I'd be interested to see some real data on the compression rate issue. dae3dae3 Wrote: > The codecs seem to be audibly identical with better compression rate > going to WMA lossless. >
Very much yes! Go with flac, and you're guaranteed to still be able to listen to your music in ten years time. Go with wma, and who knows what the situation will be next year. If you go with flac and, five years later find you made the wrong decision, just reencode your flac files to the new super whizzy format that turned out to be better. If you go with wma and the same thing happens, you'd better just hope that you'll be able to get your music out of wma format in five years time. By then, Microsoft may have completely stomped on any attempts at wma to other format converters. > > "Thought #2: FLAC must be superior because Bill Gates is the > Antichrist. ;-)" Max -- max.spicer The wild things roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth and rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible claws but Max stepped into his private boat and waved good-bye _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
