IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
FLAC & WMAL (need some input)
Koffee
post Sep 28 2010, 01:06
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 28-September 10
Member No.: 84175



Hey fellow audiophiles. I just want to know if I should go through with converting 390 albums in WMAL to FLAC. I'm thinking of switching to Foobar because I don't have a Zune anymore and the Zune software takes up a good amount of resources. OR should I just stay as is and convert any new audio to WMAL forever? Need some input please.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SCOTU
post Sep 28 2010, 01:28
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 9-July 10
Member No.: 82156



Is there a problem just using your existing WMALs with Foobar? It handles them reasonably as far as I can tell. Conversion of new material is up to you at that point. Since lossless is lossless and foobar can handle WMAL, the only reason for converting to something else would be for some metadata disadvantage of WMAL (or maybe for some slight filesize advantage that probably isn't worth it).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Koffee
post Sep 28 2010, 03:04
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 28-September 10
Member No.: 84175



I'm kind of an OCD freak and would want an all FLAC library. I didn't know Foobar supported WMAL. Foobar here I come then. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Sep 28 2010, 07:55
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



There's nothing "wrong" with WMA Lossless per se.

I may suggest that you'll (possibly) get the best results using a secure ripper (take your pick) now that you're archiving as FLAC.

If you really feel the need to convert those files you can use a batch converter. I'm assuming you wouldn't want to go through 390 albums individually.


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2t0nEg
post Sep 29 2010, 15:27
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 25-March 09
Member No.: 68370



If I were doing it, I'd keep the 390 albums as they are, unless the need arises ( i.e. iPod purchase, in which case I'd convert to ALAC, lossy aac/m4a, or mp3..Now for future rips, I would rip to flac..
Jm2cents.. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odyssey
post Sep 29 2010, 16:40
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18-May 03
From: Denmark
Member No.: 6695



As an entire offtopic recommendation, but to suplement the advice of using a secure ripper, you can verify your current rips against the AccurateRip database using CUETools.

N.B. foobar2000 makes it easy to batch convert formats wink.gif


--------------------
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DragonQ
post Oct 1 2010, 12:35
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 27-March 07
Member No.: 41926



WMAL actually gives better compression ratios than FLAC level 8 most of the time. If you're not bothered about a few MB here per album, you might as well leave them as they are. If in the future you need to have them in FLAC format (for a portable media player, for example) then you can just do a batch convert in Foobar overnight. smile.gif

Do future rips in FLAC unless you're using other programs that don't support it.

This post has been edited by DragonQ: Oct 1 2010, 12:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odyssey
post Oct 1 2010, 14:13
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18-May 03
From: Denmark
Member No.: 6695



FlaCUDA usually provides better compression results than FLAC -8 as well wink.gif


--------------------
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HTS
post Jan 13 2012, 05:24
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 356
Joined: 13-October 07
Member No.: 47799



QUOTE (DragonQ @ Oct 1 2010, 06:35) *
WMAL actually gives better compression ratios than FLAC level 8 most of the time.

I could of sworn that this was the case. But right now in my tests FLAC level 8 actually beat out WMA by a few megabytes.

Hasn't FLAC stopped being updated since 2007?

This post has been edited by HTS: Jan 13 2012, 05:25
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jan 13 2012, 09:00
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (HTS @ Jan 13 2012, 05:24) *
Hasn't FLAC stopped being updated since 2007?


Yes, libFLAC versions 1.2.1, 1.2.0 and 1.1.4 were all from 2007, and 1.1.4 from February 13th was the last that improved compression.


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Jan 13 2012, 16:08
Post #11





Group: Developer
Posts: 3362
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (HTS @ Jan 13 2012, 08:24) *
But right now in my tests FLAC level 8 actually beat out WMA by a few megabytes.


I use Win7 and I noticed this too. Slightly worse compression ratio, but compression and decompression are significantly faster than in WinXP+WMP11.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HTS
post Jan 13 2012, 19:39
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 356
Joined: 13-October 07
Member No.: 47799



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Jan 13 2012, 10:08) *
QUOTE (HTS @ Jan 13 2012, 08:24) *
But right now in my tests FLAC level 8 actually beat out WMA by a few megabytes.


I use Win7 and I noticed this too. Slightly worse compression ratio, but compression and decompression are significantly faster than in WinXP+WMP11.

I meant to say better compression ratio than on Winxp in the past.

Does anyone know if the Microsoft Expression encoder adds a lot of padding/metadata?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th August 2014 - 18:15