Saving to WMA Lossless issue

[Craig Maier]

Alternatively, a good music database comes with the Diamond Cut Productions software. It is found under the File Menu and is called "DCTunes". It is described in the product helpfile.

Craig

[Ringmaster]

WGCman:

Phew! I didn't expect to go this deep; but since we're there, I just purchased WinZip 12.0, with the new .jpeg compression:

"WinZip will now compress your JPEG files (digital photos or graphic images) by 20 to 25% and still without any loss of photo quality or data integrity. Now you can send photos faster or fit more on your hard drive and removable media than ever before."

So, I guess I won't abandon .jpeg in the near future.

[jfritz]

Great discussion. I'm a right tool for the job person whose right tool criterion includes convenience. I like compressed files for playing in the car or on my music player. I don't use FLAC very much mainly because neither my car stereo nor my music player supports it. I use VBR mp3 a lot.

I back up wav files to CD and DVD. I have almost 1 TB of storage at home but I know I'll fill it up.

The one thing I do expect is that no storage medium will last forever. Probably I won't either. <g>

[WGCman]

Thanks, I'll upgrade to 7.15

[Craig Maier]

.wma lossless

I just did a little research here and found that the support of the .wma lossless codec was added at v. 7.11 not 7.15. Of course, 7.15 would have it too. See this thread for details about that:

http://www.diamondcut.com/vforum/sho...=.wma+lossless

Note: You must have this codec on your machine for this to work. Diamond Cut just provides the support for it. If you do not have it, check on the Microsoft site in order to obtain it.

[Craig Maier]

Quoting WGCman:

"A .wav file, however many bits, is only a small sample of an infinite amount of analogue data, so we have already zapped far more of the information at that stage than we can ever zap by further compression."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I must assert that digital recording at 96 kHz sample rates and 24 bits looses no audio* whatsoever.

Why?

96 KHz sampling rates produce bandwidth values of roughly 48 kHz. The best human hearing does not exceed 20 kHz. Futhermore, the dynamic range of audio recordings can not exceed roughly 120 dB else the people creating the recording would become seriously injured in the process. 24 bits provides 144 dB of dynamic range which far exceeds what a human is capable of hearing or producing musically.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As for 24 bit .wma lossless recording, I believe that we put that into the most recent update of DC7 (I think that is v. 7.15 - - - but not positive & the update is free). This can be gotten at www.diamondcut.com. Just download the demo over your existing licensed version and it will "stick".

Craig

*Note: I define "audio" as an acoustical signal which the most aurally sensitive human being on the planet is capable of discerning.

[WGCman]

compression

This is a good point and certainly a necessary approach when dealing with data of historical importance, but would you spurn in other circumstances the use of other compressed formats such as .jpg, .pdf and .zip? And what happens if our friends in Seattle, who, I believe, invented .wav, start to charge the earth for it?

A .wav file, however many bits, is only a small sample of an infinite amount of analogue data, so we have already zapped far more of the information at that stage than we can ever zap by further compression. And even a multitrack audio analogue recording may not completely capture a large orchestra. So wherever we strike the balance between 100% fidelity and compactness of storage is going to be a compromise.

It is good news that the Library of Congress, as well as similar instititions throughout the world (probably), compromises at a high level of fidelity, but surely the knowledge that they do so enables the rest of us to sleep more soundly if we maintain a slightly lower but more convenient level. There must be many who, like me, would welcome a virtually lossless audio equivalent for .zip.

[Ringmaster]

Quote Craig:

"Just as a reference point, my understanding is that the Library of Congress digital audio archiving standard is as follows:

24 Bit Resolution

96 KHz Sampling Rate

Non-Compressed .wav format"


I read volumes of Technical Data; I don't read much for "pleasure", because I tend to study everything I read. Also, I do not retain much of the information that I read; I only retain what interests me, and a lot of that seems to be "dropping the wayside".

Craig is correct; I also read that the Library of Congress archives their data in the manner that Craig described. That is why I do everything in the .wav format; also, what do we do when all of the other formats may possibly "fall by the wayside", and become obsolete. Many people, not thinking about future Audio advances, might have their files archived in various "other" formats, and these formats may no longer be available for "play-back"; also, in up-grading our hardware/software, it's quite possible that we would inadvertantly delete these format programs from our workstations.

We are able to extract information from vinyl recordings, and convert the signals to digital data using the ".wav" standard. There are a lot of people that do not project themselves beyond what is happening today, and what they think is "coming down the road". I am thinking about 25 to 100 years from now; look at those of us that are restoring "cylinder" and old "78 RPM" signals. What will our ancestors do when the other formats and "optical media" no longer exist. Many of us only enter the "digital" media stream for personal entertainment; however, there are some of us that produce much data that are worthy of historical preservation; if this archival data is not available in the standard ".wav" format, our history will be lost, and not available for future generations.

I found out something regarding the "MDB2000" database that I will include in another post.

