[Hoots]

I noticed that many enthusiasts have an aversion to Microsoft and WMA.   Other than comments like "microsoft claws in the code" what are the cons on WMA lossless vs others like FLAC which seem so popular?

PROS:
* plays on xbox360 and MCE2005
* plays on MusicMatch and can be tagged with Super Tagging
* album art can be tagged into file vs. using folder.jpg
* sounds the same as other lossless formats like FLAC?


CONS:
* decode time?
* any issues around DRM?


Windows Media Audio Lossless
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/codecs/audio.aspx
WMA Lossless is the lossless codec developed by Microsoft to be featured in their Windows Media codec portfolio.





From HydrogenAudio:

[edit]WMAL PROS
Streaming support
Very good software support
Supports multichannel audio and high resolutions.
Tagging support (proprietary)
Pipe support

[edit]WMAL CONS
Closed source
No hybrid/lossy mode
No hardware support (but it's likely to appear sooner or later)
Doesn't support RIFF chunks
Doesn't support ReplayGain
[edit]WMAL Other features
Fits the ASF container

[Music Machine]

wma is proprietary, flac is open.  I guess it comes down to what you play on.

[Hoots]

what does "proprietary" mean to me?

It seems to play on every software player I have found (MusicMatch, Media Monkey, MCE, JRiver, Meedio, etc.) EXCEPT iTUnes & iPOD which want to transcode it first.

I can tag the files and the seem to display in my players.

It seems to have more flexibily in terms of compatibility than OPEN formats like FLAC and WAVPACK which don't play on my MCE2005 machine, xBOX360, MusicMatch nor do they give me the album art tagging flexibility which is very usefull for setting up views in Meedio so I can display different album art for each track of a compilation album (w/o creating sub directories.

NOTE:  there is a plug-in using a filter for FLAC to play on MCE2005.

I'm not looking to promote Microsoft or WMAL but as a person who has ripped about 100 CDs using FLAC I am starting to see the advantages of WMAL and questioning if FLAC has any real benefit to me over WMAL.

Now if I was a programmer looking to get into the code maybe I would run into blocks...maybe there is more....I'm asking because I want to know before I give in to the attraction of WMAL.

thx

[Jon L]

As far as lossless codecs' sound quality, data compression ability, they are all really roughly the same.  There are 2 reasons I will never use WMA lossless:

1.  WMA is a property of Microsoft.  They'll be gracious enough to let you use it for free, but only on player software Microsoft approves of, such as Windows Media Player.  The fact Foobar can't play WMA lossless is the deal breaker for me.  Foobar with all the trimmings  and free plugins, such as SRC resampler, is my choice for superior PC audio playback.  

2.  Proprietary formats like WMA lossless and Apple Lossless is basically open invitation for DRM and "copy protection" and "Rootkit."  Look at the airtight DRM Apple already uses and owns on their iTunes store.  If the codec is open-source (Flac), they can't mess with the music files like that. Music Giants is supposed to be the only "official" website to offer lossless downloads (for hefty $), and what's the file format they chose to offer?  That's right. WMA lossless. Why?  B/c WMA lossless can and will be straightjacketed with DRM so deep and sticky, it will be enough to please the greedy bastards.  

Simply put, I choose to use Flac b/c it's open-source and b/c it can be played on the best open-source software player, Foobar.  Additionally, I would hate to support, in any shape or form, the greedy bastards at Microsoft and RIAA.

[Watson]

No hardware support (but it's likely to appear sooner or later)

The help file for WMP9 (I'm not sure about WMP10) says that Microsoft does not support WMA Lossless on portable devices.  Perhaps their policy has changed since then or will change, but I wouldn't hold my breath.  As far as I know, the current MS policy is that they want you to use MS Media Server to transcode WMA Lossless on the fly for use on portable devices.  That's not a bad solution by the way, though I wish they would leave the choice whether or not to use lossless on portables up to the consumer.