Always wodnered, what's this lossless wma encoding that microsoft always claim?
Why can't it make any losses despite lower bit rates?
Why is it better than mp3?
regards.
Always wodnered, what's this lossless wma encoding that microsoft always claim?
Why can't it make any losses despite lower bit rates?
Why is it better than mp3?
regards.
think of losless as a zip file. it compresses the original file. just like losless flac , ape, etc... mp3 is lossy which removes actual audio/sound form the original file and lessens the quality, but still maintains a good enough sound.
Please don't double-post.
Microsoft has multiple versions for wma. They range from CBR, VBR, Pro, Voice, and now lossless. WMA Lossless is just the same as FLAC or Monkey's in effect, in that it keeps all audio data for the tracks but as a consequence is much larger than lossy files (like mp3 or regular wma). Note that all .wma files are not necessarily "created equal".
Right. And what does it mean to be "mathematically lossless" as opposed to say, Monkey's Audio lossless?
It might refer to the fact that they can reproduce every bit of the song file accurately instead of reproducing the same audio output. However, I'm not sure this is the case. Either way, lossless is lossless.
WMA lossless reproduces the audio exactly as it is on the CD. Regular WMA is "lossy" in that it discards some of the audio to achieve smaller file sizes.Originally Posted by Jimbo2005
Did the wma dudes add their SRS wow effects into the wma files?
What did they do to make it sound so good, even when the file sizes are 12 times smaller than the CD versions.
What's the difference between wma LOSSLESS and just plain wma 9.1?
Regards.
Lossless question answered just above. As for the SRS wow effects, I don't know. The reason WMA sounds good at smaller than CD size is their compression algorithms and how they compress the spectrum. Again, there are may types of WMA files, including Voice, Professional, VBR, CBR, and lossless.
Thanks everyone.
I always thought that Lt. Data from Star Trek was cool.
Always wondered why couldn't they use a replicator to replicate him?
Or maybe use Doctor from Voyager to do suicide missions, or just use the ships computer to run the entire star ship just like a holodeck can produce characters anyway.
I've also always kinda wondered how mpg1 uses about twice the amount of disk space, but isn't as sharp and clear as divx video is. WHich sues half its disk space.
I don't understand your question.Originally Posted by Jimbo2005
Yes, you're right. It has nothign to do with mp3 or wma.
But before divx, there was mpg which was 320x240 digital video. But with divx, its bitrate is half of mpg (mpeg1), yet it can go at 800x600 or 640x480 or something like that.
Originally Posted by neilthecellist
DivX is also called MPEG-4. It uses better compression and looks better, just as mp3 compresses better than mp2 or mp1 did. Also, DVDs use MPEG-2 which is a higher bitrate and higher quality.
Thanks Lt. Data.
DOes dbpoweramp have any video convertors? E.g. I wanna convert a DVD into 700 megs or 800 megs. Or maybe xvid (very similar)
divx is much better than VHS that's for sure.
Regards.
no, dMC only does audio.
Copyright © illustrate 2024, All rights reserved