knud wrote:

Remember, these geeks with no ears advertise it as "lossless" while using a
lossy algoryithm. It's only "lossless" to people who cannot hear properly. It's
not "lossless" by definition unless it really is.

If there are people who describe MP3 as lossless as you say, then they
are grossly misusing the term. For a computer scientist studying
compression, "lossy" and "lossless" are technical terms that refer to
specific properties of a compression algorithm. So, no self-respecting
computer geek who even pretends to be competent would call MP3 lossless.

Which is not to say it hasn't happened...

- Logan

knud wrote:
Remember, these geeks with no ears advertise it as "lossless" while using a
lossy algoryithm.

Which "it", specifically, are you talking about?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

knud wrote:
Remember, these geeks with no ears advertise it as "lossless" while using a
lossy algoryithm.

Which "it", specifically, are you talking about?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

You may have spelled your name incorrectly, Hercules. I'm sure you meant
Gritpype-Thynne...
http://www.thegoonshow.net/characters.asp


"GridpipeThin" wrote in message
...
Don't blame software for a poor audio card connected by a wire that
doesn't
have ground anymore, causing you to hear the difference between
left&right...

Huh?

You may have spelled your name incorrectly, Hercules. I'm sure you meant
Gritpype-Thynne...
http://www.thegoonshow.net/characters.asp


"GridpipeThin" wrote in message
...
Don't blame software for a poor audio card connected by a wire that
doesn't
have ground anymore, causing you to hear the difference between
left&right...

Huh?

What I don't get about all this is that Sam is downloading MP3's and
then converting them to WMA? What's the point? You can't upgrade the
sound quality once you download an MP3. It stands to reason the the MP3
would degrade further when converting it to a WMA file. Why purchase a
Lynx card to play ****e quality MP3's? I'm not following.

-JC

What I don't get about all this is that Sam is downloading MP3's and
then converting them to WMA? What's the point? You can't upgrade the
sound quality once you download an MP3. It stands to reason the the MP3
would degrade further when converting it to a WMA file. Why purchase a
Lynx card to play ****e quality MP3's? I'm not following.

-JC

On 2004-11-11, Arny Krueger wrote:

This is pretty easy to test.

(1) Take a .wav file
(2) Compress it with WMA Lossless

Hold it right there.

What was wrong with SHN? Wrong with FLAC?

On 2004-11-11, Arny Krueger wrote:

This is pretty easy to test.

(1) Take a .wav file
(2) Compress it with WMA Lossless

Hold it right there.

What was wrong with SHN? Wrong with FLAC?

On 2004-11-11, Mike Rivers wrote:

Are they pulling my leg?

I believe so. They may have their own definition of "mathematically
the same" that means something other than that the decoded playback
has exactly the same samples at the same time as the original. If it
did, they'd sound the same.

WMA does have a sample-accurate format, but it's a separate codec from
what was called "WMA" before "WMA lossless". Not all WMA players can
decode WMA Lossless. The thing that the OP said that threw a wrench in
the discussion was that he was making "an MP3 Library". I suspect he
is making a "WMA Lossless" library, and he is calling his Kenmore
refrigerator a "Frigidare" and copying on his Canon Xerox...

I'd steer him toward a ripper and FLAC, personally. It's beyond me why
anyone would willingly choose to use WMA, lossless or not.

On 2004-11-11, Mike Rivers wrote:

Are they pulling my leg?

I believe so. They may have their own definition of "mathematically
the same" that means something other than that the decoded playback
has exactly the same samples at the same time as the original. If it
did, they'd sound the same.

WMA does have a sample-accurate format, but it's a separate codec from
what was called "WMA" before "WMA lossless". Not all WMA players can
decode WMA Lossless. The thing that the OP said that threw a wrench in
the discussion was that he was making "an MP3 Library". I suspect he
is making a "WMA Lossless" library, and he is calling his Kenmore
refrigerator a "Frigidare" and copying on his Canon Xerox...

I'd steer him toward a ripper and FLAC, personally. It's beyond me why
anyone would willingly choose to use WMA, lossless or not.

On 2004-11-11, Geoff Wood -nospam wrote:
I rip my CDs using the lossless WMA format in Windows Media Player 10.

