Old Version

locustfurnace · 03-24-2004, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by daochay@Mar 24 2004, 10:39 AM
I hope I was aleast in the right ball park and it helps you.

Not sure repeating links is too helpful. As I had already posted the dBpowerAMP link in this thread, infact it was the second posting; the first reply to the question. Make sure if your are going to post links, that they have not already been dropped.
Got another suggestion?

03-24-2004, 11:22 PM

considering that the old versions of MusicMatch Jukebox are on this site, im kinda surprised no one has said anything. musicmatch converts wma, wav, and mp3 files to each other. the newest version of mmjb doesnt support wmas because of the whole protection crap, but before that was invented it did. going back to about version 7.1, i believe, should do the trick. and also if i remember right, you may not be able to go straight from wma to mp3. you may have to go wma-->wav first, and then wav-->mp3. also, before you make your mp3s make sure you find the setting that ups the mp3 quality processing from normal to highest. for an audiophile like myself, normal sucked. highest takes about twice as long (still fast) but is well worth it. its in advanced settings somewhere; use help if u cant find it. good luck!

"The Big Willy"

locustfurnace · 03-24-2004, 11:34 PM

Rem also that older MMJB may not be able to convert the newer wma v7,9 or whatever number they have upped to.
Just as the old winmedia player with default codecs can not play newer videos compressed in the newest format. Also, does the MMJB handle the lossless format of wma?
Also. what version of the mp3 codec would it be using to encode the freshly decoded files to? With using bBpowerAmp you will be getting the latest lame encoder. For music formats, if your wanting the best quality you can acheive with these formats, then you should be using the latest releases, not an older encoder.
Also, dBpowerAMP can handle the newest audio formats; which are better than mp3, such as AAC, Ogg, Musepack.

03-24-2004, 11:46 PM

Ill take one question at a time lol...

no, it doesnt do lossless wma, no it doesnt do the newest version of wma, no it doesnt even use the lame mp3 encoder. But thats ok cuz it sounds perfect. i use 192kbps; 160kbps sounds fine but i have enough drive space to "make sure" im not losing any audible information. I can tell a difference between 160 and 128 no matter what codec it is (lame, etc). And while dBwhatever sounds very nice, there arent any OGG players, and remember the original question was from someone who had an MP3 player. He needs good mp3s, not new version wmas or oggs or ne thing else.

"The Big Willy"

locustfurnace · 03-25-2004, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by myfriendwilly7+Mar 25 2004, 12:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfriendwilly7 @ Mar 25 2004, 12:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But thats ok cuz it sounds perfect. i use 192kbps; 160kbps sounds fine but i have enough drive space to "make sure" im not losing any audible information. [/b]

There are currently a few hardware ogg players, Yes, there are many software ogg players.
When you encode a music file, no matter how much disk space you have - which has nothing to do with lossing data, you are tossing out info. The lossy part of mp3 is not "how much disk space you have", its tossed out by algorithms, not disk space. Never to be recovered. Lossless does not toss away data. Mp3's do.
<!--QuoteBegin--myfriendwilly7@Mar 25 2004, 12:46 AM
He needs good mp3s, not new version wmas or oggs or ne thing else [/quote]
Which he wont get by using an older version of MMJB

03-25-2004, 12:22 AM

I know that. The key word is audible. I said I'm not losing any AUDIBLE information, meaning that I cant hear a difference. I know if you were to convert them to wav and then compare that to an original wav file straight off a cd u could SEE a difference. But the whole point of mp3s is compessing in a way that you cant HEAR a difference.

Yes there are plenty of software ogg players. I meant that for the most part there arent any hardware ones, which is what the original guy was talking about-- he has a hardware mp3 player.

