wma lossless playback?

[Dolemite79]

is rockbox capable of playing wma lossless? i currently have two mp3 players a zune 80 and a sansa e260. I use rockbox on the sansa so it can play flac and i use the sansa for physical activities, i have the zune for the larger hd so i cna add more music and not be bound by restraints, the problem is there is no way to play flac on the zune, but it does play wma lossless. If rockbox plays wma lossless then i only have to rip a cd once for both players, if not i have i have to rip once for flac and once for wma lossless this seems like a huge pain and hassle. So my question is can rockbox play wma lossless?

[psycho_maniac]

Why not just rip one song off of the cd and put it on your sansa? Or searched the wiki and found this page: http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SoundCodecs

[RotAtoR]

As far as I know it's not possible. WMA Lossless is part of the WMA Pro codec, which is an entirely different codec from WMA standard. The Rockbox WMA codec is derived from the FFMPEG project, which as far as I can see has only implemented WMA standard.

[soap]

Regardless, you don't need to rip the CD twice.  Rip it once to the lossless format of your preference and then transcode it for the other player.

[zajacattack]

Why not just use a format like MP3 that works on both?

[Mr_Rabid_Teddybear]

AFAIK from what I've read, the WMA decoding library in RB supports non-DRM'd WMA standard v1 and WMA standard v2. WMA lossess and WMA pro are not supported. The WMA library in RB is the one from ffmpeg that was ported to fixedpoint math through a lengthy and demanding process for inclution in RB. So what ffmeg don't support won't come to RB either.

[Dolemite79]

thanks for all the feedback guys[

Regardless, you don't need to rip the CD twice.  Rip it once to the lossless format of your preference and then transcode it for the other player.

any program that you like best for transcoding, im currently using EAC to rip?

Why not just use a format like MP3 that works on both?

sound quality is the reason why. I use a pair of Shure se530's and let me tell you that with those cans you can tell the difference between an mp3 (even one at 320) and a lossless format

(markun: fixed small quotation typo)

[Febs]

any program that you like best for transcoding, im currently using EAC to rip?

Foobar and dbPowerAmp both do a good job.

Why not just use a format like MP3 that works on both?

sound quality is the reason why. I use a pair of Shure se530's and let me tell you that with those cans you can tell the difference between an mp3 (even one at 320) and a lossless format

(markun: fixed small quotation typo)

A well encoded MP3 is indistinguishable from the original to most of the population.  Make sure that you are using a good encoder like LAME 3.97 or the lastest 3.98 beta.  If you haven't already done so, you should try comparing MP3 against lossless using an ABX comparator program, like the one in Foobar .95.  In blind tests, there is no audible difference between lossless and a good MP3 to the overwhelming majority of the population.  (For example, there has been a standing blind test available in a thread on Head-Fi for a number of months now.  No-one has yet successfully passed the test and demonstrated that they can tell a difference between the uncompressed original and a LAME -V2 file, which is approximately 192kbps VBR.)  Personally, I cannot distinguish anything encoded at LAME's -V5 setting (approximately 135kbps VBR) from the original.  And yes, I own SE530s, as well as a number of other high-quality headphones.

Even assuming that you are in the very small minority that can hear a difference, the difference is likely to be so small as to simply not be worth the trade-off in disk space for a portable player.

[saratoga]

Theres no decoder or specification available for wma lossless, so we can't implement support for it.