Saving to WMA Lossless issue

[Geebster]

I still need MP3's for portable listening devices, though. Sure, they'll play wav files, but again, you won't get the information about the file displayed and you limit your capacity. And I would much rather be able to take a single iPod Classic 160GB with over 2000 albums on it than have just over 300 albums on it because it's in WAV format. So I just archive both versions. Yes, 300 albums is plenty of listening time, but MP3 lets you carry your whole (well, maybe not yours, Geebster ) collection with without having to delete songs and add new songs and update playlists, etc.

That's exactly what I do too, John. I've tried a few .wavs on my portables, but they don't sound dramatically improved on the players, so I use MP3 there.

After ripping a CD or finishing a restoration, I make 2 archival copies; one in .wav, the other in 16 bit / 48khz MP3. All of the portables I have (Zen Photo, Zen Vision: M) support 16/48 MP3 and I feel that it makes the files sound a bit more realistic without getting enormous file sizes.

I like both formats for different things. I actually rather like the MP3 format for portable use.

GB

[WGCman]

WMA Lossless

Although I accept that storage is cheaper than before, there are still advantages in compression - for example you need to store the CD, DVD or flash card in a way that you can retrieve what you've stored.

I tried WMA lossless (on DC 7.0.2.0) and found, like those who started this thread, that it didn't work. It looks like the thread died in April. Is DC still planning to fix this, or has the view prevailed that we don't need lossless compression?

[Ringmaster]

Quote Craig:

"Just as a reference point, my understanding is that the Library of Congress digital audio archiving standard is as follows:

24 Bit Resolution

96 KHz Sampling Rate

Non-Compressed .wav format"


I read volumes of Technical Data; I don't read much for "pleasure", because I tend to study everything I read. Also, I do not retain much of the information that I read; I only retain what interests me, and a lot of that seems to be "dropping the wayside".

Craig is correct; I also read that the Library of Congress archives their data in the manner that Craig described. That is why I do everything in the .wav format; also, what do we do when all of the other formats may possibly "fall by the wayside", and become obsolete. Many people, not thinking about future Audio advances, might have their files archived in various "other" formats, and these formats may no longer be available for "play-back"; also, in up-grading our hardware/software, it's quite possible that we would inadvertantly delete these format programs from our workstations.

We are able to extract information from vinyl recordings, and convert the signals to digital data using the ".wav" standard. There are a lot of people that do not project themselves beyond what is happening today, and what they think is "coming down the road". I am thinking about 25 to 100 years from now; look at those of us that are restoring "cylinder" and old "78 RPM" signals. What will our ancestors do when the other formats and "optical media" no longer exist. Many of us only enter the "digital" media stream for personal entertainment; however, there are some of us that produce much data that are worthy of historical preservation; if this archival data is not available in the standard ".wav" format, our history will be lost, and not available for future generations.

I found out something regarding the "MDB2000" database that I will include in another post.

[WGCman]

compression

This is a good point and certainly a necessary approach when dealing with data of historical importance, but would you spurn in other circumstances the use of other compressed formats such as .jpg, .pdf and .zip? And what happens if our friends in Seattle, who, I believe, invented .wav, start to charge the earth for it?

A .wav file, however many bits, is only a small sample of an infinite amount of analogue data, so we have already zapped far more of the information at that stage than we can ever zap by further compression. And even a multitrack audio analogue recording may not completely capture a large orchestra. So wherever we strike the balance between 100% fidelity and compactness of storage is going to be a compromise.

It is good news that the Library of Congress, as well as similar instititions throughout the world (probably), compromises at a high level of fidelity, but surely the knowledge that they do so enables the rest of us to sleep more soundly if we maintain a slightly lower but more convenient level. There must be many who, like me, would welcome a virtually lossless audio equivalent for .zip.

[Craig Maier]

Quoting WGCman:

"A .wav file, however many bits, is only a small sample of an infinite amount of analogue data, so we have already zapped far more of the information at that stage than we can ever zap by further compression."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I must assert that digital recording at 96 kHz sample rates and 24 bits looses no audio* whatsoever.

Why?

96 KHz sampling rates produce bandwidth values of roughly 48 kHz. The best human hearing does not exceed 20 kHz. Futhermore, the dynamic range of audio recordings can not exceed roughly 120 dB else the people creating the recording would become seriously injured in the process. 24 bits provides 144 dB of dynamic range which far exceeds what a human is capable of hearing or producing musically.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As for 24 bit .wma lossless recording, I believe that we put that into the most recent update of DC7 (I think that is v. 7.15 - - - but not positive & the update is free). This can be gotten at www.diamondcut.com. Just download the demo over your existing licensed version and it will "stick".

Craig

*Note: I define "audio" as an acoustical signal which the most aurally sensitive human being on the planet is capable of discerning.

[Craig Maier]

.wma lossless

I just did a little research here and found that the support of the .wma lossless codec was added at v. 7.11 not 7.15. Of course, 7.15 would have it too. See this thread for details about that:

http://www.diamondcut.com/vforum/sho...=.wma+lossless

Note: You must have this codec on your machine for this to work. Diamond Cut just provides the support for it. If you do not have it, check on the Microsoft site in order to obtain it.

[WGCman]

Thanks, I'll upgrade to 7.15

[jfritz]

Great discussion. I'm a right tool for the job person whose right tool criterion includes convenience. I like compressed files for playing in the car or on my music player. I don't use FLAC very much mainly because neither my car stereo nor my music player supports it. I use VBR mp3 a lot.

I back up wav files to CD and DVD. I have almost 1 TB of storage at home but I know I'll fill it up.

The one thing I do expect is that no storage medium will last forever. Probably I won't either. <g>

[Ringmaster]

WGCman:

Phew! I didn't expect to go this deep; but since we're there, I just purchased WinZip 12.0, with the new .jpeg compression:

"WinZip will now compress your JPEG files (digital photos or graphic images) by 20 to 25% and still without any loss of photo quality or data integrity. Now you can send photos faster or fit more on your hard drive and removable media than ever before."

So, I guess I won't abandon .jpeg in the near future.

[Craig Maier]

Alternatively, a good music database comes with the Diamond Cut Productions software. It is found under the File Menu and is called "DCTunes". It is described in the product helpfile.

Craig