Old 14th December 2000, 03:15   #1
Sam1970
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1
I need to transfer my mp3 files to WMA format. Anyone know the "quick fix" for this? I cannot find the winamp plug in needed.
Sam1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2000, 04:41   #2
AlieXai
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 233
IMO, I think windows media (WMA) sounds a little bit better than mp3. Yep, I admit, I'm a wma fan. So suck me. (Eek!, no. stay away)

Second, as I've tested, I've gotten better sound at lower bitrates in wma. So if I had all 192kbps mp3's, and I converted them to 128k wma's I would essentially get the same sound. (Not technically, but it still sounds good).

But anywayz, if you have WiMP 7.0, get the Bonus pack. It comes with an mp3 to wma converter.
AlieXai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2000, 06:46   #3
Reverend Ike
Evangelical Alumni
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,533
Hopefully, the next generation of portable MP3 players will evolve sufficiently so that storage space is no longer a prime consideration, and WMA will no longer have a viable reason to exist.

Better low-bitrate quality aside, WMA is another manifestation (along with RMX and others) of the Big Five's collaboration with Micro$hit, Real, etc. to control every single aspect of popular music. It's actually sad to see so many people blindly accept such manipulation. Pathetic, really.
Reverend Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2000, 06:50   #4
distortion
Senior Member
 
distortion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Long Island, USA
Posts: 109
Send a message via ICQ to distortion Send a message via AIM to distortion
Ike: preach on brudduh
distortion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2000, 11:38   #5
iomegajaz
Balled and Chained
Alumni
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,231
Disclaimer: Reverend Ike does not think that you, AlieXai, are blindly accepting of this manipulation. Nor does he think you are pathetic. If you like WMA, use it. Just prepare to be mercilessly mocked by, err, everyone else.

Disclaimer #2: The views expressed in the first Disclaimer are not necessarily those of Reverend Ike or anyone else, even Jaz.

Muwahaha.

------------------
Use verbs. http://www.iomegajaz.com -|- jaz@iomegajaz.com
iomegajaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2000, 11:50   #6
Reverend Ike
Evangelical Alumni
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,533
insightfulJaz.
Reverend Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2000, 21:20   #7
JMPZ
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melrose Park, IL
Posts: 77
Send a message via ICQ to JMPZ Send a message via AIM to JMPZ
A few things:
While I've heard that WMA sounds better at 64k, using the mp3 encoder in CoolEdit 2000, I've created 64k mp3's that sounded beautiful! I think it has something to do with the encoder, and the cut-off settings...

Also, with ASF and WMA and all of microsoft media files, once you have made them, you cannot just decode them to a wav file. WMA files, unlike mp3, are trapped in their format, and Microsoft attacks visciously anybody who tries to free the music.

One last thing, I would SERIOUSLY reccomend NOT converting from mp3's to wav files. If you compress from the original wav to a wma, the sound is great, but transcoding is ALWAYS a bad idea. Re-lossy-compressing already lossy-compressed audio creates some nasty distortion and aliasing and compression of distortion as real audio. Don't do it. Please! For the safety of your music! Going from 128k mp3 to 64k wma will sound like so much badness! Don't do it!!

I hope you take my advice. good luck anyway.
JMPZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & SHOUTcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump