WAV / MP3 Coversions

[Ezikial Anta]

Does anyone know of a Free application that can convert WAV to MP3? It can be slow, and semi easy to use, as long as its free (I can convert overnight if needed)

[krhainos]

I recommend RazorLAME -- RazorLAME is a graphical frontend to the LAME MP3 Encoder (yes, I realize irony present in the acronym). The LAME encoder offers a whole ton of flexibility and options.

You'll first need to download LAME libraries and extract them somewhere, and tell RazorLAME where they're installed to.

After that, you can decode MP3s to WAV, and convert WAVs to MP3.

[Rampax]

use the free trial of nero. they have a wav editor. just open your file and go file, save as, and then change the file type to MP3, but why dont you change it to ogg vorbis instead.

[JackAxe]

iTunes. Very intuitive and it works great.

http://www.apple.com/itunes/

<]=)

[Cyker]

can't beat lame -q 0 for quality at the moment. ;)

Getting the Razer front end is highly recommended if you can't use the command line!

[jjesusfreak01]

iTunes. Very intuitive and it works great.

http://www.apple.com/itunes/

<]=)
I had no idea it converted to MP3, maybe because, IT DOESNT.

Windows Media Player can convert to MP3, but IMHO, it has very limited options. I would stick with the LAME encoder.

[JackAxe]

I had no idea it converted to MP3, maybe because, IT DOESNT.

Windows Media Player can convert to MP3, but IMHO, it has very limited options. I would stick with the LAME encoder.

Guess what, IT DOES!!! :rolleyes:

Let me point out your ignorance about Apple products yet again jjesusfreak01; From iTunes, right-click on the wav file and select convert to [whatever format you've chosen under "preferences." And guess what, MP3 is an option.]

I just converted a WAV to MP3 on my Mac, and now on my PC.

itunes can encode MP3s up to 320 kbps, with the option of VBR, sampler rates up to 48Khz, in either Mono, Stereo, or Joint Stereo. It also offers Smart encoding adjustments, and can filter Frequencies below 10 Hz.

Best of all, it's FREE.

<]=)

[jjesusfreak01]

Guess what, IT DOES!!! :rolleyes:

Let me point out your ignorance about Apple products yet again jjesusfreak01; From iTunes, right-click on the wav file and select convert to [whatever format you've chosen under "preferences." And guess what, MP3 is an option.]

I just converted a WAV to MP3 on my Mac, and now on my PC.

itunes can encode MP3s up to 320 kbps, with the option of VBR, sampler rates up to 48Khz, in either Mono, Stereo, or Joint Stereo. It also offers Smart encoding adjustments, and can filter Frequencies below 10 Hz.

Best of all, it's FREE.

<]=)
Ooh, ignorance indeed. I admit defeat. I personally like WMA better, as it is more compatable than AAC, and some tests show that its overall quality among different bitrates is better than AAC. (I have not seen a test that showed AAC was better)

Use WMP, the one hub for audio, video, and beyond. Best of all (besides being free), MS licenses their codecs, so WMAs work with almost all mainstream players, and protected WMAs work with many of the new players.

Edit: I found the MP3 encoding options, but how exactly do I get iTunes to play/convert a wav file? I tried to add a wav file to my library, but it doesnt appear?

[JackAxe]

WMA does have compatibly with lots of poor digital audio players, but it's not the number one format, that would be AAC. And since the best digital audio player on the market doesn't support it, I have no interest in it. I personally use Apple Lossless.(Tis the only compressed format I'll use now days.) I can also import the uncompressed CD files directly onto my iPod, since they're AIFs.

iTunes supports WMA though, it will conviently convert it to any of the formats an iPod can play. But I wouldn't bother whith this since it's already compressed.

Just drag and drop the .wav into iTunes, or use "control + o" to open a wav into iTunes.


Anyways, here are some tests that PC World did to see if most peeps could tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed formats. It was the top hit on Google. Anyways, AAC faired overall better than WMA in these tests.

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,64123,pg,2,00.asp
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,64123,pg,4,00.asp

<]=)

[jjesusfreak01]

Oh, but you didnt see these (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1560783,00.asp) tests. WMA was the clear winner, and they used a very good testing methods. They analyze both the patterns, and get listeners opinion in a blind test.

There were a couple of spots in this test (types of audio) where AAC fails pretty bad, but WMA doesnt have any of these. It is given the title of best 128kbps and VBR, while OGG is best for 64kbps. AAC is given the prestigious title of best audio format for the iPod.

[JackAxe]

I don't agree with ExtremeTech's testing method. They didn't create a controled enviroment and relied on users with their own equipment to evalulate the formats. Plus they converted the files to a Redbook audio format, which they stated didn't make a difference, but still we only have their word and that is a modification of the original. PCWorld created a controled enviroment unlike ET, and along with local staff, they included representives from Dolby Labatories, Microsoft, and Real Networks in their tests. I trust PCW's test more than ET.

All of these tests are subjective though in one way or another, and if you look at the higher bit rates of either format, most peeps can not tell the difference at all.

Anyways, my screaming banshee music looses subtleties when compressed to lower bit rates, so since my iPod has gigs of storage, I choose Apple Lossless. For most music though, AAC and WMA both do an excellent job.

But back to MP3 compression. iTunes does a great job, and doesn't limit on any features, and it's free.

<]=)

[jjesusfreak01]

So, I will concede that AAC is the best format when listening in a perfect controlled environment, and in the real world WMA is the best option.

[JackAxe]

Yeah, for 96k WMA is good, but anything higher AAC. ;) For me, AIF or Apple Lossless.

Did you read the response at the bottom of the ET by iclovan? His view is that WMA provides more volume, especially in the low pitch sounds, but states that it deforms the intrument. Now taking that into acount, let us say a WMA user has adjusted their EQ to accomadate WMA's shortcomings. Now if that user plays another digital format that's not deficient in those areas, then it won't sound as he/she expected. It's all subjective, and is part of why ET botched its tests. Any feedback they recieved would be tainted. The PCWorld's tests are more realistic, since they put all the audio files on the same playing field and AAC sounded closest to the original CD for most bit-rates. So if it sounds closer to the CD, then for peeps that are happy with those bit-rates, and are used to a CD, AAC would be a better choice.

<]=)