lossless format

[Guest]

I want to back up my CD collection (which is quite diminutive compared to
some others' here), and have read many reviews regarding various formats. My
concern in the backup process is to maintain audio quality as opposed to
conserving space. Therefore, I would like input (and I know I'm opening up a
big ol' can-o-worms here) on the best lossless format. As a tangential topic,
I know a lot of people will likley say "lossless WMA". My concern with this
is, that from my research, it seems as though many CD players will not play
WMA. So--????
Thanks,
Chuck

 

[Mike Williams]

I want to back up my CD collection (which is quite diminutive compared to
some others' here), and have read many reviews regarding various formats. My
concern in the backup process is to maintain audio quality as opposed to
conserving space. Therefore, I would like input (and I know I'm opening up a
big ol' can-o-worms here) on the best lossless format. As a tangential topic,
I know a lot of people will likley say "lossless WMA". My concern with this
is, that from my research, it seems as though many CD players will not play
WMA. So--????

Lossless WMA is a good archival format as it is smaller than WAV, and
has the benefit of ID tags. If you are going to burn audio CDs then use
these as your source.

For playback on MP3 or CD players, make lower bitrate MP3 copies. Many
MP3 players can't handle anything >= 320kps anyway (which includes VBR
encoded tracks).

 

[Guest]

Can lossless be "reconverted" to .cda for retention of tags, etc., when I burn?

 

[Mike Williams]

Can lossless be "reconverted" to .cda for retention of tags, etc., when I burn?

As I said: If you are going to burn audio CDs then use these as your source.

..CDA is NOT a file format - it's just pointers to the track locations on
an audio CD.

You can burn audio CDs from any audio format that your CD-burning
software can handle.

 

[Guest]

Chuck

That is exactly what I have been doing for about 4 years now.
I use Roxio Easy Media 7.5 and I save files from CD, LP and Reel / Reel to
my hard drive. I have two extra drives, strictly for this. two 250 gig drives
and I have created a Master folder called Music and then sub folders, such as
Rock, Rock Classics, Country, Folk etc, then in each of those I have sub
fiolders for the Artists.
I have one folder where it all goes first and that is Music needing
Editing. I capture to this Folder and then Roxio has Sound Editor where I can
go and load the song (it is all WAV and nothing else) I cut the Dead Intro
and outro off of the song, amplify if needed and then save finished file to
the apporpiate folder on D and then when I am done, I copy the folders from D
to E just in case lightning or whatever tries to ruin my day.
I will only Use WAV format and I make Cds to use in my car or home and have
had ZERO porblems with compatability in 4 years. WMA has plenty of
compatabilty issues and unless you are going to play it baclk on a windows
base computer, you may not play it back.
Go to ebay, I picked up my Box copy, Brand New sealed Roxio Media Creator
for $49 and it might be cheaper now that 8 is out an don sale for $49. either
way, do it right the First Time.

Good luck
I have 4000 plus songs on my drive all in WAV and have over 90 gig left.

 

[Guest]

Chuck

I get ID Taging as well, when I play in my Car Cd Player, I have album
title and Song title and artists displayed. It is a feature that is with
Roxio as well as Volumn normalizing.

 

[Mike Williams]

Chuck

I get ID Taging as well, when I play in my Car Cd Player, I have album
title and Song title and artists displayed. It is a feature that is with
Roxio as well as Volumn normalizing.

CD Text (that you describe) is not the same as having ID tags in files
(like WAV which has no property bag).

 

[Guest]

Mike

Tagging last I knew is exactly what I referred to it as. Extra info other
than the music is TAGGING .
With Roxio, I save all of my files on the Hard drive in Wav format and
when they are burned to CD they are WAV and on my computer and in my car
stereo, I have all of the information. The computer uses a reference file
where as the car stereo reads it directly from the Cd.
So unless i am missing something, what is YOUR defination of ID Tagging?

