Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Is WMA the fastest? (Read 9836 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Is WMA the fastest?

I've decided to use WMA Lossless for my archiving (yes, I know it's a bit of a gamble) and a 6:41 song just took 23 seconds to rip and encode. I thought that was really fast, however I am comparing this time to lossy encoding, which I'm guessing takes longer since I'm guessing the operations are more involved.

I'm running a 3.06Ghz computer with 512MB of ram.

Would FLAC or something else yield comparable times?

It seems that I'm one of the few who've decided to use WMA lossless for archiving. I almost decided to use FLAC, but I figure in a few years time there will be a lot of hardware available that plays WMA Lossless.

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #1
Hi!

Perhaps the actual hardware support makes WMA to an 'attractive' format,
but it also a commercial one...

In general using a lossless codec is ok, but how to decode your WMA files
if U need another format? - I hope U have found an 'independent' decoder.


However, the following table may be of interest to U.
It shows the compession times of different lossless codecs:
http://www.monkeysaudio.com/comparison.html


Bye
384kbps

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #2
I don't really know how does WMA Lossless compare to other lossless codecs in terms of encoding speed. AFAIK the fastest ones are Monkey's Audio and Wavpack on fast to normal settings. Taking into account the system you have, I'd say both would outperform WMA Lossless encoding times, perhaps even FLAC -5 would.

EDIT: I forgot... :-) If hardware support is your concern, FLAC has already got some with the Rio Karma.

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #3
Quote
I've decided to use WMA Lossless for my archiving (yes, I know it's a bit of a gamble)

don't take it the wrong way, but it's a total gamble if WMA lossless was the only thing you tried, one one file.

FLAC is faster at encoding, but any encoder that compresses faster than the ripping process is fast enough.

Quote
Perhaps the actual hardware support makes WMA to an 'attractive' format, but it also a commercial one...

WMA lossless has no hardware support.

Quote
However, the following table may be of interest to U.
It shows the compession times of different lossless codecs:
http://www.monkeysaudio.com/comparison.html

this is way too old to be of any use, and does not even include WMA lossless.  better see http://web.inter.nl.net/users/hvdh/lossles...ss/lossless.htm.

Josh

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #4
Josh, no worries about taking comments the wrong way. I'm a newbie and any response I get is appreciated. Perhaps I should expand on my comments so they make more sense.

My thinking in going with WMA Lossless was based upon the following factors:

1) A gut feeling that in the future WMA Lossless will have better hardware support than other lossless formats. I realize at the moment FLAC does have the best hardware support, but I kind of think of Microsoft as the Borg and they'll eventually just take over. In the beginning days of the Internet everyone used Netscape and now it seems Explorer has basically made Netscape irrelevant. I realize this isn't the best logic. But I haven't started encoding yet, so if you can give me a persuasive arguement to use FLAC or something else, I'm listening.

2) Using WMA means that basically any computer with Windows XP will be able to play my files. Thus it's easier to swap files with friends when I visit them, plus I can listen to files on a notebook without having to install any additional software. I plan on getting a bithead from Headroom and use this as my "transportable audio" hardware.

My original plan was just to use wave files, but I like tags and when I found out that wave files can't be tagged I decided to go with a lossless format.

Perhaps I should just start a new thread and ask others what format they use and why they use it.

I encoded perhaps 3 CD's and being used to the EAC/Lame combo, I was just amazed at how fast lossless compression is. But I suppose it makes sense, there's less compression happening.

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #5
Quote
1) A gut feeling that in the future WMA Lossless will have better hardware support than other lossless formats. I realize at the moment FLAC does have the best hardware support, but I kind of think of Microsoft as the Borg and they'll eventually just take over. In the beginning days of the Internet everyone used Netscape and now it seems Explorer has basically made Netscape irrelevant. I realize this isn't the best logic. But I haven't started encoding yet, so if you can give me a persuasive arguement to use FLAC or something else, I'm listening.

I think it depends entirely on the decision of the EU about WMP, without WMP bundled, Microsoft hasn't a chance in the digital media market, Microsoft cannot lose the European market so the ruling will change the steer in Microsoft policies.

