of channels was decidedly inferior
to have the same set of destination channels as discrete,
non-matrixed mono. The battles over the two systems at
the time were so contentious, that the entire discussion
was essentially banned from further public airing. The
Electronics Associate of Technologies Matrix Encoding
subcomittee supressed any further publication research
or publiocation on the topic of, especially, matrixed
mono audio.This was followed shortly in 1978 by the
Bi-unilateral Interdisciplinary Technology Enclave
on Matrix Encoding declarations, released simultaneously
in Estonia, Angorra, Turkey, Spain, Honduras, India
Tonga and Denmark, Indonesia and Equador.

So, despite your claims to the contrary, trying to turn
stereo into mono using your method is basically
matrixing a stereo signal into an artificial, non-discrete
matrixed mono, decidedly inferior to true, discrete
mono.

Apparently, you are unaware of this. Perhaps you
should research this topic exhaustively and report back
to us on what you find in the literature. You'll have to
look hard, as I suspect you know, due to the amount
of information on the topic the remains buried and
hidden from the inquistive eyes of people such as
yourselve(s).

You can start by looking up these organizations.

Re: WMA vs FLAC


"Jocelyn Major" <majorj@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:XZrPj.14417$a86.8698@weber.videotron,net ...
> Mono cannot in any way represent the sound you get when you go to a live
> concert.

Sure it can. A LOT of live music that uses PA/SR is mono for the simple
reason that people sitting on both sides of the hall (especially those close
to a speaker) want to hear all the instruments, not just some of them.

As for Radium's predilection for Mono recordings, he's proven himself an
idiot a thousand times, so who cares what he prefers?
I will say one thing though, *IF* you are using really low bit rates, Mono
*IS* a preferable option!
(one channel of Mid-Fi always sounds better than two channels of Lo-Fi IMO.
YMMV)

MrT.

Re: WMA vs FLAC

Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
> 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.

K-well, no offense but that pretty much mooted your opinion that it
*has* to be WMA instead of FLAC.

--

"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

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

Bollocks. WMA is just as crappy as other lossy formats.

>
> Here are my rules for digital audio:

Here's mine. Buy a bigger media for little $$$ and save LPCM in the original
bit-depth/SR . If archiving large amounts of data (such as multitrack) maybe
a lossless compression format such as Sony PCA, FLAC, or Monkeys (whichever
you feel confident is going to be supported longer) would be useful.


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


They are both listed as lossless.


--

"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 ...
> Any thoughts on the best file for archiving music???

Not until you precisely define "best" *in your context.*
And tell us what "archiving" means in your world, also.

Re: WMA vs FLAC



"WindsorFox" wrote:

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

Linear PCM perhaps ?

Graham

Re: WMA vs FLAC

Eeyore wrote:
>
> "WindsorFox" wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts on the best file for archiving music???
>
> Linear PCM perhaps ?
>
> Graham
>

That wasn't an option. Exact Audio Copy is what the program is and I
guess it offers an archiving feature. I've had a couple of people
recommend it as making the best quality cd copies and rips of any other
app available.

--

"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:
> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> "WindsorFox" wrote:
>>
>>> Any thoughts on the best file for archiving music???
>>
>> Linear PCM perhaps ?
>>
>> Graham
>>
>
> That wasn't an option. Exact Audio Copy is what the program is and I
> guess it offers an archiving feature. I've had a couple of people
> recommend it as making the best quality cd copies and rips of any other
> app available.
>

If you are ripping a CD, they use Linear PCM, so Exact Audio Copy will
give you a LPCM archive - that is the only option.

d

Re: WMA vs FLAC

don pearce wrote:
>
> WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>> "WindsorFox" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any thoughts on the best file for archiving music???
>>>
>>> Linear PCM perhaps ?
>>>
>>> Graham
>>>
>>
>> That wasn't an option. Exact Audio Copy is what the program is and
>> I guess it offers an archiving feature. I've had a couple of people
>> recommend it as making the best quality cd copies and rips of any
>> other app available.
>>
>
> If you are ripping a CD, they use Linear PCM, so Exact Audio Copy will
> give you a LPCM archive - that is the only option.
>
> d

I've not yet used the program, so I can't refute that. All I can say
is that during the initial setup it asked how I wanted to save music for
archiving, FLAC or WMA lossless, please check one....

