Print

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

[Qythyx]

I currently have my ~6000 track library encoded as lossless WMA files. I've heard to APE is faster to both encode and decode. I'm wondering if there are any other significant benefits to it and if there's any good reason to consider switching to APE.

[LonWar]

I have used both... Most don't like M$ so they stay clear of WMA.

If you are using MC, then you will get better support with ape.  Matt is one of the developers of MC, and the author of ape... Doesn't get much better.

As with any loss less format, if later on you don't like it, you can ALWAYS reencode to another lossless without any problems.



I havn't really noticed any  difference...

[hit_ny]

If later on you don't like it, you can ALWAYS reencode to another lossless without any problems.

Rencode is the easy part, verify much harder. Since its lossless you want to "know" it rencoded bit perfectly right ?

In the absence of any software that does this to date, (a batch file in *nix might), it would actually be faster to "securely" re-rip again, comes with the nice log file that says OK.

So to avoid this, it's really important to match the media player to the format or it gets painful very quickly. If all you do is use MC, then APE is the obvious choice.

Add an ipod or other, and things get trickier, yeah you can always rencode to lossy but your're waiting, no simple drag n drop.

This is why i love mp3

[Bizarroterl]

 ?
Is the decode speed important?  Assuming a PC is can decode it fast enough to play the file what difference does it make?

[dlone]

Mainly the difference is that WMA wil only play on your pc

If you have to reinstall your pc, you better be sure that all your licences are backed up !

[dlone]

Gosh darn forgot at say

When you do need to reinstall - you can't backup your licenceses and then you'r stufed big time

Lucky you, you just lost all the music you had 

[Qythyx]

Responding to a few different points mentioned...

Decoding speed - Well, as mentioned, the "speed" doesn't really matter, but the CPU usage being less can be nice. If you're just playing music then it doesn't matter too much, but if you're doing other things with the PC at the same time then I'd prefer a format that uses as little CPU as possible.


WMA Licences - These concerns only matter if you encrypt/protect the media. I ripped all my CDs as lossless WMA, but without any protection, so they are not tied to any license.


Anyway, my current thinking is that, although it looks like there are a few possible advantages to APE, none of them are compelling enough right now to make me wany to convert all my files.


Thanks for all the input.

[Osho]

I currently have my ~6000 track library encoded as lossless WMA files. I've heard to APE is faster to both encode and decode. I'm wondering if there are any other significant benefits to it and if there's any good reason to consider switching to APE.

I had a bunch of CDs ripped in APE. I have been using APE for 3 years at least. Recently, I am also in process of adding many new CDs to my collection. I decided not to choose APE. I didn't like APE for two reasons:

1. No playback possible on Linux.
2. No playback possible on iPod without conversion.

My new format of choice is FLAC. Main reasons for me are:

1. I can play it on Linux (I use the media directly from Windows PC via a Samba Share and use Amarok as the player on Linux - which is as good as a media player as it gets on Linux).
2. I can play it on iPod without any conversion (using rockbox of course).
3. The format is open source - the least likely to cause problems in future about platforms/portable media players etc.

I converted all my previous collection from APE to FLAC using MC. It took over 40 hours but MC did it (I was really impressed that it didn't crash in the middle). And all new CDs are ripped with FLAC in my collection now.


Osho

[benn600]

Do you leave the default of 6 or so for the quality?  I always go with 8 because I figure that extra time will end up saving me a few GB in the end--and after 700 CDs, I really believe I have saved a few GB or more.  At the very least, that may mean defragmenting would be a bit easier with a little more space to move files around.

[hit_ny]

I didn't like APE for two reasons:

1. No playback possible on Linux.

I'm not so sure about this one. Vaguely recall some one saying it is possible.

[glynor]

I'm pretty sure APE is Windows only.  Matt has "open sourced" the format and has a fairly non-restrictive license (though IANAL so I don't know if it's GPL compatible), so someone certainly could write a "codec" that could read-write APE files for OSX and/or Linux.  However, unless it's happened very recently, no one has....

[Alex B]

For OS X: Max, Tag and Cog

http://sbooth.org/Max/
http://sbooth.org/Tag/
http://cogosx.sourceforge.net/

Edit

For Linux: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mac-port/

I have no idea how well the Linux port can be used, but the mentioned OS X programs should be ready to use as they are.

[glynor]

Wow... That's cool Alex.  I didn't know.  CogOSX still isn't a true "codec" for OSX persay however, so you can't play the APE files back using Quicktime Player or iTunes though, so I'm not sure of the complete utility for OSX.

Better than I thought though!!