And LAME gets their stuff from FRAUNHOFER, who invented the mp3 technology, and fraunhofer hasnt updated their mp3 technology, so how can the new lame enc be better, except for maybe removing some bugs? <_<

locustfurnace · 03-25-2004, 12:33 AM

LAME does not get this software from FHG, they started building based on the ISO (International Standard Organization) paper. And have since replaced all code.
How can it be updated? the same way as the developers of Ogg-Vorbis, or FAAC have done, but writing new code. There are many independant developers working on AAC as well, from memmo's FAAC/D to Igors, Psytel AAC, and then there is Sony, Dolby, Thomson.
Mp3 from lame is constantly being developed.

Quote:

Originally posted by http://lame.sourceforge.net/about.html
LAME started life as a GPL'd patch against the dist10 ISO demonstration source and thus was incapable of producing an mp3 stream or even being compiled by itself But in May 2000, the last remnants of the ISO source code were replaced, and now LAME is the source code for a fully LGPL'd MP3 encoder with speed and quality to rival all commercial competitors

Right, the hardware debate was already discussed earlier in the thread.

03-25-2004, 12:39 AM

I stand corrected.

I still say the sound quality is perfect at 192 with MMJB. I would be curious to see LAME bring that number down to 128 with theirs. 1/10th wave file size with CD-comparable audible quality would be nice (192 is more like 1/6th). Can they make that much of an improvement? Time will tell, i suppose.

"The Big Willy"

locustfurnace · 03-25-2004, 12:49 AM

I dont believe that they will improve the quality that much, since there are already formats which do sound better than mp3, such as ogg, AAC.
The improvement issue I believe is for more accuracy today, iproved speed, improved in the pre-echo, quantization, filtering, etc etc. But I dont see an improvement in compressing the filesizes.
If you want higher quality in smaller filesizes, try your hand at ogg.
AAC, OGG, Muspack, compete with the MPEG4 standard, Some AAC is already titled AAC-MP4.
If your wanting high quality but dont care about the filesizes, then you can switch to mp2 or musepack (mpc).
If you want to 5+ channel sound, then look to AC3.
Ogg should eventually handle 6 channel sound.
If you want the best quality you can get, either keep it in wav/aiff or use a lossless encoder, such as ape, flac, shrtn

03-25-2004, 02:02 AM

For my use, i generally go with 192kbps mp3, just because i cant hear a difference and mp3 is the most widely used format. Sure, I could go with wav, but it takes like 6 times the size than my mp3s do, without a noticable difference in sound quality. (And this is with musicmatch... B)

And there is no such thing as lossless encoding. If you compress it, something is missing. The only exception to this is winzip style compression, because that's only removing redundant data. Therefore, anything but the original wav file will be different.

And i didnt know about the coming 6-channel oggs. Nice, i cant wait

That will be great for keeping my ripped dvds small and still high quality.

"The Big Willy"

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Power Mp3 Wma Converter	Guest	Requests	0	06-21-2005 01:54 PM
Power Mp3 Wma Converter	Guest	Requests	1	06-06-2005 01:22 PM
Zealot All Video Converter	Marc	Requests	5	05-01-2005 02:19 PM
Boilsoft Asf Converter	SBuster	Requests	1	12-08-2004 08:48 AM

Old Version

Anyone Know of an Mp3 Converter?

Anyone Know of an Mp3 Converter?

Similar Threads

03-24-2004, 11:22 PM	#12 (permalink)
myfriendwilly7 Guest Posts: n/a	considering that the old versions of MusicMatch Jukebox are on this site, im kinda surprised no one has said anything. musicmatch converts wma, wav, and mp3 files to each other. the newest version of mmjb doesnt support wmas because of the whole protection crap, but before that was invented it did. going back to about version 7.1, i believe, should do the trick. and also if i remember right, you may not be able to go straight from wma to mp3. you may have to go wma-->wav first, and then wav-->mp3. also, before you make your mp3s make sure you find the setting that ups the mp3 quality processing from normal to highest. for an audiophile like myself, normal sucked. highest takes about twice as long (still fast) but is well worth it. its in advanced settings somewhere; use help if u cant find it. good luck! "The Big Willy"