--

"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


"don pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:4dadnVc9ovz2aZDVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
> > That wasn't an option. Exact Audio Copy is what the program is and I
> > guess it offers an archiving feature. I've had a couple of people
> > recommend it as making the best quality cd copies and rips of any other
> > app available.
> >
>
> If you are ripping a CD, they use Linear PCM, so Exact Audio Copy will
> give you a LPCM archive - that is the only option.
>

Of course they can save the LPCM file without conversion, but most ripping
programs will also use a codec before saving the file to disk, if you select
that option. EAC can call many external codecs, or seamlessly use a codec
.DLL like LAME for example. So saying it is the "only" option is not exactly
correct since the data need not even be saved to disk before conversion,
given sufficient memory, which most computers have these days.

MrT.

Re: WMA vs FLAC


Mr.T wrote:
> "don pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
> news:4dadnVc9ovz2aZDVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
>>> That wasn't an option. Exact Audio Copy is what the program is and I
>>> guess it offers an archiving feature. I've had a couple of people
>>> recommend it as making the best quality cd copies and rips of any other
>>> app available.
>>>
>> If you are ripping a CD, they use Linear PCM, so Exact Audio Copy will
>> give you a LPCM archive - that is the only option.
>>
>
> Of course they can save the LPCM file without conversion, but most ripping
> programs will also use a codec before saving the file to disk, if you select
> that option. EAC can call many external codecs, or seamlessly use a codec
> .DLL like LAME for example. So saying it is the "only" option is not exactly
> correct since the data need not even be saved to disk before conversion,
> given sufficient memory, which most computers have these days.
>
> MrT.
>
>

You are quite right. I was thinking of using EAC for its intended
purpose, the exact copying of CDs.

d

Re: WMA vs FLAC


"don pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:SoCdnbLMuvO7ZJPVnZ2dnUVZ8ternZ2d@plusnet...
> >>> That wasn't an option. Exact Audio Copy is what the program is and
I
> >>> guess it offers an archiving feature. I've had a couple of people
> >>> recommend it as making the best quality cd copies and rips of any
other
> >>> app available.
> >>>
> >> If you are ripping a CD, they use Linear PCM, so Exact Audio Copy will
> >> give you a LPCM archive - that is the only option.
> >>
> >
> > Of course they can save the LPCM file without conversion, but most
ripping
> > programs will also use a codec before saving the file to disk, if you
select
> > that option. EAC can call many external codecs, or seamlessly use a
codec
> > .DLL like LAME for example. So saying it is the "only" option is not
exactly
> > correct since the data need not even be saved to disk before conversion,
> > given sufficient memory, which most computers have these days.
> >
> >
>
> You are quite right. I was thinking of using EAC for its intended
> purpose, the exact copying of CDs.


Yes, but you should realise that many/most users simply want a glitchless
copy to convert to MP3, or some other format.
It's "intended purpose" is BOTH functions, that's why they provide them
both!

MrT.

Re: WMA vs FLAC


Mr.T wrote:
> "don pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
> news:SoCdnbLMuvO7ZJPVnZ2dnUVZ8ternZ2d@plusnet...
>>>>> That wasn't an option. Exact Audio Copy is what the program is and
> I
>>>>> guess it offers an archiving feature. I've had a couple of people
>>>>> recommend it as making the best quality cd copies and rips of any
> other
>>>>> app available.
>>>>>
>>>> If you are ripping a CD, they use Linear PCM, so Exact Audio Copy will
>>>> give you a LPCM archive - that is the only option.
>>>>
>>> Of course they can save the LPCM file without conversion, but most
> ripping
>>> programs will also use a codec before saving the file to disk, if you
> select
>>> that option. EAC can call many external codecs, or seamlessly use a
> codec
>>> .DLL like LAME for example. So saying it is the "only" option is not
> exactly
>>> correct since the data need not even be saved to disk before conversion,
>>> given sufficient memory, which most computers have these days.
>>>
>>>
>> You are quite right. I was thinking of using EAC for its intended
>> purpose, the exact copying of CDs.
>
>
> Yes, but you should realise that many/most users simply want a glitchless
> copy to convert to MP3, or some other format.
> It's "intended purpose" is BOTH functions, that's why they provide them
> both!
>
> MrT.
>
>

I would have to say that its intended purpose is "what it says on the
tin". The other stuff like compression is provided because it is easy,
and they may as well do it.

d

Re: WMA vs FLAC


"don pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:2padnS_5uqp9mZLVnZ2dnUVZ8s3inZ2d@plusnet...

> I would have to say that its intended purpose is "what it says on the
> tin".

OK, you've got me, I've never seen the "tin". Didn't realise there was one
since it's usually downloaded from the internet.
But since you've apparently seen it, I won't argue.

Unusual packaging for software/shareware though IMO.

MrT.