I recently bought (legally) a bunch of non protected wma music files. The store even claims "no hassle DRM protection". The property under each wma music files says it is not protected and I have no problem loading it into my other computers or other mp3 players.

But when I try to transfer it using emplode into my Rio Central, a window pops up under emplode saying the files were rejected and the reason being "DRM not supported".

The wma files were bought and is NOT protected under properties. What does this mean. It is not protected by DRM as the music store states and confrimed by my freedom to transfer it without problem to other pcs and mp3 players.

Anyone have any ideas.

What web site did you purchase the files from?

Do you get the same error if you use Jemplode to load the files onto the Central?

I am never buying non-DRM WMA music files again, even if they are advertised as NON-DRM/no protection. I've been able to play them on any multiple players without any problems, but still I have problems loading them onto Rio central, getting the "DRM not supported", even though they are non-DRM WMA music files. I'm thinking there is something wrong or old about the Rio central linux software. As for jemplode, it doesn't work when connected with usb even with jEmplode.dll. Only emplode software works with usb connection.

Non-protected/NON-DRM mp3 files bought from stores do work. So if you buy NON-DRM music files online, buy mp3 and NOT WMA files like for ex from amazon.com, etc, etc.

I've converted all those WMA music files I purchased to mp3 files to load onto the Rio central, but the quality is degraded since it's an addition compression/conversion process...which I am not happy about since I paid money for them and they are non-DRM and should work. But oh well....

If anyone figures out why non-DRM WMA files bought from stores can not load onto Rio Central but non-DRM mp3 files bought from stores can, please post on this forum. Thanks.

I wonder if there's anyone here on the BBS who is experienced enough with the file format of WMA files who'd be willing to contact you privately to examine portions of the files in question to see what it was about them that made Emplode choke.

It would still be interesting to know if Jemplode rejects the files the same way that emplode does. I know Jemplode doesn't work with USB, but if you can manage to get an ethernet connection working, that might be a solution for you. I think ethernet connection to the Central would also mean faster file transfer times, so that's something to consider as well.

If they're non-protected, is there some fancy whiz-bang software that could do a conversion to a reasonably high mp3 file? That would work for sure.....

Randy

You don't need whiz-bang software to do that. Even protected files can be transcoded. (At absolute worst, if you don't have an in-place transcoder, you can still burn them to a music CD and rip that CD.)

His point is, no matter how high quality you make the MP3, you've just lossy-compressed a piece of music a second time, and thus get something that's a one-stage-lower quality than the original recording.

His desire was to play back the files as he'd purchased them, without having to transcode or otherwise change them. Since the central is supposed to play unprotected WMA files, and the web site that sold him the files said they were unprotected, I think that's a reasonable desire.

I'm still very curious what's special about those files. If for no other reason than so that I can document it for the FAQ.

First of all I just came across this site. Wow I didn't know there was a site like this. I thought I was the only one with a rio central anymore.

I just wanted to say that I had problems like nicky also with wma files that are sold online and are without drm. I use jemplode, so I don't think it's a software thing.

What I did to fix the problem was reencode the wma files at the exact same bit rate to the same wma file.

So for example 256 kps wma file ->to-> 256kps wma file using any regular encoder. Afterwards, it seems to be able to transfer to the rio central.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but encoding to the same bit rate (256 to 256 wma) hopefully does not degrade the wma file as it would if you changed the bit rate or convert them to a mp3 file, since you are encoding to the same bit rate and same type of file.

I don't know whether a 256->256 re-encode would just strip out DRM without re-encoding the audio.

I don't know how the DRM works... it's possible that the DRM is somehow embedded into the audio data of the entire file and that the only way to strip it is to fully re-encode every frame?

And even if it *was* possible to just do a "strip" instead of a re-encode, it would depend on the software you were using to do the trick. Maybe the software isn't that smart and thinks you really meant to do a re-encode.

I'm confused. Why would the files have drm. They are not protected. If they were drm, you would not be able to change or do anything with them.

So even if you reencode to the same bit rate and same wma file, does any kind of reencoding degrade the music file? So it's no difference???? as if you change it to mp3 like nicky did. That sucks. I always thought reencoding to the same bit rate and same file made no difference since it has the same file property.

Back when Emplode was being written, Microsoft WMA DRM was quite new, and there wasn't any official Microsoft guidance on how to actually tell whether a WMA file was DRM-protected or not. So we looked at a bunch of normal WMAs, and a bunch of DRM WMAs, and came up with a heuristic. It looks like this heuristic gets it wrong with today's non-DRM WMA downloads. Which is a bug. Unfortunately there is, at this stage, not even a remote chance of there being a new Emplode release to fix this bug.

Peter

I dunno, I have a friend who loaded plenty of WMAs onto his empeg with nary a problem.

I'm more suspicious that these particular troublesome files actually are DRM-encoded somehow, it's just that the DRM limitation settings are cranked up to "no limit".

On the other hand, I don't know how the DRM is actually handled on WMAs, so that's just a wild guess.

It's true. When I encoded to wma files using my cds as a test at all bit rates up to 320kps, I had no problems.

So what is happening when you reencode from wma to wma at the same bit rate.

Does the reencoding to the same bit rate wma file just as degrading as when encoding to a different rate or to a different format like mp3. So is the wma files just entirely being reencoded erasing any residual? drm although unprotected. So is any type of reencoding even to the same bit rate and same wma file degrading in qaulity?

I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing yes, the re-encode is always lossy, even if at the same bitrate.

Its lossy. It'll decode it and then encode it again straight away.