[WGCman]

WMA Lossless

Although I accept that storage is cheaper than before, there are still advantages in compression - for example you need to store the CD, DVD or flash card in a way that you can retrieve what you've stored.

I tried WMA lossless (on DC 7.0.2.0) and found, like those who started this thread, that it didn't work. It looks like the thread died in April. Is DC still planning to fix this, or has the view prevailed that we don't need lossless compression?

I still need MP3's for portable listening devices, though. Sure, they'll play wav files, but again, you won't get the information about the file displayed and you limit your capacity. And I would much rather be able to take a single iPod Classic 160GB with over 2000 albums on it than have just over 300 albums on it because it's in WAV format. So I just archive both versions. Yes, 300 albums is plenty of listening time, but MP3 lets you carry your whole (well, maybe not yours, Geebster ) collection with without having to delete songs and add new songs and update playlists, etc.

That's exactly what I do too, John. I've tried a few .wavs on my portables, but they don't sound dramatically improved on the players, so I use MP3 there.

After ripping a CD or finishing a restoration, I make 2 archival copies; one in .wav, the other in 16 bit / 48khz MP3. All of the portables I have (Zen Photo, Zen Vision: M) support 16/48 MP3 and I feel that it makes the files sound a bit more realistic without getting enormous file sizes.

I like both formats for different things. I actually rather like the MP3 format for portable use.

GB

[Craig Maier]

Quoting Brian,

"Craig, any utility in incorporating broacast wave header read/write capability into the DC line? It should make the software more useful to audio-for-video and film production engineers. Or, by jumping right to RF64, you could make it compatable with all pro formats. Just a thought."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

We will look into it.

[Brian]

If WAV files supported tags, then part of the issue of saving in a different format goes away. Granted, tags won't always have "all" the info you need (or want), but it really is nice to open an MP3 file, for example, and right away see which album the song came from, track number, copyright information, artist, etc, etc. I wish we could get the same with WAV files.

What you're describing is the Broadcast Wave Format, the recording format of most file-based non-linear digital recorders used for motion picture and television production. Almost any device that can playback .wav can also playback Broadcast Wave (which still ends in .wav) - non-broadcast wave units just ignore the portions of the header with the tags and other metadata.

Playback units that recognize Broadcast Wave can also seamlessly stitch together files to permit breaking the 4GB (actullay closer to 2GB) file size limitation of the .wav format (but you still end up with a series of sequetially numbered files, each of which must meet the .wav limits). An even more powerful version of .wav is RF64, develpped and used extensively by the European Broadcast Union (which also invented .wav) and now an approved international standard. The main strength of RF64 is multichannel audio (up to 18 channels plus stero mixdown and a couple of other streams - all in one file).

Craig, any utility in incorporating broacast wave header read/write capability into the DC line? It should make the software more useful to audio-for-video and film production engineers. Or, by jumping right to RF64, you could make it compatable with all pro formats. Just a thought.
Brian

[sus4chord]

Tags became all the rage when MP3 became popular. Many of the popular audio file formats have a method of storing information about the file in these "Tags". Information such as song title, artist, track number as well as cd cover art are common uses for this tag information.

If WAV files supported tags, then part of the issue of saving in a different format goes away. Granted, tags won't always have "all" the info you need (or want), but it really is nice to open an MP3 file, for example, and right away see which album the song came from, track number, copyright information, artist, etc, etc. I wish we could get the same with WAV files.

I still need MP3's for portable listening devices, though. Sure, they'll play wav files, but again, you won't get the information about the file displayed and you limit your capacity. And I would much rather be able to take a single iPod Classic 160GB with over 2000 albums on it than have just over 300 albums on it because it's in WAV format. So I just archive both versions. Yes, 300 albums is plenty of listening time, but MP3 lets you carry your whole (well, maybe not yours, Geebster ) collection with without having to delete songs and add new songs and update playlists, etc.

Somehow I doubt that it could get away from it anymore. Microsoft used to be able to force the industry to adopt its standards just by making them Windows standards. But after screwing over Netscape with a "proprietary" (that is, a slightly different) standard, knifing Apple in the back with a "strategic partnership" that let them "develop" their own proprietary version of QuickTime, another con game on Adobe, and so on, the industry finally rallied. Nowadays proprietary Microsoft standards are generally ignored in favor of open industry standards. I don't see Microsoft being able to charge for this kind of ordinary, copycat "technology" anymore.

HB

That may be true, but I don't like the .wma format anyway, so I choose not to use it at all...

.wav all the way!!!

GB

Thanks Guys,

It looks like we are all on the same track. Now that plenty of storage is available, I am keeping all of my files in the .wav format. Also, I do not transmit Media files over the Internet.

Exactly...I figure what is the real point in compressing anymore, with cheap storage easily available. On the rare occasion I do use compression (for transit usually), I decompress the file immediately for permanent storage.

GB