HydrogenAudio

Lossless Audio Compression => Lossless / Other Codecs => Topic started by: HTS on 2012-01-10 05:21:28

Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: HTS on 2012-01-10 05:21:28
What's so bad about WMAL?
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: Porcus on 2012-01-10 15:53:28
What's so bad about WMAL?


Except that hardly anybody uses it, and it is not very well supported? Even ffmpeg, which supports a codec list long as this (http://www.ffmpeg.org/general.html#Audio-Codecs), fails to decode it.

And it lacks features like ReplayGain support.


To counter it: Why choose WMA (lossy or lossless), except if you want to stick to Windows Media Player or really need something which Windows Explorer identifies as 'audio'?

( ... the obvious answer was «DRM» ... )
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: HTS on 2012-01-10 19:55:56
What about reliability? Microsoft is a huge company and didn't update their thing for years, so pretty much a "tried and true" format?

Sometimes for freeware I have seen when an update goes out that has a bug, and they had to revert it but too bad for the people who already used it extensively.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: greynol on 2012-01-10 20:52:59
That's kind of funny since for years WMP didn't extract tracks off a CD to the proper length.  Has it been fixed yet?
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: spoon on 2012-01-10 21:23:44
We have reported bugs to Microsoft (to the project manager for Windows Media Audio at the time) for WMAL, they are still outstanding 7 years later.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2012-01-10 23:09:43
What about reliability?


What reality?  Microsoft not updating an encoder for a long period of time is not reality in any way, shape, or form.  Additionally, if you examine the hardware market, both mp3 and AAC have more support.  The portable player line that holds over 60% of the market is made by Apple and they don't support WMA.  Even my Droid X (running Android 2.3) doesn't support WMA when it comes to making ringtones yet mp3 and AAC are fine for that.  Just last year, I purchased a Blu-ray player with a front USB port.  It works with mp3, mpeg-4 AAC, and PCM WAV audio files but no WMA.

So where is the reality in using an extremely outdated encoder that isn't supported by the majority of the DAP market (and has dwindling support outside of that)?  People use different encoders/formats for different reasons.  That's fine and people should use whatever works for them.  However, that doesn't mean one can use flawed reasoning to reach their conclusion.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: greynol on 2012-01-10 23:16:26
Of the devices that support WMA, such as car stereos, how many of them support WMA Lossless?
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: db1989 on 2012-01-10 23:16:57
What about reliability?
What reality?  Microsoft not updating an encoder for a long period of time is not reality in any way, shape, or form. […] So where is the reality in using an extremely outdated encoder that isn't supported by the majority of the DAP market (and has dwindling support outside of that)? […]

reliability
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: HTS on 2012-01-11 00:32:22
That's kind of funny since for years WMP didn't extract tracks off a CD to the proper length.  Has it been fixed yet?

No, I have to re-do about 20 CDs because of this. Not all disks are affected, I think the problem is the worst for SACDs.

Quote
Of the devices that support WMA, such as car stereos, how many of them support WMA Lossless?

I didn't read the entire thread, I thought the poll was just for the purposes of archiving. I don't play lossless formats on the go. My question might be irrelevant then.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: Porcus on 2012-01-11 00:43:16
What about reliability? Microsoft is a huge company and didn't update their thing for years, so pretty much a "tried and true" format?


Science is fun. Well, sometimes depressing.  http://arc.nucapt.northwestern.edu/~karnesky/sdarticle.pdf (http://arc.nucapt.northwestern.edu/~karnesky/sdarticle.pdf) .
Not about WMA, about Excel, which is a product where they should definitely not screw up the maths this way.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2012-01-11 01:05:54
Of the devices that support WMA, such as car stereos, how many of them support WMA Lossless?


I actually only know of the Zune line and Windows Phone (or Windows Mobile, or Windows Phone Mobile, whatever they are calling it).  Of course, the various Android DAPs will also work with WMA Lossless through various apps (I don't think Android has native WMAL support).  Having said that, the majority market devices don't even work with WMA let alone WMAL.  There are also a few outdated Toshiba, Insignia, Cowon, and Sony players that support it but they represent an extremely small market and I think those DAPs have been off of the market for 2-3 years now (if not longer).

