Electric Falcon™
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 555
- Joined: 2009/10/20 01:56:15
- Status: offline
.WMA vs .WAV?
I'm importing a couple of cd's to listen to on my computer today.
My question is : "My computer supports both .WMA and .WAV". And they both say in the RIP section that they are both "LOSSLESS" as far as sound quality goes. I use WMP 11 BTW, I'm used to it, and I like it and don't care to change to another player.
It's always seemed to me that a .WAV is larger than a .WMA file and takes up more space on the hard drive, which I must add if that's the case then I would be crazy having the support for both formats to play them to not import the CD as .WMA instead of .WAV.
Is this the right choice?
I am aware that if you were importing a file for specific means you might want to use a .WAV because it seems to be more universal, importing into a daw or such. But as I said, I have support for both and it's just a couple of cd's I want to listen to in my music player WMP 11.
Is .WMA really lossless in quality as it says? Or is .WAV the only lossless format?
I'm keeping it specific to these two formats because they are my options.
Thoughts?
Electric Falcon™
The CyberSpace Pub This is the link to my Website and Music. I got it working again now as of today. Check it out - 1-26-2010
|
gamblerschoice
Max Output Level: -43 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3226
- Joined: 2005/02/25 15:55:05
- Location: Johnstown, Pa
- Status: offline
Re:.WMA vs .WAV?
2010/01/15 01:08:54
(permalink)
I remember looking this up a while ago, but forget what the result was. I think that wma is a wave file, just set to a standard 16bit, 44.1khz level, where as wave files from different systems can have different parameters.
Not sure, but I know I didn't care enough about the answer to commmit it to memory, so it must have not been important.
Later
Albert
|
EyjolfurG
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 103
- Joined: 2007/11/24 04:52:35
- Status: offline
Re:.WMA vs .WAV?
2010/01/15 03:51:05
(permalink)
Wma is not lossless. (Flac is lossless). You could test this by convert a wave file to wma and import both files to 2 tracks in Sonar side by side. Then invert the phase on the one of the tracks. If the tracks are identical the resault should total silence.
|
Electric Falcon™
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 555
- Joined: 2009/10/20 01:56:15
- Status: offline
Re:.WMA vs .WAV?
2010/01/19 06:03:51
(permalink)
EyjolfurG
Wma is not lossless. (Flac is lossless). You could test this by convert a wave file to wma and import both files to 2 tracks in Sonar side by side. Then invert the phase on the one of the tracks. If the tracks are identical the resault should total silence.
Thanks, I don't doubt you one bit. The only thing you have to consider is I was talking about ripping or importing a "CD" into Windows Media Player 11. It gives you the option to select .WMA (LOSSLESS) - I think that what it is saying by that is that -"When ripping a 16bit 441000k CD" then you will not lose anything by using .WMA??? Not sure here, but I hope I explaned what I was talking about well enough. I know .WMA isn't LOSSLESS on all realms, I'm just wondering if it is in the codec and format using Windows Media Player and the selection for ripping a "Compact Disc" using .WMA (Lossless) as it's listed? I'm not doubting you one bit, I don't know or I wouldn't have asked. Although as I keep wondering, Is it lossless only in the sense of Ripping a CD? Or does this mean if you rip a CD in that format it's lossless because it's ONLY 16/44? EF
The CyberSpace Pub This is the link to my Website and Music. I got it working again now as of today. Check it out - 1-26-2010
|
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 50621
- Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Status: offline
Re:.WMA vs .WAV?
2010/01/19 09:04:17
(permalink)
EyjolfurG
Wma is not lossless. (Flac is lossless). You could test this by convert a wave file to wma and import both files to 2 tracks in Sonar side by side. Then invert the phase on the one of the tracks. If the tracks are identical the resault should total silence.
I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. WMA is a lossless compressed file. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Audio bobby - the reason it's smaller in size from a wave file is because it is compressed, but it's lossless, so it should not affect the quality of the sound.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re:.WMA vs .WAV?
