Posted by NRen2k5 on 08/27/05 21:27

On 8/27/2005 1:15:44 PM, MB wrote:
>The difference between lossless codecs might be in regards to playback
>and encoding times. For example, on my PC Windows Lossless takes a
>second or so before it plays, longer then a regular MP3s.
>
>If you're going to transfer a lot of stuff to a lossless codec you might
>want to check how long it takes the encoder to encode in that format.
>WMA lossless is pretty fast, not sure about Itunes. This is important if
>you intend to convert a lot of CD's.
>
>

Actually, there are two or three matters to keep in mind:

1) Encoding and decoding efficiency:
Different lossless codecs may take different amounts of CPU power to encode or decode. One may also encode faster than another, or decode with smaller gaps in between tracks... or even seek more easily. For example, Monkey's audio can be pretty slow for seeking and takes up a fair amount of CPU power to play.

2) Compression ratio:
Some lossless codecs can compress the recording more than others. For example, Monkey's Audio will usually compress a file the most compared to other lossless codecs.

3) Robustness:
Some lossless codecs can have some errors in the file and play relatively fine, whereas others may have problems. For example, it's quite common for Monkey's Audio files to be unplayable with only one error in the file, but just about everything else will keep playing and you might hear a "glitch".

The most highly recommended among lossless audio codecs is FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec). It compresses fairly well, fairly quickly... it doesn't take much CPU power to decode, and it is fairly robust.

- NRen2k5

[Back to original message]