As for my other post where I misread reality with reliability...  Ironically enough, my statement still holds true.  Where is the reliability in using an outdated encoder that has a decreasing level of native support?  Any bugs in the encoder that were present in 2007 are still going to be there now whereas other encoders (unless they are abandoned) will at least perform small updates here and there for reliability issues.  When was the last update released for WMA?  I also can't remember the last time Apple or the Lame developers released an update to their encoder that caused issues forcing users to revert back to the previous release.  I know Nero had issue with its AAC encoder when it came to the Creative Zen, Xbox 360, and iPods but that was a while ago and I believe all problems were squashed around 2007.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: HTS on 2012-01-12 02:47:49
What's the easiest way to convert about 300gb of music in WMAL format into FLAC?
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: Ron Jones on 2012-01-12 02:51:59
Of the devices that support WMA, such as car stereos, how many of them support WMA Lossless?

The list of vehicles with WMA Lossless support is probably limited to Fords with the SYNC system (a Microsoft-Ford partnership product).
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: saratoga on 2012-01-12 02:55:16
What's so bad about WMAL?


Except that hardly anybody uses it, and it is not very well supported? Even ffmpeg, which supports a codec list long as this (http://www.ffmpeg.org/general.html#Audio-Codecs), fails to decode it.


FWIW, theres a mostly working WMAL decoder in ffmpeg as of a couple days ago.  The code is still in bad shape though, so I wouldn't depend on it just yet.  But maybe someday
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: Roseval on 2012-01-12 07:04:26
What's the easiest way to convert about 300gb of music in WMAL format into FLAC?


dbPoweramp
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: Porcus on 2012-01-12 18:34:45
What's so bad about WMAL?


Except that hardly anybody uses it, and it is not very well supported? Even ffmpeg, which supports a codec list long as this (http://www.ffmpeg.org/general.html#Audio-Codecs), fails to decode it.


FWIW, theres a mostly working WMAL decoder in ffmpeg as of a couple days ago.  The code is still in bad shape though, so I wouldn't depend on it just yet.  But maybe someday


WMA Lossless -- the latest in bleeding edge technology!
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: HTS on 2012-01-13 05:17:18
Foobar in its latest version can decompress WMAL files without any help right? (it says WMA is supported, so that should include all variations?)
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: slks on 2012-01-13 05:43:07
The reason nobody uses WMA Lossless is that there's little to no support on hardware or software, and there's no compelling reason to choose it over FLAC or ALAC.

FLAC's got the broadest base of support (my Rio Karma player from 8 years ago supported it!) so it's consequently the most-used lossless codec, according to the polls here. ALAC is good for people who like to stay in Apple's little "walled garden" software/hardware ecosystem, so that's why many people started using that. However, with Apple recently making ALAC an open standard, I suspect it will soon get a lot more encoding/decoding support outside of Apple products, possibly picking up more "market share".

People who want advanced features like hybrid lossy/lossless encodes, hi-res multichannel support, or wanted to squeeze the last few percents compression efficiency possible went to WavPack or TAK or something.

WMA Lossless doesn't have the broad support, and it doesn't have the best compression or most advanced features. That's why people aren't choosing it over other lossless codecs. (Similarly to why lossy WMA isn't hardly used either!)
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: probedb on 2012-01-13 11:15:15
Foobar in its latest version can decompress WMAL files without any help right? (it says WMA is supported, so that should include all variations?)


Why don't you download foobar and try it? That'll give you your answer.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: HTS on 2012-01-13 23:35:40
Foobar in its latest version can decompress WMAL files without any help right? (it says WMA is supported, so that should include all variations?)


Why don't you download foobar and try it? That'll give you your answer.

The question meant is it a bit perfect conversion to wav or not.

See this thread:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=83925&hl= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=83925&hl=)

Didn't LA also have the problem with Foobar but does not make it known to the user?

Quote
It's important to mention that the LA foobar plugin is buggy and doesn't produce lossless streams!
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: saratoga on 2012-01-13 23:47:49
The question meant is it a bit perfect conversion to wav or not.


Try it and see.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: HTS on 2012-01-13 23:51:12
The question meant is it a bit perfect conversion to wav or not.


Try it and see.

How do you check the hash of the sound data only again?
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: saratoga on 2012-01-13 23:59:03
The question meant is it a bit perfect conversion to wav or not.


Try it and see.

How do you check the hash of the sound data only again?


Decode it in foobar, decode in the MS software, and then use foobar's compare PCM tool to check that they're identical.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: hellokeith on 2012-01-14 09:00:54
What's so bad about WMAL?