Lossless ?!!!

"WMA Lossless" != "WMA"

I suspect they re-headered FLAC, knowing Microsoft.

On 2004-11-11, Geoff Wood -nospam wrote:
I rip my CDs using the lossless WMA format in Windows Media Player 10.

Lossless ?!!!

"WMA Lossless" != "WMA"

I suspect they re-headered FLAC, knowing Microsoft.

james of tucson wrote:
On 2004-11-11, Arny Krueger wrote:


This is pretty easy to test.

(1) Take a .wav file
(2) Compress it with WMA Lossless


Hold it right there.

What was wrong with SHN? Wrong with FLAC?

Nothing except how widely they will be supported compared to
WMA. Lossless is lossless.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

james of tucson wrote:
On 2004-11-11, Arny Krueger wrote:


This is pretty easy to test.

(1) Take a .wav file
(2) Compress it with WMA Lossless


Hold it right there.

What was wrong with SHN? Wrong with FLAC?

Nothing except how widely they will be supported compared to
WMA. Lossless is lossless.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

On 2004-11-16, Bob Cain wrote:

What was wrong with SHN? Wrong with FLAC?

Nothing except how widely they will be supported compared to
WMA. Lossless is lossless.

Well, WMA will not be within 10 meters of me, if I have anything to say
about it :-) Not "widely supported" here. More like, barred from
entry, by shotgun if necessary.

On 2004-11-16, Bob Cain wrote:

What was wrong with SHN? Wrong with FLAC?

Nothing except how widely they will be supported compared to
WMA. Lossless is lossless.

Well, WMA will not be within 10 meters of me, if I have anything to say
about it :-) Not "widely supported" here. More like, barred from
entry, by shotgun if necessary.

Bob Cain wrote:
james of tucson wrote:
On 2004-11-11, Arny Krueger wrote:

(2) Compress it with WMA Lossless

What was wrong with SHN? Wrong with FLAC?

Nothing except how widely they will be supported compared to WMA.
Lossless is lossless.

Are you talking about future support (like 10 or 20 years down
the road, or maybe longer) or cross-platform support?

If future support, I'd submit that proprietary formats, even if
quite popular, aren't the ones that stand up against time very
well. For instance, years ago, if you had e-mail on a Mac,
chances were that you used software from QuickMail. These days,
if you have a mailbox in QuickMail format, you'd be lucky to
find a way to get the data out of it. But if you have a mailbox
that contains data in a standard mbox format, then virtually any
mail program can convert that.

If you're talking about cross-platform support, then flac works
on Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Unix, and Amiga. What does WMA
work on? As far as I know, just Windows and some portable
iPod-like devices. Furthermore, there is a flac decoder written
in Java, so you can run that on any OS as long as it can run Java
code. (This also helps on the longevity front, since 20 years
from now, it shouldn't be too hard to find a machine that can run
Java code. But running some then-ancient version of Windows
Media Player is going to be interesting to say the least.)

Of course, all these points are debatable, but the point is
I don't think it's a given that WMA is now or will be in the
future more widely supported.

- Logan

Bob Cain wrote:
james of tucson wrote:
On 2004-11-11, Arny Krueger wrote:

(2) Compress it with WMA Lossless

What was wrong with SHN? Wrong with FLAC?

Nothing except how widely they will be supported compared to WMA.
Lossless is lossless.

Are you talking about future support (like 10 or 20 years down
the road, or maybe longer) or cross-platform support?

If future support, I'd submit that proprietary formats, even if
quite popular, aren't the ones that stand up against time very
well. For instance, years ago, if you had e-mail on a Mac,
chances were that you used software from QuickMail. These days,
if you have a mailbox in QuickMail format, you'd be lucky to
find a way to get the data out of it. But if you have a mailbox
that contains data in a standard mbox format, then virtually any
mail program can convert that.

If you're talking about cross-platform support, then flac works
on Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Unix, and Amiga. What does WMA
work on? As far as I know, just Windows and some portable
iPod-like devices. Furthermore, there is a flac decoder written
in Java, so you can run that on any OS as long as it can run Java
code. (This also helps on the longevity front, since 20 years
from now, it shouldn't be too hard to find a machine that can run
Java code. But running some then-ancient version of Windows
Media Player is going to be interesting to say the least.)

Of course, all these points are debatable, but the point is
I don't think it's a given that WMA is now or will be in the
future more widely supported.

- Logan

"Logan Shaw" wrote in message news:ESimd.32959

Of course, all these points are debatable, but the point is
I don't think it's a given that WMA is now or will be in the
future more widely supported.


You think Mr Ogg might have a higher commercial persistance ?

geoff

"Logan Shaw" wrote in message news:ESimd.32959

Of course, all these points are debatable, but the point is
I don't think it's a given that WMA is now or will be in the
future more widely supported.


You think Mr Ogg might have a higher commercial persistance ?

geoff

"james of tucson" wrote in
message atory.com
On 2004-11-11, Arny Krueger wrote:

This is pretty easy to test.

(1) Take a .wav file
(2) Compress it with WMA Lossless

Hold it right there.

What was wrong with SHN? Wrong with FLAC?

Fine formats but...

They are not the format that the OP was questioning. He specifically
mentioned WMA lossless.

Obviously the same test procedures would work with these other formats.

I haven't personally tested WMA lossless, but I can vouch for FLAC.

"james of tucson" wrote in
message atory.com
On 2004-11-11, Arny Krueger wrote:

This is pretty easy to test.

(1) Take a .wav file
(2) Compress it with WMA Lossless

Hold it right there.

What was wrong with SHN? Wrong with FLAC?

Fine formats but...

They are not the format that the OP was questioning. He specifically
mentioned WMA lossless.

Obviously the same test procedures would work with these other formats.

I haven't personally tested WMA lossless, but I can vouch for FLAC.

In article y.com,
james of tucson wrote:
On 2004-11-11, Arny Krueger wrote:

This is pretty easy to test.

(1) Take a .wav file
(2) Compress it with WMA Lossless

Hold it right there.

What was wrong with SHN? Wrong with FLAC?

Nothing, but the point here is to test if the WMA encoding is having
some sonic effect.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article y.com,
james of tucson wrote:
On 2004-11-11, Arny Krueger wrote:

This is pretty easy to test.

(1) Take a .wav file
(2) Compress it with WMA Lossless

Hold it right there.

What was wrong with SHN? Wrong with FLAC?

Nothing, but the point here is to test if the WMA encoding is having
some sonic effect.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Balancing levels by ear is like trying to do fine
woodwork without a reliable measuring device.

Maybe that's not such a good analogy---by the time someone puts the "fine"
in "fine woodwork" he's often fitting pieces together by feel and by eye
rather than relying on the sort of precision measurements a machinist
uses. ;-)

....




It's easy to find software that conceals the identity
of which alternative is playing at any time, until the test is over. The
same software records your decisions as the test goes along, and compares
your guesses with actuality at the end of the test. Some of the software
applies some well-known statistical tests to your results automatically at
the end of the test.

If you check out the www.pcabx.com web site, you'll see detailed
explanations of all these issues, have easy opportunities to experience
listening tests that address these issues, and find the unique software
tools (almost all freebies!) that make doing reliable listening tests easier
to do.


That's the claim.

Actually you'll find that appearances and substance don't always match up.

On the "training" page there is a table of samples. Look at the Loudness
column; the reference sample link works, but none of the alleged test
samples' links work. Okay, try another one. Same problem in the next
column (Noise, Distortion). Broken links are a minor problem, but they
need to be fixed.

Look at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/reference/ with 17 "click to
downlaod" gifs which appear to link to sample files. Only three of them
are real links---the rest are just pictures. (The source code for the
page reveals that there is no actual a href tag for them.)
Those aren't just broken links---they are mere pictues masquerading as
real content.

That's the story for the scientific/statistical support as well.
It is claimed that

Some of the software applies some well-known statistical tests to your
results
automatically at the end of the test.

A more accurate description might be that some of the software uses some
terms that sound like well-known statistical tests and then presents bogus
results as if they were based on real scientific methods.

