lossless compression (WMA) music player

JimmyL

Looking for a lossless compression music player. Any recommendations? How about the iAudio M3 or M5 which supports WMA - I presume that includes lossless WMA.

Thanks.

IceHawk

I read an article a while back that said there weren't many players that support Windows Media lossless, as not very many people encode their music in that format. It is an entirely different format to standard Windows Media Audio, and unless specified, I wouldn't assume any player supports it.

Stark

Have a look at this page: http://flac.sourceforge.net/links.html

FLAC is a lossless compression codec which is very good.

Bard

Stark wrote:

Have a look at this page: http://flac.sourceforge.net/links.html

FLAC is a lossless compression codec which is very good.

Yes - and the iAudio players support FLAC \o/

JimmyL

I thought so as much. What about variable bit rate?

Thanks for the pointer to FLAC - I'll look into it.

Stark

What do you mean by variable bit rate? Nearly every modern codec uses variable bitrate. It's use is optional in MP3 but I know of very few players who won't support VBR-MP3. The iAudios will definitely support it anyway.

JimmyL

Stark wrote:

What do you mean by variable bit rate? Nearly every modern codec uses variable bitrate. It's use is optional in MP3 but I know of very few players who won't support VBR-MP3. The iAudios will definitely support it anyway.

I was thinking of VBR-WMA which is the other format that I use (yes, I know should switch to MP3 or something else but WMP is just too convenient for me to install something else).

iregk

what are the differences between them all from a storage and quality point of view. i believe (microsoft say so!) that wma is a lot better quality plus smaller file size than mp3 when compressed at the same rate i.e. 128!

Is this true or is it very hard to spot the difference? I know a good bit about music but I dont know this as well I have never used wma compression only ever opted mp3!

Also what are the differences between the looseless, vbr and normal wma?

Stark

iregk wrote:

what are the differences between them all from a storage and quality point of view. i believe (microsoft say so!) that wma is a lot better quality plus smaller file size than mp3 when compressed at the same rate i.e. 128!

Quality wise, WMA is actually quite good these days I think. I remember around the time of WMA 7 the quality was awful even though Microsoft claimed CD quality at 64kpbs :rolleyes: You still won't get CD quality at 64kpbs but WMA 9@128kpbs actually sounds quite decent these days.

The contenders for best quality at the moment I believe are AAC and OGG Vorbis. Vorbis is actually slightly better and it's completely free/open unlike AAC. My subjective experience is that Vorbis sounds the same at half the bitrate as MP3.

iregk wrote:

Also what are the differences between the looseless, vbr and normal wma?

VBR gives better quality than CBR(constant bitrate) as the encoder can use less bitrate on parts of the song that are easier to encode and use more bitrate for parts of the song that are harder to encode.

Lossless compression will give you perfect cd quality guaranteed as it uncompresses to an exact bit-for-bit version of the original source. You will generally get a compression factor of about 2 compared to between 5 and 10 for lossy encoders.

Lossy encoders throw away parts of the sound that they hope your ear won't hear. The quality of a lossy-encoded file is a very subjective thing. The reference point is generally 256kpbs MP3 which studies have shown to be indistinguishable from the original CD source for people with the best ears and the best equipment. That was a good while back though, encoders have improved since then and VBR-MP3 has entered the equation. If you're using the LAME encode, use the --preset standard option, which should give subjective CD quality at about 160kpbs-200kpbs depending on how hard the source is to encode.

iregk

Cheers Stark. for ripping / encoding up to now I have been using itunes on 192kbs. Sounds deeper and richer than 128 to me altough this could also be the fact that i now have a much better player with €45 earphones!!!

What in your (or anyone elses) opinion is the best ripper/encoder? I used quintessential player with the lame plug in before but found it overly slow compared to itunes.