There is nothing really wrong with WMAL.  Keep in mind that in the grand scheme of things, lossless audio is still niche.

FLAC has better device support sure, but lossless on mobile devices is a pricy practice with debatable sonic value over lossy on mobile.

If anything, metadata/tagging/replaygain would be the best argument for FLAC and against WMAL.  But if your home has many Windows PCs like mine, the out of the box support for WMAL is hard to beat.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: lvqcl on 2012-01-14 10:10:15
I don't know what means "without any help" but foobar2000 uses system codecs to decode WMA files - just as Winamp and many (if not all) other programs.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: Squeller on 2012-01-14 14:27:45
We have reported bugs to Microsoft (to the project manager for Windows Media Audio at the time) for WMAL, they are still outstanding 7 years later.


I always used Microsoft DOS/Windows as my main OS, but honestly never found out how to report a bug or ask for help (there were some special cases where I found reprodicible bugs). Except maybe their msdn fora? And I always thought it's useless to report things to them. Their support (MSDN fora?) turned out to be useless. I think there are only some losely bound (most) valuable professionals, they turned out to have less knowledge than I, unfortunately, until now it was all useless
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: spoon on 2012-01-14 16:08:21
Back in the day when MS first released WMA dBpoweramp was one of the first programs to support it, at the time the whole department was accessible, now it seems WMA is abandoned.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: hellokeith on 2012-01-14 23:09:46
now it seems WMA is abandoned.

I think the combination of the Ipod explosion which impacted use of WMA along with the HD DVD loss to BD which impacted use of VC-1/WMV spelled the end of the Windows Media group.

Microsoft has core patents in various media codecs and softwares, so licensing might have a higher profit margin than rolling your own.

I am curious to see if/what incarnation Windows Media Center has in Windows 8.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2012-01-15 01:10:01
I imagine MS has its hands in several patents for various media usage.  Hell, they are even managing to make money off of every Android smartphone and tablet being sold due to patent arrangements (i.e. buying up companies that had Android patents or buying the patent rights).

The last I heard, Windows Media Center wasn't getting much of an update with Windows 8.  In fact, I thought there was a time when MS wasn't going to have WMC in Windows 8 but that changed (I could be wrong on this).  Their main focus with Win 8 seems to revolve around making it touch friendly while the standard desktop portion looks to remain unchanged.  Back before Win 8, I was hoping that MS would come out with two different OS ecosystems much like Apple.  One for portable environments and one for desktops/notebooks since there is that clear distinction between those device classifications.  Alas, they seem intent with trying to make a touch experience with a full desktop OS and we all know how well that turns out.  There was development on that one Windows mobile OS that looked promising but it stopped in favor of needlessly running Win 8 on a slate tablet.

Either way, WMA is pretty much dead now and I think Win 7's native support of mpeg-4 standards (including AAC audio) shows that MS is even moving on from WMA and even WMV.  I don't think they lost much when HD-DVD failed as Blu-ray movies are still being released using VC-1.  The Lord of the Rings trilogy (at least the theatrical cuts) used VC-1 as does the recent re-re-relase of Serenity, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and many others (though AVC still seems to be a more supported format and Blu-ray 3D releases all use mpeg-4 MVC).  HD-DVD could also use mpeg-2 and mpeg-4 AVC encoding so it wasn't completely tied to VC-1 either.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: cowls192 on 2012-08-10 04:07:54
What's so bad about WMAL?

Before i go on, i will say that everybody hates Microsoft. At least i hate them. I don't have to go details on that. My ice-breaker would be

"If we already have Gold, Silver, and Bronze medals that are well-recognized, why bother adding Copper or Tin medals?"

I'm not saying that WMA is bad in quality at all. I mean, in the end, it's lossless, right? You're not supposed to lose a bit out of it. (No pun inteded...)