In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Balancing levels by ear is like trying to do fine
woodwork without a reliable measuring device.

Maybe that's not such a good analogy---by the time someone puts the "fine"
in "fine woodwork" he's often fitting pieces together by feel and by eye
rather than relying on the sort of precision measurements a machinist
uses. ;-)

....




It's easy to find software that conceals the identity
of which alternative is playing at any time, until the test is over. The
same software records your decisions as the test goes along, and compares
your guesses with actuality at the end of the test. Some of the software
applies some well-known statistical tests to your results automatically at
the end of the test.

If you check out the www.pcabx.com web site, you'll see detailed
explanations of all these issues, have easy opportunities to experience
listening tests that address these issues, and find the unique software
tools (almost all freebies!) that make doing reliable listening tests easier
to do.


That's the claim.

Actually you'll find that appearances and substance don't always match up.

On the "training" page there is a table of samples. Look at the Loudness
column; the reference sample link works, but none of the alleged test
samples' links work. Okay, try another one. Same problem in the next
column (Noise, Distortion). Broken links are a minor problem, but they
need to be fixed.

Look at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/reference/ with 17 "click to
downlaod" gifs which appear to link to sample files. Only three of them
are real links---the rest are just pictures. (The source code for the
page reveals that there is no actual a href tag for them.)
Those aren't just broken links---they are mere pictues masquerading as
real content.

That's the story for the scientific/statistical support as well.
It is claimed that

Some of the software applies some well-known statistical tests to your
results
automatically at the end of the test.

A more accurate description might be that some of the software uses some
terms that sound like well-known statistical tests and then presents bogus
results as if they were based on real scientific methods.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"james of tucson" wrote in
message atory.com

On 2004-11-11, Arny Krueger wrote:


This is pretty easy to test.

(1) Take a .wav file
(2) Compress it with WMA Lossless

Hold it right there.

What was wrong with SHN? Wrong with FLAC?


Fine formats but...

They are not the format that the OP was questioning. He specifically
mentioned WMA lossless.


Yet he mentioned downloading MP3's and seemingly burning them as WMA
files. I think that's his problem.

-JC

Arny Krueger wrote:

"james of tucson" wrote in
message atory.com

On 2004-11-11, Arny Krueger wrote:


This is pretty easy to test.

(1) Take a .wav file
(2) Compress it with WMA Lossless

Hold it right there.

What was wrong with SHN? Wrong with FLAC?


Fine formats but...

They are not the format that the OP was questioning. He specifically
mentioned WMA lossless.


Yet he mentioned downloading MP3's and seemingly burning them as WMA
files. I think that's his problem.

-JC

Geoff Wood wrote:

"Logan Shaw" wrote in message news:ESimd.32959


Of course, all these points are debatable, but the point is
I don't think it's a given that WMA is now or will be in the
future more widely supported.

You think Mr Ogg might have a higher commercial persistance ?

Well, if so, that bodes well for FLAC since Ogg supports FLAC.

- Logan

Geoff Wood wrote:

"Logan Shaw" wrote in message news:ESimd.32959


Of course, all these points are debatable, but the point is
I don't think it's a given that WMA is now or will be in the
future more widely supported.

You think Mr Ogg might have a higher commercial persistance ?

Well, if so, that bodes well for FLAC since Ogg supports FLAC.

- Logan

JC Martin wrote:
Yet he mentioned downloading MP3's and seemingly burning them as WMA
files. I think that's his problem.

No the original poster said he ripped CDs straight to WMA lossless.
Then he noticed a problem, so compared it with some MP3s he had
downloaded to see if they also had a problem.

The issue was a bit clouded by the fact that he described the whole
rig as an "MP3 jukebox", despite the fact that it works off WMA and
not MP3.

- Logan

JC Martin wrote:
Yet he mentioned downloading MP3's and seemingly burning them as WMA
files. I think that's his problem.

No the original poster said he ripped CDs straight to WMA lossless.
Then he noticed a problem, so compared it with some MP3s he had
downloaded to see if they also had a problem.

The issue was a bit clouded by the fact that he described the whole
rig as an "MP3 jukebox", despite the fact that it works off WMA and
not MP3.

- Logan