WMA-Lossless versus FLAC

[press250]

Some years back, I ripped my entire 700+ CD collection to MP3. I am about to embark on the epic process of re-ripping the entire collection, this time into a lossless format. As I have pretty much zero desire to repeat this process, I'd like to get it right on the first crack. ;-)

I have narrowed my choice of codec down to WMA-Lossless or FLAC. To me, the former has both the advantage and disadvantage of being from Microsoft. I say 'advantage' because it probably will be around for quite some time, and I say 'disadvantage' because, well, that ought to be obvious.

Any comparative experience with these two codecs? Suggestions are eagerly awaited ... right up to the point that I start the process.

Regards,
press250.

[adaywayne]

Re: WMA-Lossless versus FLAC

I suppose it depends on what you plan to do with them. If you want to play them on a portable player you have to consider what format those players will support in the long-term future (I'd say wma is a good bet ). If you are just storing them to play on your computer, that is not a consideration. My personal preference would be Monkey's Audio.

[Spoon]

Re: WMA-Lossless versus FLAC

Lossless of any format allows you to convert to any other lossless format at any time.

[adaywayne]

Re: WMA-Lossless versus FLAC

Lossless of any format allows you to convert to any other lossless format at any time.

Unless you've changed computers, not kept the lossless codec or the convertion program, and it's no longer available. But I'll be long dead by that time!
Merry Christmas!
Arnie

[press250]

Re: WMA-Lossless versus FLAC

Lossless of any format allows you to convert to any other lossless format at any time.

Excellent point, so I suppose I do not have to worry about re-doing the whole ripping exercise. With that said, I'd still like to make an educated guess on the lossless format.

BTW, I will be using this lossless compilation as a long-term archive only. I will convert from this lossless archive into AAC for iPod, for example, and will repeat that process for any other pocket-size gizmos in the future.

Thanks for the feedback!
press250

[ailean]

Re: WMA-Lossless versus FLAC

When I went thru this exercise I picked Flac as it had wider support in software and hardware, compressed fairly fast (less time to build the archive) and fast/low cpu for decompress (better for background playing and mass convertions).

This was before WMA Lossless took off thou and I'm sure with MS gentle nudging (with a red hot poker ) more software and hardware support will emerge.

iTunes will also natively convert WMA to Apple Lossless for the iPod.

I'm still inclinded to stay with flac for now as I don't trust MS to not go and do something nasty like automatically adding some kind of DRM to all my music and lock me out of using anything but MediaPlayer to access them!