03-24-2004, 11:34 PM	#13 (permalink)
locustfurnace Super Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 3,500	Rem also that older MMJB may not be able to convert the newer wma v7,9 or whatever number they have upped to. Just as the old winmedia player with default codecs can not play newer videos compressed in the newest format. Also, does the MMJB handle the lossless format of wma? Also. what version of the mp3 codec would it be using to encode the freshly decoded files to? With using bBpowerAmp you will be getting the latest lame encoder. For music formats, if your wanting the best quality you can acheive with these formats, then you should be using the latest releases, not an older encoder. Also, dBpowerAMP can handle the newest audio formats; which are better than mp3, such as AAC, Ogg, Musepack.

03-24-2004, 11:46 PM	#14 (permalink)
myfriendwilly7 Guest Posts: n/a	Ill take one question at a time lol... no, it doesnt do lossless wma, no it doesnt do the newest version of wma, no it doesnt even use the lame mp3 encoder. But thats ok cuz it sounds perfect. i use 192kbps; 160kbps sounds fine but i have enough drive space to "make sure" im not losing any audible information. I can tell a difference between 160 and 128 no matter what codec it is (lame, etc). And while dBwhatever sounds very nice, there arent any OGG players, and remember the original question was from someone who had an MP3 player. He needs good mp3s, not new version wmas or oggs or ne thing else. "The Big Willy"

03-25-2004, 12:22 AM	#16 (permalink)
myfriendwilly7 Guest Posts: n/a	I know that. The key word is audible. I said I'm not losing any AUDIBLE information, meaning that I cant hear a difference. I know if you were to convert them to wav and then compare that to an original wav file straight off a cd u could SEE a difference. But the whole point of mp3s is compessing in a way that you cant HEAR a difference. Yes there are plenty of software ogg players. I meant that for the most part there arent any hardware ones, which is what the original guy was talking about-- he has a hardware mp3 player. And LAME gets their stuff from FRAUNHOFER, who invented the mp3 technology, and fraunhofer hasnt updated their mp3 technology, so how can the new lame enc be better, except for maybe removing some bugs? <_<

03-25-2004, 12:39 AM	#18 (permalink)
myfriendwilly Guest Posts: n/a	I stand corrected. I still say the sound quality is perfect at 192 with MMJB. I would be curious to see LAME bring that number down to 128 with theirs. 1/10th wave file size with CD-comparable audible quality would be nice (192 is more like 1/6th). Can they make that much of an improvement? Time will tell, i suppose. "The Big Willy"

03-25-2004, 12:49 AM	#19 (permalink)
locustfurnace Super Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 3,500	I dont believe that they will improve the quality that much, since there are already formats which do sound better than mp3, such as ogg, AAC. The improvement issue I believe is for more accuracy today, iproved speed, improved in the pre-echo, quantization, filtering, etc etc. But I dont see an improvement in compressing the filesizes. If you want higher quality in smaller filesizes, try your hand at ogg. AAC, OGG, Muspack, compete with the MPEG4 standard, Some AAC is already titled AAC-MP4. If your wanting high quality but dont care about the filesizes, then you can switch to mp2 or musepack (mpc). If you want to 5+ channel sound, then look to AC3. Ogg should eventually handle 6 channel sound. If you want the best quality you can get, either keep it in wav/aiff or use a lossless encoder, such as ape, flac, shrtn

03-25-2004, 02:02 AM	#20 (permalink)
myfriendwilly7 Guest Posts: n/a	For my use, i generally go with 192kbps mp3, just because i cant hear a difference and mp3 is the most widely used format. Sure, I could go with wav, but it takes like 6 times the size than my mp3s do, without a noticable difference in sound quality. (And this is with musicmatch... B) And there is no such thing as lossless encoding. If you compress it, something is missing. The only exception to this is winzip style compression, because that's only removing redundant data. Therefore, anything but the original wav file will be different. And i didnt know about the coming 6-channel oggs. Nice, i cant wait That will be great for keeping my ripped dvds small and still high quality. "The Big Willy"