Windows Media Audio Lossless vs Free Lossles Audio Codec?

[Sammy]

A quick question here, other than FLAC being open source and WMAL probably not as it is a MS product, are there any major differences between these codecs in playback audio quality?

I've ripped most of my CD collection into windows media player 11 to playback from my computer via my Denon ASD-3N to my AVR using WMAL. So now I'm wondering if I should have used FLAC instead. That said, it sounds as good as it can considering the source is WAV on on the CD's and not black vinyl which will be next as soon as I update my turntable to do it.

Any thoughts, help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[richteer]

I would use FLAC if only to avoid being tied to any one platform. Sonically, there should be nothing to chose between them.

[got rice]

I'm not an expert on the subject however, I recently have been reading up is this area and it seems there are pro's and con's for both.

With WMAL the compresion ratio is better, plus you can import the file directly without having to convert it to WAV first. However, the problem most are encountering with WMAL is MS-windows only, so long term archiving may be an issue when old files potentially become unuasable after a MediaPlayer update.

With FLAC it is an open source and can be used with a multitude of platforms instead of one MS. Depending on your needs it has different levels of compression, and smaller files. Ripping CD's and copying audio from vinyl can be done on the same platforms or several different therefore allowing you to transfer from one to another as update become available. Long term archiving is easier to maintain.

[Sammy]

Thanks.

So I guess the only difference IS the fact that FLAC is open source and WMAL isn't because lossless IS lossless? Is it true that all lossless codecs are just as good as any other? Is there additional information that anybody has on this subject?

[Tempest]

All of them just compress/decompress so the quality should be the same on all..

The only factors are which makes files smaller, which are more supported with players and such, etc..

I personally would avoid anything that has Microsoft's name on it but perhaps that is the most supported format.. I really don't know much about the lossless codecs though.

[Edu Camargo]

Hello, I'm new to this forum. Glad to find you guys here.

Replying to the question: There's no diference between the two formats regarding sound quality. Both formats use data prediction to mathematically encode data in a way that important sound information ain't lost, yet decreasing the size of the content to 40 or 60%.

The only diference between these formats is decoding speed and, in this case, Windows Media Audio Lossless is very under-rated, hence the fact that some high-end systems manufacturers like 'Sonos' for example, refuse to give support to the format. According to some technical studyings, although WMA Lossless produces much smaller files it uses a lot of CPU to decompress the data, whilst FLAC does not suffer from this flaw. And, as someone said here, WMA lossless is Windows only.

Regardless of being open source, FLAC is cross-platform and is suitable for long-term archiving. It has support in softwares like Winamp, Foobar2000 (windows), Play and Kog (Mac), is part of the linux core and now it is supported by the open-source/cross-platform jukebox/browser, Songbird.

If for some reason you use iTunes, Apple Lossless is also a great alternative, since it is part of the iTunes/iPod ecosystem. It's technically well-rated for its decoding speed and it's preferable to use when the strategy is listen to lossless music on an iTunes/iPod environment, or if you use Airport Express to stream music in your house.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Edu.

[tlmaclennan]

I use flac. You can configure most programs to play flac with the use of madflac or ffdshow. I use ffdshow and can play flac in most of my programs, but I use it for my blu-rays stored on my computer. My LPCM, TrueHD, and DTS-HD MA tracks are converted to flac and packaged to an MKV container.

[djmaged]

flac is better because it is support any sample rate like 64KHz or 72KHz or 192KHz
wmal support only 44.1KHz & 48KHz & 88.2KHz & 96KHZ