Quote
2) Using WMA means that basically any computer with Windows XP will be able to play my files. Thus it's easier to swap files with friends when I visit them, plus I can listen to files on a notebook without having to install any additional software. I plan on getting a bithead from Headroom and use this as my "transportable audio" hardware.

No, it doesn't, in order to play WMA lossless the computer needs Windows XP AND Windows Media Player 9.

Windows XP comes with Windows Media Player 8 which cannot playback WMA lossless without a codec update which I think is the wmfdist.exe (Windows Media Format 9 Runtime) that is 3.89 MB.

Also be very careful when encoding to WMA because if you set WMPlayer to 'Protect Content' the files won't be playable in any other PC than yours, also you won't be able to play them if you reformat.
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you."

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #6
Quote
1) A gut feeling that in the future WMA Lossless will have better hardware support than other lossless formats. I realize at the moment FLAC does have the best hardware support, but I kind of think of Microsoft as the Borg and they'll eventually just take over. In the beginning days of the Internet everyone used Netscape and now it seems Explorer has basically made Netscape irrelevant. I realize this isn't the best logic.

everyone must choose on their own to assimilate or resist.
Quote
But I haven't started encoding yet, so if you can give me a persuasive arguement to use FLAC or something else, I'm listening.

my advice is to read everything you can about your options now.  there are lots of threads here about it, just search for "wma lossless".

the main reason I would not use wma is that I would not trust my data and the time and effort it took to distill it to a closed, proprietary, drm-ed format, especially one controlled by a company like microsoft.

Josh

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #7
I've not checked this myself yet, but I remember WMA being FAR slower if DRM is used. Something to do with decryption happening as the audio passed through each DLL. I don't think you would be using DRM, but check anyways.

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #8
I like speed as well with a lossless codec. But who really cares about encoding speed? You just do that once. It's the decoding that you are going to be doing over and over again forever.  As far as I can tell FLAC decodes the fastest.

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #9
I didn't know that it was only WMP 8 that came pre-installed, I just assumed it was WMP 9 because that's what came with my computer, but I'm running XP Pro. Perhaps the guy who sold me the computer installed WMP 9 for me.

I also didn't know about the EU case.

I have been careful to deselect protect content on the first few CD's I've encoded. I'll have to experiment a bit more, perhaps I will go with FLAC.

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #10
Quote
Quote
1) A gut feeling that in the future WMA Lossless will have better hardware support than other lossless formats. I realize at the moment FLAC does have the best hardware support, but I kind of think of Microsoft as the Borg and they'll eventually just take over. In the beginning days of the Internet everyone used Netscape and now it seems Explorer has basically made Netscape irrelevant. I realize this isn't the best logic. But I haven't started encoding yet, so if you can give me a persuasive arguement to use FLAC or something else, I'm listening.

I think it depends entirely on the decision of the EU about WMP, without WMP bundled, Microsoft hasn't a chance in the digital media market, Microsoft cannot lose the European market so the ruling will change the steer in Microsoft policies.

Quote
2) Using WMA means that basically any computer with Windows XP will be able to play my files. Thus it's easier to swap files with friends when I visit them, plus I can listen to files on a notebook without having to install any additional software. I plan on getting a bithead from Headroom and use this as my "transportable audio" hardware.

No, it doesn't, in order to play WMA lossless the computer needs Windows XP AND Windows Media Player 9.

Windows XP comes with Windows Media Player 8 which cannot playback WMA lossless without a codec update which I think is the wmfdist.exe (Windows Media Format 9 Runtime) that is 3.89 MB.


This is wrong.

Theres an open sourced decoder for WMA Lossless AFAIK . . .  unless MS was extra nice to give Peter a compiled decoder for foobar2000

Even ignoreing foobar, WMA lossless is supported by MS on Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP, 2003, and MacOS >10.1.  Thats about 99% of all PCs in use, which is quite good, much better then formats like MPC which are popular around here.

Really saying "OMG ITS M$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" isn't much of an argument, not when its a *fairly* open, cross platform componet anyway.

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #11
Quote
This is wrong.

Theres an open sourced decoder for WMA Lossless AFAIK . . .  unless MS was extra nice to give Peter a compiled decoder for foobar2000

Not true. The foobar2000 input component just interfaces with Microsoft's decoding libraries that are installed with WMP/WME 9.