 

[Mike Williams]

Tagging last I knew is exactly what I referred to it as. Extra info other
than the music is TAGGING .
With Roxio, I save all of my files on the Hard drive in Wav format and
when they are burned to CD they are WAV and on my computer and in my car
stereo, I have all of the information. The computer uses a reference file
where as the car stereo reads it directly from the Cd.
So unless i am missing something, what is YOUR defination of ID Tagging?

Tagging is adding metadata to the headers inside media files that are
compound documents (like MP3 or WMA). WAV files have no space for such
tags, so any information about the file has to be stored outside of it.

CD Text is a method by which such information is stored on an audio CD.
It's an extension to the Red Book standard for such CDs.
See for instance: http://www.smart-projects.net/isobuster/help/hs220.htm

If you send WAV files to someone, then the metadata does not accompany
it, whereas it does with MP3, WMA and other modern audio-formats.

 

[Guest]

Mike

So other than sending a file to someone, tagging and CD Texting is
identical for results. correct?
Sending a file , unless purchased would be illegal under current copyright
laws, so for making a CD for persoannl enjoyment, I would No difference
between tagging and CD Text.
So without being rude, why would anyone want to ID Tag and go with a
lesser format, than WAV if they can copy WAv and have CD Text???



I Have forgotten so much of what I once knew.
"A Stranger is a Friend you haven''t met yet."

 

[Mike Williams]

Mike

So other than sending a file to someone, tagging and CD Texting is
identical for results. correct?

No. CD Text works only on AUDIO CDS for those that have the hardware and
software to decode it. Tagging works on all file formats that computers
can read, whether it be a hard disk drive, a DATA CD or a memory card.

Sending a file , unless purchased would be illegal under current copyright
laws, so for making a CD for persoannl enjoyment, I would No difference
between tagging and CD Text.

In addition to the above differences, CD Text supports less tags, ie
less information.

So without being rude, why would anyone want to ID Tag and go with a
lesser format, than WAV if they can copy WAv and have CD Text???

FOr the above reasons PLUS you can put tags into lossless formats like
LossWMA or FLAC etc. If you make compressed copies as WMA, MP3, FLAC etc
then the tags remain.

 

[Mike Williams]

No. CD Text works only on AUDIO CDS for those that have the hardware and
software to decode it. Tagging works on all file formats that computers
can read, whether it be a hard disk drive, a DATA CD or a memory card.


In addition to the above differences, CD Text supports less tags, ie
less information.


FOr the above reasons PLUS you can put tags into lossless formats like
LossWMA or FLAC etc. If you make compressed copies as WMA, MP3, FLAC etc
then the tags remain.

Oops that Lossless WMA, not LossWMA.

Also since Lossless WMA is smaller than WAV, you can fit more such
tracks on a data CD.

 

[Guest]

Mike

Chuck was talking about backing up his CD collection, NOt data, not
memory cards or whatever. That is why CD Text and Roxio was what I suggested.
Cd players read WAV and Windows is the WMA. If the post was talking about
DATA I would 100% agree with you.

 

[Guest]

Mike


Once again I am disagreeing with you.
Chuck stated he was interested in Audio Integrity and not quanity and he
is ONLY dealing with Audio, I would NEVER suggest WMA or MP3 to anyone who
wants to preserve the BEST sound reproduction. WAV is by far the BEST choice.
For data or for people who could care less if there is any Harmonics left in
their Acoustic Guitar recording or not or for people who listen to the narrow
frequency repsnse music such as RAp then MP3 or so called Lossless WMA would
be fine. Otherwise if the person is aftergood music reproduction.

 

[Mike Williams]

Mike

Chuck was talking about backing up his CD collection, NOt data, not
memory cards or whatever. That is why CD Text and Roxio was what I suggested.
Cd players read WAV and Windows is the WMA. If the post was talking about
DATA I would 100% agree with you.

And why shouldn't he back up his CD collection to a format that isn't a
non audio-CD? Windows applications manage WAV, MP3, WMA, FLAC, OGG, RMA
and endless other formats.

The content of audio CDs is *data" - just encoded inefficiently for a
nearly 30-year old and relatively inflexible hardware standard.

 

[Mike Williams]

Mike


Once again I am disagreeing with you.
Chuck stated he was interested in Audio Integrity and not quanity and he
is ONLY dealing with Audio, I would NEVER suggest WMA or MP3 to anyone who
wants to preserve the BEST sound reproduction. WAV is by far the BEST choice.
For data or for people who could care less if there is any Harmonics left in
their Acoustic Guitar recording or not or for people who listen to the narrow
frequency repsnse music such as RAp then MP3 or so called Lossless WMA would
be fine. Otherwise if the person is aftergood music reproduction.

Lossless formats are equivalent to WAV. You can convert between the two
without loss of information. That's why they are called lossless.

MP3 is not lossless. WMA has a lossless version, or you can specify the
compression/bitrate level. There are other formats like this.

 

[Guest]

Mike

the 30 year old format is a format I have fought every step of the way, I
prefer AAA and it was enough when it went to AAD with only 2X over sampling,
then the over sampling got better and it went from ADD to finally DDD and
anyone for an ear for music will tell you that there IS a difference between
Analog and DIgitial and I will take a Direct To Disc LP of the same Song as a
DDD recording and I will blindfold 100 people and do a A B switch between the
two and with exception of Helen Keller everyone will pick the LP. So with
that logic we now are talking about a compromise and what is the BEST
comprise in an era where people have no clue what RPM a LP was or what Nude
SHabita is or Elipitical or Conical or Wow & Flutter or S/N or so much more.
It use to be 1 Watt at 1 meter would give you the SPL rating and now they add
up all of the total watts and give it to you as a collective when the IHF use
to say "RMS is into ONE channle Driven into an 8 ohm Load" So the Industry
has gone to Hell and with RAP Crap no one is really into Frequency Response
or Harmonics or the such, so to many WMa, MPs WAV, what the Hell? The ONLY
plus I have found with Digitial is convience, easy to edit, no splicing tape
needed, no editing block, no linear recording, and adding effects is a
breeze. So because CDs are already of lesser quality than the Original
source, I will try to preserve what is left to the best limit that I can and
that is clearly WAV, I have enough info with CD Text and I am Happy and my
music is as good as it can get. If Chuck had said he had a large collection
of Rap Crap I would have suggested MP3 and he would have never noticed any
difference. It is the SOund Mike, we aren't talking Data here, we are
talking SOUND, stereo Seperation and the such, WAV you can select higher
levels of recording formats, my average song is about 35 meg byte and I
compare to a CD original and there is NO difference, WMA is limited to where
it can be played without having to CONVERT IT yet again. I am a beleiver that
maybe with Data there is no loss in conversion, but when I compare music
youbet there is. I converted some MP3 to WAV and when it was done, there was
a BIG difference as compared to the original source. I expeirmented with WMA
as well and didn't like the idea of limitations. My SOny Car sytem palys my
CDs fine and I get all of the info I need on the display.

Vinyl is far better than CD but who woulkd listen?

 

[Mike Williams]

Craig A. wrote:
So because CDs are already of lesser quality than the Original

source, I will try to preserve what is left to the best limit that I can and
that is clearly WAV, I have enough info with CD Text and I am Happy and my
music is as good as it can get. If Chuck had said he had a large collection
of Rap Crap I would have suggested MP3 and he would have never noticed any
difference. It is the SOund Mike, we aren't talking Data here, we are
talking SOUND, stereo Seperation and the such, WAV you can select higher
levels of recording formats, my average song is about 35 meg byte and I
compare to a CD original and there is NO difference, WMA is limited to where
it can be played without having to CONVERT IT yet again.

Craig, I'm sorry but your CD is digitally encoded with a WAV (of
whatever spec). Transforming those bits to another digital format that
doesn't lose the original information is not going to make an iota of
difference. I have about 3000 CDs preserved - without loss of
information - on a hard disk about the size of a fat hardback novel. I
can recreate an audio CD whenever I choose, or make a downscale copy of
a song for use on a small player.

I am a beleiver that
maybe with Data there is no loss in conversion, but when I compare music
youbet there is. I converted some MP3 to WAV and when it was done, there was
a BIG difference as compared to the original source. I expeirmented with WMA
as well and didn't like the idea of limitations. My SOny Car sytem palys my
CDs fine and I get all of the info I need on the display.

Well you keep throwing up the MP3 straw-man, which I have said many time
below is a COMPRESSED FORMAT (compressed by throwing away audio
information), unlike the LOSSLESS FORMATS. Of course there will be a
difference. I have never suggested replacing WAV with MP3 for archival
purposes.

 

[Guest]

Mike

If I use a comparision as Jpeg and Tif, Jpeg is a digitial copy of an
originial source, each time you copy a jpeg it degenerates in quality. Tif
on the other hand does Not.
WMA may be an ok file, WAV is the survivor and the format that is most
widely used. It sounds like you have a good knowledge of these files, and I
will admit I am an Old Analog supporter. I do not have 3000 CDs but I do have
4000 songs in wav format on my 250 g HD and have about 100 gig left. I clean
these files, I edit them and I try to keep them as close to the best that
digitial can keep them. I do it only for my Car Audio for when I am home it
is Vinyl. I would much rather use VHS HiFi which has a equivilant of 275 ips
and the S/N is well over 100 DBs, but lineaer Recording is a pain. I do have
over 100 VHS tapes that have much of my Vinyl backed up and I have a lot of
Acoustic such as Bluegrass and digitial destroys the harmonics. The Turntable
is still around and I can still buy Cartridges for it, but the ability of
Mass storeage for backup has chnaged to a format I do not really favor
regardless.
You defend WMA and you are Happy with it, I never accused you have MP3, I
only referred to that as that is what the Masses are leaning towards and they
all must be absolutely TONE DEAF and have no clue what a critical ear is. I
will defend WAV and as Chuck said, he wants quality, I would also say that
WAV is far more supported with NON WINDOWS BASED PLAYERS than WMA, and if you
have to go thru the EXTRA step of conversion to play it on other machines,
and storage is NOT the issue, than why not eliminate the need for that extra
step and record it in WAV?

 

[Mike Williams]

If I use a comparision as Jpeg and Tif, Jpeg is a digitial copy of an
originial source, each time you copy a jpeg it degenerates in quality. Tif
on the other hand does Not.

A poor analogy and poor understanding.

If you are copying a JPEG (a compressed format like MP3) it does not
generate. A TIF (which is a container file which contain JPEG images)
likewise.

WMA may be an ok file, WAV is the survivor and the format that is most
widely used. It sounds like you have a good knowledge of these files, and I
will admit I am an Old Analog supporter. I do not have 3000 CDs but I do have
4000 songs in wav format on my 250 g HD and have about 100 gig left. I clean
these files, I edit them and I try to keep them as close to the best that
digitial can keep them. I do it only for my Car Audio for when I am home it
is Vinyl. I would much rather use VHS HiFi which has a equivilant of 275 ips
and the S/N is well over 100 DBs, but lineaer Recording is a pain. I do have
over 100 VHS tapes that have much of my Vinyl backed up and I have a lot of
Acoustic such as Bluegrass and digitial destroys the harmonics. The Turntable
is still around and I can still buy Cartridges for it, but the ability of
Mass storeage for backup has chnaged to a format I do not really favor
regardless.
You defend WMA and you are Happy with it, I never accused you have MP3,

No, you keep using the MP3 comparison for your argument even though I
said it was a lossy format. That is a classic straw-man argument.

I

only referred to that as that is what the Masses are leaning towards and they
all must be absolutely TONE DEAF and have no clue what a critical ear is. I
will defend WAV and as Chuck said, he wants quality, I would also say that
WAV is far more supported with NON WINDOWS BASED PLAYERS than WMA, and if you
have to go thru the EXTRA step of conversion to play it on other machines,
and storage is NOT the issue, than why not eliminate the need for that extra
step and record it in WAV?

You keep neglecting to read what I say, and present something different.
So I am not going to respond after this as you are showing troll-like
behaviour. It may not be intentional on your side, but it wastes my time
and that of anyone who reads the thread.