This may turn into one of those monopoly-scheme issues. Since MS folks developed WMA, whoever dares to benefit from it MUST be approved by MS, and this will lead to licensing, patent, and all kinds of nuisance. I can't imagine MS will generously relinquish WMA as open-source, but even if they do, it just takes time away on quality-assurance, compatibility, etc.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: Mach-X on 2012-12-23 06:22:33
There's nothing wrong with wmal, or wma in general for that matter. Unlike other users, I don't discriminate against apple or microsoft or open source. (although I really hate apple, but don't rip people who choose to use their products). WMAL has one prime raison d'etre. The zune 120. If you are one of the lucky people to have one of these you can take your entire cd collection losslessly on the go with the superior zune interface. That interface is the main reason I still keep a zunehd in my car. I've tried using my rockboxed clip in my car. Do you know how hard it is to drive and navigate that tiny screen? And the zune interface does things no other interface does. One touch shuffle of your entire music collection. One touch artist playback, it plays all their albums from newest to oldest. One touch album playback. Why is it nobody else has this?! Even on my droid phone you can't one touch play an album. You have to long press than press play, rather dangerous to be distracted that length of time. With the zune it's tap the album cover and it plays with a very nice now playing screen. If you are in shuffle mode and you decide you want to hear the album of that track you just tap the cover and it plays the album unshuffled. Nothing compares to zune for on the go interface. It's a shame they discontinued the 120 I would love to buy one and skip lossy encoding altogether.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: nu774 on 2012-12-23 08:28:23
Maybe because of this? http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=45377 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=45377)

"Random access test" of decoder validator (foo_input_validator) still fails on today (Windows 7). So, sample accurate seeking is impossible on WMAL. I don't know if this is due to by design of ASF container or flawed run-time library or other reason. Anyway, MS has abandoned WM codecs, no hope of "fixing" it, and I have no reason to use it.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: probedb on 2012-12-23 09:47:43
There's nothing wrong with wmal, or wma in general for that matter. Unlike other users, I don't discriminate against apple or microsoft or open source. (although I really hate apple, but don't rip people who choose to use their products). WMAL has one prime raison d'etre. The zune 120. If you are one of the lucky people to have one of these you can take your entire cd collection losslessly on the go with the superior zune interface. That interface is the main reason I still keep a zunehd in my car. I've tried using my rockboxed clip in my car. Do you know how hard it is to drive and navigate that tiny screen? And the zune interface does things no other interface does. One touch shuffle of your entire music collection. One touch artist playback, it plays all their albums from newest to oldest. One touch album playback. Why is it nobody else has this?! Even on my droid phone you can't one touch play an album. You have to long press than press play, rather dangerous to be distracted that length of time. With the zune it's tap the album cover and it plays with a very nice now playing screen. If you are in shuffle mode and you decide you want to hear the album of that track you just tap the cover and it plays the album unshuffled. Nothing compares to zune for on the go interface. It's a shame they discontinued the 120 I would love to buy one and skip lossy encoding altogether.


Do you work for Microsoft?
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: DonP on 2012-12-23 14:00:16
There's nothing wrong with wmal, or wma in general for that matter. Unlike other users, I don't discriminate against apple or microsoft or open source. (although I really hate apple, but don't rip people who choose to use their products). WMAL has one prime raison d'etre. The zune 120.
  ...
It's a shame they discontinued the 120 I would love to buy one and skip lossy encoding altogether.


So the best thing about it is it only works (wrt portables) on a player you can't get?

SPeaking of Zune, we're getting close to that special time when they freak out  on the 366th day of the year. 
Did Msoft ever give a firmware update on that, or did they figure no one would keep a player until the next leap year?

Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: pdq on 2012-12-23 15:07:38
WMA (and I don't mean WMA Pro) scored consistently at the bottom in listening tests except for the lowest bitrates. This made it a good choice for dial-up, but not much else.
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: frozenspeed on 2012-12-23 17:59:42
What's so bad about WMAL?



Does Microsoft still support it or have they dropped it just like they did MSN Music Marketplace, Zune, Kin, PlayForSure, Sinofsky, etc... ?
Title: Why the low popularity/usage of WMA Lossless? (according to the poll)
Post by: saratoga on 2012-12-23 19:21:02
Maybe because of this? http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=45377 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=45377)

"Random access test" of decoder validator (foo_input_validator) still fails on today (Windows 7). So, sample accurate seeking is impossible on WMAL. I don't know if this is due to by design of ASF container or flawed run-time library or other reason. Anyway, MS has abandoned WM codecs, no hope of "fixing" it, and I have no reason to use it.


That's nothing compared to the screw up with wma voice:
http://blogs.gnome.org/rbultje/2010/01/25/...dec-dissection/ (http://blogs.gnome.org/rbultje/2010/01/25/wmavoice-codec-dissection/)

Ten years later their official decoder still can't decode the format correctly as far as I know.  That's what happens when you try to take shortcuts and designs decoder implementation as the specification; you end up baking in your own bugs into the format without realizing it. Not too surprising I guess that ms gave up on audio.