• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

WMA AUDIO 9 LOSSLESS VS WAVE FILE

M

menotti1

Guest
ripped a song using the 2 formats. i could not tell the difference.wma lossless used 15 mb, wave lossless 30mb. any ears compared these files? of course, no rocket science here ,but mp3 was not even in the ballpark compared to the wma lossless..
 
It's fine for personal, non-critical listening, like hard rock or Hip-Hop. But when you get some complicated music, like early '60's Ray Charles or Dinah Washington, with strings and horns, you lose.

And if you plan to run the lossy file through sophisticated processing for conventional FM or HD, forget it. There's so many gritty artifacts and grainy, fuzzy passages that you'll be dissapointed.
 
amfmsw said:
It's fine for personal, non-critical listening, like hard rock or Hip-Hop. But when you get some complicated music, like early '60's Ray Charles or Dinah Washington, with strings and horns, you lose.

And if you plan to run the lossy file through sophisticated processing for conventional FM or HD, forget it. There's so many gritty artifacts and grainy, fuzzy passages that you'll be dissapointed.
Click to expand...

AGREED!!!

For personal music listening, whatever you like is what you should use. But for broadcast purposes, there really is no sense in using anything other than .wav files. Hard drive space is very inexpensive today. Case in point, I bought a Seagate 300 Gig IDE drive for $100.00, to store and play all my music. Even though it's not being used for broadcast at this time, I still use .wav files.

R
 
I wouldn't bother with windows media for any sort of storage, even "lossless". FLAC has a good track record for me, although I mostly use MP3 and uncompressed WAV.
 
I never used WMA lossless (only FLAC) but if it's a true lossless format, you're not going to hear any difference because there isn't any!

Lossless coding (as the name implies) doesn't loose any information, unlike lossy codecs like MP3, AAC, etc. IOW, lossless coding preservers all information. Decoded audio should be bit-identical to the original. Like for example when you ZIP audio file, except that with lossless audio codecs you get up to 50% data reduction, whereas with ZIP your file would most likely end up bigger than the original. Plus you couldn't decode it (play it) on-fly. With lossless coding there isn't any perceptual coding going on, but simply removing redundancy in the bit-stream "domain" using Huffman algorithm, prediction and stuff like that.

If 50% (maximum) data reduction means something significant to you, there's isn't any strong reason not to use lossless coding, except compatibility. For on-air use, your playout system should be able to play and work with lossless format you choose. So far I don't know any serious system that supports lossless codecs, but I may be wrong.

The good thing with lossless coding is that you can always return it to uncompressed audio without any loss, something you can't do with perceptual (lossy) coding...


Regards,
Goran Tomas
 
that's the point i was making.i think amfmsw thought i was talking about a lossy coded not lossless. i really could not tell the difference in the files i did.But will still continue to use the uncompressed audio on the air.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom