I came here because this is the question I wanted All lossless codecs (provided nothing goes wrong and they're outputting the same sample and bit rate they take in) sound identical. Since my computer is pretty fast, I choose the setting that takes the longest time to complete, but more so because I like using it with Audacity, which lets me choose various speed/size settings. So, what's the best? I like FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec).
It will sound exactly the same because the computer does the math to play This extra data adds up even more quickly, so much so that some fancy math is needed to shrink down the total size. These samples can also be recorded at higher bit rates (24 bit, 32, etc.) This is also arguably better, againĭespite diminishing returns. Sometimes digital audio is recorded at 48,000 hertz (48 kHz), or 96 kHz, or even higher, which is arguably better, despite diminishing returns. I'm not loosing anything, just gaining some complication, and some digital storage space. I want my vast music to sound as good as possible, but if I'm not loosing anything by storing it in a slightly more complicated container, then
That's still a lot, even by today's standards. Up quickly, 44,100 X 16 = 705,600 bits per second to be precise. Ripping to WAV will give you what is on your audio CD, two channels (or separate recordings, usually left and right for stereo) of LPCM digital audio sampled at 44,100 cycles per second (hertz), with 16 bits (the ones and zeros) for each sample. I'll add a third, and hopefully be as helpful. This was the first link on my search for "Windows Media Player lossless" and I notice it's almost 3 years old, has over a thousand views, and just two posts. Volunteer J - MS-MVP.This Is Not Tech Support. The following article may be worth a look: There is a point where increasing theīit rate becomes overkill because IMHO you cannot improve on the Maybe I'm not as critical as I should be but using the simple MP3įormat seems adequate to me. Might be worth a try to do some test samples and compare yourīurned CDs to the originals when played on your sound system. That you do not hold your breath until you hear from one) but I agree Sorry, I'm certainly not a Microsoft Engineer (and I would suggest I am hoping that my question will result in a definitive answer because it is clear from my research that it is badly needed.
Provide identical sound quality and other postings which say that WAV (Lossless) provides better sound quality. I have seen online postings which state that the two formats On its face it would appear that WAV (Lossless) would provide better sound quality than Windows Media Audio Lossless because of the much higher Kbps and/or because it requires much more space.
0 kommentar(er)
