Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[negopus]

There is an endless debate about leaving CD-ripped audio data in WAV format or compressing it using lossless formats like APE or FLAC. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. WAV files require absolutely no processing during playback, but it seems that WAV files lack tagging capabilities.

Since I would like to keep my CD-ripped audio as uncompressed WAV files, I googled for some documentation. I found from the AudioStation 6 documentation http://www.voyetra.com/site/kb_ftp/1196011.asp that WAV files support some basic form of tagging.

WAVE files use a standard RIFF INFO chunk as documented by Microsoft.
So does AudioStation. The only custom bit is the itrk field which we
store the track number in.
AudioStation maps the following data in the INFO chunk:
IART    Artist
IGNR    Genre
INAM    Title
IPRD    Album
itrk    Track Number - this is an AudioStation extension (noted by the
                       lower case). This contains a string representation
                       of the track number (ex. "5" or "09").  Binary
                       data is not supported.

Why isn't this basic tagging implemented in Media Center? If I remove a WAV file from the MC library then I import it again, all tags are gone, and all I can retrieve is just the file name.

[Johnny B]

Since I would like to keep my CD-ripped audio as uncompressed WAV files...

Hmm... Why?? What are those "disadventages" when using lossless compression?? Keeping that CD-ripped audio in WAVs is only a waste of space...

[Mr ChriZ]

WAV files require absolutely no processing during playback, but it seems that WAV files lack tagging capabilities.

Playing APE Files on my ageing Athlon 1700 uses around 8% processor usage here.
This leaves plenty of CPU breathing room for compiling applications, running CorelDraw and Photoshop, 2 Messenger apps, and the audio playing never stops....
Why would you want to throw away all of the advantages of something like APE just to gain
maybe a 2-4% less processor usage?
Any time you gain will have been wasted in thinking about it 

[Matt]

The work of APE decoding is tiny on a modern machine.  Some of the playback CPU is for buffer management, talking to the soundcard, etc. which applies to WAV or APE.  Remember that you're also doing half the disk I/O to play a losslessly compressed file.

My opinion is that there's no reason NOT to use lossless compression.  Gaining strong error detection and tagging are major pluses on top of the space savings.

[negopus]

I knew I would have ignited the spark again...

If an user, for any reason, wants to use uncompressed WAV, should be given the tools to handle the format

I know that, starting from scratch, it is better to use lossless compression. But I already have my asset of CD-ripped tracks in WAV format, and I don't want to convert them at the time. WAV is an universal standard and is compatible with every audio program.

By not supporting WAV tagging, it seems that Media Center is subtly forcing users to switch to lossless compression. But as Media Center is a multi-standard program, and is able to work with almost every format, it should support WAV tagging also.

To continue... which one is better, APE or FLAC? Which one is more widely supported?

[JimH]

It's just plain silly to use WAV.  If you're worried about compatibility with other programs if you decide to switch, you can always convert back to WAV from any lossless format.

There is no advantage to WAV. 

[Matt]

Media Center fully supports WAV files.

WAV itself does not have a tagging standard.  This is not a Media Center issue.

[hit_ny]

How much do ppl want to bet the orig poster uses WAV files with his portable ?

Any tagging provided by the apps mentioned are propietary and can only be read in the apps that wrote them in the first place.

On a desktop there are better options if one needs to stay lossless.

[BartMan01]

To continue... which one is better, APE or FLAC? Which one is more widely supported?

APE has the best MC support.

FLAC has the best device support.

What is best for you really depends on the application. 

If you require 100% lossless use and have a playback device that supports FLAC but not APE, then FLAC is probably better for you.

If you just use the lossless files as permanent storage/local playback or all of your playback devices support APE then APE is the better choice as long as you are using MC.