2010/01/19 10:17:26
(permalink)
When ripping a CD, whether you use WMA or WAV depends on what you're going to do with the file. If you're going to turn it into a loop and use it in another recording, go with standard wave files. But if you're just going to listen to it for enjoyment, either on your computer or on a portable player, then WMA is better due to its smaller file sizes. You shouldn't be able to hear any difference between a wave and any lossless compression scheme. Beagle, I was under the impression that WMA is normally a lossy compressed format. However, the WMA spec does allow for a true lossless mode. You won't get the same compression ratios in that mode, but the files will still be much smaller than waves. When I rip music to put onto my portable player I use WMA, and the files are comparable in size to high-bitrate MP3. I can't imagine how you'd achieve that much size reduction in a truly lossless format. Audio data isn't like other types of data, where you often have sections of repeating values that compress well under standard data compression algorithms (e.g. zip files).
post edited by bitflipper - 2010/01/19 10:30:34
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 50621
- Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Status: offline
Re:.WMA vs .WAV?
2010/01/19 13:08:03
(permalink)
Beagle, I was under the impression that WMA is normally a lossy compressed format. However, the WMA spec does allow for a true lossless mode. You won't get the same compression ratios in that mode, but the files will still be much smaller than waves. hey, dave, you're right - I stand corrected. so, Eyjolfur, we're both correct. there's a lossy compression for WMA and a lossless setting as well. I use WMA as well for a lot of applications. even at the lossy higher compression settings it's still way better than mp3 compression.
|
MurMan
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1040
- Joined: 2008/12/10 19:11:36
- Location: Sunny San Diego
- Status: offline
Re:.WMA vs .WAV?
2010/01/19 14:22:04
(permalink)
The problem with WMA is the nomenclature. WMA is umbrella name for a series of audio compression technologies. Each technology uses a different codec, so in order to record/playback, you need to recogognize both the WMA file format and the specific codec required.
What's most confusing is that one of the WMA codecs is named WMA. That's like having a patch named "Patch".
<rant> Creating needless confusion is an artform within Microsoft product management. I am generally a fan of Microsoft technologies and have used nearly all of them over the years. But, so many of their products suffer from horrible naming conventions. Look at all of the confusion caused by the various COM technolgies. The media products seem to be the worst. Yet other products, like SQL Server, are well managed with clean, consistent nomenclature. </rant>
Sonar 8PE & VS, Presonus Firestudio, VS-100, AlphaTrack, Nord Stage Compact, Roland Sonic Cell, Axiom 49, dbx 386, Event TR-8's, Kawai 650, ...
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re:.WMA vs .WAV?
2010/01/19 19:33:24
(permalink)
What's most confusing is that one of the WMA codecs is named WMA. That's like having a patch named "Patch". That actually cleared some things up for me. Thanks, Murray. Personally, I give all my patches unique names: Patch1, Patch2, Patch3...
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
MurMan
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1040
- Joined: 2008/12/10 19:11:36
- Location: Sunny San Diego
- Status: offline
Re:.WMA vs .WAV?
2010/01/19 20:03:57
(permalink)
bitflipper
Personally, I give all my patches unique names: Patch1, Patch2, Patch3...
That's brilliant. Why didn't I think of that? 
Sonar 8PE & VS, Presonus Firestudio, VS-100, AlphaTrack, Nord Stage Compact, Roland Sonic Cell, Axiom 49, dbx 386, Event TR-8's, Kawai 650, ...
|
Goldtop56
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 57
- Joined: 2009/09/16 21:20:23
- Location: Orlando/Tampa
- Status: offline
Re:.WMA vs .WAV?
2010/02/01 01:54:32
(permalink)
You didn't mention if these were commercial store bought CDs or your original music. I keep my master music on WAV, but my computer music on MP3s. (Sorry, I don't care what format goes in the car.)
Just today I went through all my hard drives and deleted all WAV files that were not my personal music. Those WAV files were eating my storage like crazy.
Thanks.
|
NoKey
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 974
- Joined: 2008/10/28 15:30:19
- Status: offline
Re:.WMA vs .WAV?
2010/02/01 04:50:24
(permalink)
I've read in the past that WMA has various levels..One of which lossless, but others are not.
Even lossless it used to be better than MP3, but that' is not totally true any more..There are MP3's that are pretty close to lossless, like the ones sold by larger music dealers now.
One thing I stay away from WMA is because it is proprietary, and not very popular, and because mp3 encoders themselves have progressed a lot too.
Also because one time I copied WMA's that I created with the W-Media player, and played well..But when I replaced the computer, and I copied all of those WMA to a new one, Windows refused to play them in the second computer, claiming they were not legal...So WMA's may not be totally free to move around from PC to PC, in some cases..At least in the past this happened to me. It may not be so any more, specially since it was bad for M.Soft, who wanted WMA to be a 'standard'.
I believe also that the W-Media player can make CD's from either lossy or lossless WMA. I've never used lossless WMA, though.
|