Re: WMA vs FLAC

Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
> geoff wrote:
>> WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
>>>    Any thoughts on the best file for archiving music???
>>
>> Isn't FLAC lossless ? And WMA isn't ?
>>
>> I guess it depends on how much space you want to save. Why not just 
>> LPCM WAVs
>>
>> geoff
>>
> 
> 
> As Geoff says use linear PCM Wave files with a sample-rate of at least 
> 44.1 kHz and a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit.

    Actually I wondered that myself, but it wasn't a choice. I installed 
Exact Audio Copy and it offered FLAC and WMA for archiving. I ASSume 
that I don't have to "archive" at all and could leave it as a ripped WAV 
file.

> 
> If you must compress, use WMA but do so with the following wisdom:
> 
> Beware all digital audio compression formats other than WMA, stink
badly!!

   Odd, you're the first seemingly person knowledgeable person to say 
that. Outside of Usenet most answers were Flac, then WMA followed by Ogg.

> 
> Here are my rules for digital audio:
> 
> A. Whether compressed or not, the audio must be monaural and with a 
> sample-rate of at least 44.1 kHz.
> 

    Why in the world would anyone want to make all of their music mono???

-- 

"I have no need to purchase any bulk e-mail software
and use it to piss off the Internet community and lose
my Internet account. If I want to piss off somebody,
I'll do it on a one-to-one basis." - Norman  L.  De Forest