Quote
Even ignoreing foobar, WMA lossless is supported by MS on Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP, 2003, and MacOS >10.1.  Thats about 99% of all PCs in use, which is quite good, much better then formats like MPC which are popular around here.


Not true either. Sure, WMA standard is supported (almost) everywhere, but not Lossless, nor WMA pro. Actually, there's no Windows version supporting WMA lossless/pro out of the box, you have to install WMP9 or at least the redistributable decoders.

I dunno about MacOS either, but last time I checked there was simply no way to playback WMA pro/lossless there. Maybe it will only be possible with next version of WMP for MacOS.

Quote
Really saying "OMG ITS M$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" isn't much of an argument, not when its a *fairly* open, cross platform componet anyway.


That's true. The problem here is that it's neither open nor cross-platform.

Regards;

Roberto

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #12
Quote
Not true either. Sure, WMA standard is supported (almost) everywhere, but not Lossless, nor WMA pro. Actually, there's no Windows version supporting WMA lossless/pro out of the box, you have to install WMP9 or at least the redistributable decoders.


Err I didn't say that.  What i did say was correct though. 

Also, are you sure foobar is using MS library's?  Why does it only support some forms of WMA then ?  If it was a frontend for WMP I would expect it to support the same formats as WMP . . .

Quote
The problem here is that it's neither open nor cross-platform.


Windows and Mac, possibly Linux in WINE.  It has MPC beat hands down, and I don't see people complaining about that . . .

Edit:  Isn't there also a Solaris decoder?

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #13
Quote
What i did say was correct though.

Have you ever tried to do a WMA lossless encode in Windows 2000 with WMP9?

As rjamorim said, WMA lossless playback isn't supported out-of-the-box by any OS that doesn't ship with WMA9 (which none but possibly XP w/SP1 do).
You have to download a codec, which is essentially an identical situation to downloading an MPC or OGG codec.

Quote
Isn't there also a Solaris decoder?


You are correct insofar as a Solaris version of WMP exists, but it is WMP6.3 and Microsoft claims that WMA 9 lossless "Does not play in Windows Media Player 6.4" and appears to require at least WMP7 (link). Linux support is only availible through windows emulation (which isnt what I'd call support at all).

So - Mac and PC appear to be the only platforms which seem to support WMA9 lossless at all since no player later than 6.4 exists for other platforms and "Windows Media Player 6.4 cannot find the (Windows Media Audio 9 Lossless) codec".

edit: syntax, spelling, quote

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #14
Quote
Also, are you sure foobar is using MS library's?  Why does it only support some forms of WMA then ?   If it was a frontend for WMP I would expect it to support the same formats as WMP . . .

not WMP, the directshow filter.
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you."

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #15
Just to let you know that you're not alone in adopting WMA lossless. I've been using Monkey's Audio for the past few years, and switched to WMA lossless after buying an XP box. Reasons:

1. I actually like Windows Media Player 9 (although I still wear my Microsoft Sucks t-shirt on a regular basis).

2. For encode/decode/transcode, dBpowerAMP covers all the bases.

3. I'm not that concerned about speed and size of one lossless compressor versus another (at least for Monkey vs WMA). For me, it's splitting hairs. Others may object...

4. Imho, momentum is behind WMA lossless as the likely lossless format implemented on hardware players.

Now let me put on my marketing hat - with current lossy codec performance at large, I'm not sure we'll even see much in the way of lossless decoders implemented on hardware anyway. There's simply not enough of a demand for it. We'll likely see AAC and WMA emerge as popular replacements for MP3, although I imagine MP3 will be around for some time.

One thing is certain - there is a war looming between Microsoft and Apple...2004 should prove to be an interesting year.

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #16
Quote
are you sure foobar is using MS library's?


I'm pretty sure. And I'm sure as hell MS didn't open the decoding sources for Peter or any component developer.

Quote
It has MPC beat hands down

Veeeery wrong.

For encoding, WMA lossless is supported in as many platforms (Windows and MacOS) as MPC (Windows and Linux)

I'm not talking about emulation here, because that's not "support" at all. For all that it matters, one can encode to MPC on MacOS using VirtualPC.

