I'm really stoked about this. I love Monkey's Audio and given the fact that the last release was over 18 months ago I was worried that the format would disappear. I'm glad it obviously won't.

Imo & experience, MA provides the most useful lossless encoder around with sound equal to or better than FLAC, WavPack, Apple Lossless or WMA lossless.

In re the latter: I actually find that MSFT's lossless encoder far superior to their lossy format(s). Whereas, to my ears, WMA is clearly inferior to MP3 (not to mention Coding Technologies AAC rev 2), the lossless codec sounds excellent.

The Tau Analyzer concluded that a Red Book CD I created with WMA lossless files was created from WAV files (I'm still not sure if the Tau Analyzer is supposed to tell whether an audio CD is stamped or just generated from wav files). Of course, it all depends on how accurate the Tau Analyzer is,

Occasionally, even Lord Bill's minions get it right.

____________________________

[R]evolution [only] distributes poverty. --Will & Ariel Durant

...For they past a noble law/And the Trees are all kept equal/
With hatchet, axe and saw... --Neil Peart

P4 HT 2800MHz (dual core)
1500MB 2700 DDR/2 HDDs w/240GB
Plextor 716A/Memorex True-8 (really a rebranded Pioneer 107)
Radeon 9550 256MB - SB Live! 24 bit external sound card
Linksys WRT54G Wireless Router (for Gateway laptop net access)

There is no such thing as "sound better than FLAC", or any other lossless format. Lossless is lossless. That means, it's lossless, as in, the same as the original.

Edit: removed un-necessary expletive due to temporary insanity.

I think it might be helpful to point out, a properly functioning lossless encoder produces a file that decodes identically to any other lossless encoder. It doesn't lose anything, hence the name. Upon playback, the sound is bit-for-bit identical with the original WAV.

Isn't that a bit like saying "an internal combustion engine is an internal combustion engine is an internal combustion engine"? F'r instance, try comparing a Saab engine to a Toyota!

Isn't how the compression is implemented what's really important? If the programmer does a lousy job, then lossless or not, it going to produce lousy results, is it not?

In other words, the mere attachment of a name to something doesn't guarantee its going to be "good gear" as the Brits put it. After all, CMC and Taiyo both make DVDs. Which would anyone with any experience with DVD blank media going to buy?

As I just posted, I realize this.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, isn't it?

CMC & Taiyo both make DVDs. In my experience, I've had a 50% failure rate with the former and something under 2% with the latter.

I don't really understand what point you are making.

Monkey's Audio is a lossless codec. That means that it stores a WAVE file in compressed form, so that when decompressed the audio data is exactly the same as the original WAVE.

FLAC is similarly a lossless format, as is WavPack and WMA lossless.

Assuming that they actually do what they say - store audio data losslessly - how can one produce lousy results?

It is either lossless or not - bang/bang - no middle ground.

If you are suggesting that FLAC, WavPack etc. are not truely lossless you are running the risk of being pulled up on TOS #8.

Properly implemented (which is to say, no bugs that would prevent it from being truly lossless), any given lossless codec will be only distinguishable from another in terms of:

Compression ratio
Encoding / Decoding speed
Tagging / Compatibility

And of course, other catagories that I may have forgotten to mention. They will all produce bit-for-bit identical output as each other.

Please feel free to read this for a very good primer:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless

You might like to read this thread: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=36042&hl=