WMA lossless adds 15 samples in .92b5 |
This is NOT a tech support forum.
Tech support questions go to foobar2000 Tech Support forum instead.
See also: Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service.
![]() ![]() |
WMA lossless adds 15 samples in .92b5 |
Jun 6 2006, 01:46
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 6-March 04 From: Seattle Member No.: 12494 |
I am converting some WMA lossless to FLAC/APE. In each case, the resulting FLAC or APE or even WAV file contains 15 samples too many.
[foobar 0.92 beta 5] Update: dbPoweramp has the same problem. This is likely an issue with WM runtime? Has anyone successfully gotten proper sample counts? I am using WMP11, or rather whatever runtime comes with WMP11. +Reardon This post has been edited by reardon: Jun 6 2006, 13:21 |
|
|
|
Jun 6 2006, 06:21
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Group: Admin Posts: 4219 Joined: 15-December 02 Member No.: 4082 |
The header indicates the file length in nanoseconds, but is usually only accurate to 10ms, rounded down. Is that 15 samples more than you originally encoded, or 15 samples more than the file info dialog reports?
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2006, 13:23
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 6-March 04 From: Seattle Member No.: 12494 |
The header indicates the file length in nanoseconds, but is usually only accurate to 10ms, rounded down. Is that 15 samples more than you originally encoded, or 15 samples more than the file info dialog reports? File info dialog is reporting 15 samples longer, regardless of the original length. |
|
|
|
Jun 6 2006, 13:50
Post
#4
|
|
![]() Group: Admin Posts: 3226 Joined: 30-September 01 Member No.: 84 |
Automated tests of WMA decoder already pointed this problem before, but it's clearly on MS side and there's not much we can do about it, unless I'm missing something obvious.
Seeking and length reporting is clearly inaccurate for WMA including WMA lossless; only thing I can do is to recommend everyone to stay away from this format as far as archiving use goes. -------------------- This job would be great if it wasn't for the users.
|
|
|
|
Jun 25 2006, 07:56
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 19-June 06 Member No.: 31991 |
Which automated test are you referring to?
I did a simple test. I ripped a CD track to WAV and WMA lossless. Then decoded WMA lossless to WAV. The two WAV files have exactly the same length. And what do you mean by 'clearly inacuurate'? Do you have any samples? |
|
|
|
Jun 25 2006, 12:06
Post
#6
|
|
![]() Group: FB2K Moderator (Donating) Posts: 4219 Joined: 24-February 03 Member No.: 5153 |
Which automated test are you referring to? Tests made using an as of yet unreleased decoder verification component.And what do you mean by 'clearly inacuurate'? Do you have any samples? Look at the original post and the first replies.
-------------------- http://foosion.foobar2000.org/ - my components for foobar2000
|
|
|
|
Jun 25 2006, 12:22
Post
#7
|
|
![]() Group: Admin Posts: 3226 Joined: 30-September 01 Member No.: 84 |
According to my tests (using WMP10 runtime that came with winxp 64bit), WMA "lossless" was decodable back to original length, but it was impossible to query sample-accurate length without full decode, or seek accurately. Original poster reported that decoding is inaccurate too; I guess it might be a new problem introduced in WMP11 runtime.
Even on my configuration, WMA "lossless" is basically lossy when decoded over cuesheet, unless I implement extremely-inefficient bruteforce seek workaround, which I don't plan to as I think I've wasted enough of my time on researching MS WMA runtime issues already. -------------------- This job would be great if it wasn't for the users.
|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th May 2013 - 19:15 |