Hi folks,
I just came about a strange experience while experimenting with WMA 9 Lossless encoding. I have a huge wav file (in fact, it is Andre Wiethoff's DAE Quality Testfile reference.wav) which I want to archive.
Just for the fun of it, I wanted to check out which of my 3 lossless formats (wma, flac, ape) give the best results (all test runs were performed on a Compaq Deskpro PIII 1000 with 256 MB PC133 and WinXP Pro):
Input File: reference.wav
Input Filesize: 764860 kBytes
Encoding with MS WMA9 Lossless:
Time to encode: 7 Min. 54 Sec (this really sucks)
Filesize after Encoding: 306316 kBytes (40,05 % of original filesize ... not bad)
Encoding with FLAC 1.1.0, Level 5, verify ON
Time to encode: 4 Min. 46 Sec.
Filesize after Encoding: 328327 kBytes (42,92 % of original filesize)
Encoding with Monkey's Audio 3.97, normal Compression
Time to encode: 3 Min. 17 Sec. (fastest)
Filesize after Encoding: 294022 (38,44 % of original filesize - best compression ratio)
Now I know that FLAC consumes less CPU time during playback which is an argument that speaks for using FLAC in low-end systems while Monkey's Audio ist standing out with the fastest and most efficient encoding on that specific file.
But what speaks for 2-Channel WMA 9 ? It is nearly twice as slow and only little more efficient on encoding (compared to FLAC), consumes more CPU power than ape on playback and cannot be decoded (at least not with the means at my disposal ... any suggestions will be appreciated).
I would be iinterested in your opinions ... and does anyone know an application that can handle WMA9 decompression ?
Regards
JL