The MPC decoder, OTOH, is available for the following OSs:

MacOS X, Windows, Linux, BeOS, Solaris, AIX, MS-DOS, HP-UX, FreeBSD.

And I'm talking about precompiled binaries there, anyone using another OS is free to take the sources and try to compile them. The same thing would be impossible with WMA.

So, actually, MPC is beating WMA hands-down, and not the other way around.

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #17
For what it's worth, a lot of the audio appliance computers (such as Rio Receiver, SLIMP3) are running linux, but on non-intel processors like ARM, so  WINE type solutions won't work.  You need either open source, or decoders pre-compiled for that processor.

Mine does play flac streams from the file server just fine.

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #18
Quote
4. Imho, momentum is behind WMA lossless as the likely lossless format implemented on hardware players.

You seem to be forgetting one thing: FLAC is ALREADY supported by karma, musikeg and phatbox.

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #19
Quote
Quote
4. Imho, momentum is behind WMA lossless as the likely lossless format implemented on hardware players.

You seem to be forgetting one thing: FLAC is ALREADY supported by karma, musikeg and phatbox.

On the contrary - I'm not forgetting it at all. I'm simply playing devil's advocate (marketing weenie). Imho, once Microsoft enters the music business next year, it just takes one implemetation of WMA lossless by someone like Dell or Apple to permanently tip the scales on a numbers basis. It's no secret that Apple is under enormous pressure to implement WMA. That's where I'm coming from.

The fact that Windows Media Player supports a lossless format (and only one) is by no means a fluke. What may be true and popular in the HA community is not necessarily so for the remaining 99.99% of the music market. Next year will see Apple and Microsoft go to war in the online music business. At that point, FLAC support will be noise (imho). Stay tuned...

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #20
guys you are missing the big point here. He want to use WMA lossless. Okay, so what... The reason it is encoding so fast though is that he is RIPPING IN WMP!!! This is the real problem, and is giving him less than perfect copies (which, since he is using lossless, is I assume to be the point).

I highly recommend if the original poster is still reading, to rip and encode using EAC instead. AFAIK you can still use WMA but this way you will have bit-perfect rips.

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #21
then transcode from FLAC to WMA lossless when this anticipated tidal wave of support slams down (that option will always be available)...

...or just sit and wait.

Josh

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #22
Quote
guys you are missing the big point here. He want to use WMA lossless. Okay, so what... The reason it is encoding so fast though is that he is RIPPING IN WMP!!! This is the real problem, and is giving him less than perfect copies (which, since he is using lossless, is I assume to be the point).

I highly recommend if the original poster is still reading, to rip and encode using EAC instead. AFAIK you can still use WMA but this way you will have bit-perfect rips.

From the original post...

"It seems that I'm one of the few who've decided to use WMA lossless for archiving. I almost decided to use FLAC, but I figure in a few years time there will be a lot of hardware available that plays WMA Lossless."

What's the problem with people reading this thread responding to this? I'm sure the original author would love to hear about what other people's thought process might be on this topic.

If you want to respond to a different part of the original post, be my guest...

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #23
Quote
he is RIPPING IN WMP!!! This is the real problem, and is giving him less than perfect copies

If his CDs are clean and scratchless, he can rip them on Audiograbber for all that it matters. And in this case, the copies wont'be "less than perfect".

Is WMA the fastest?

Reply #24
Hi all, I'm reading all the posts (thanks for posting) and then thinking wait a minute I'm the original author of this post   

Anyhow I've been flipping and flopping between WMA Pro/Lossless and FLAC and thought I'd decided and then someone raises enough good points that I change my mind (FLAC it is) and then someone else argues the other side and I'm back to WMA Pro.

Even if I end up at WMA Pro, I do like using EAC and would love to figure out how to encode FLAC and WMA Pro with EAC as the ripper. I know there are threads here explaining how to do it. I'll try to follow those threads and hopefully I can figure out how to configure everything properly. If I don't figure it out, I'm sure I'll be posting more questions here 

I do get the impression that others have looked at what we believe will be better support for WMA Pro in the future and have decided to go that route as well. As more people do this, it makes me feel better about flopping back to WMA Pro after yesterday figuring I was going to go with FLAC instead. Of course if you talk to me tomorrow, I might say I'm going to use FLAC