"Sorry, but that is utter nonsense. MP3 is no lossless compression format. If you convert to WAV, all you do is take what's in the MP3 and save it as WAV-file. You will NEVER get back what was in the original WAVfile when you recorded the thing."

Of course that's the case--what did you expect? You didn't think for a second that you could convert it back to the quality of the orriginal--that'll never happen. However, if the MP3 sounds good, then you'll get a good sounding conversion back to WAV--but it ain't gonna' be the same as the original--it can't happen. And, no one said it would sound as good!

AS for posting 64kbs MP3s, why not. You can jack up the rate as far as you want, but they're still compressed files. Fortunately, the vast majority of the folks listening to them will not hear the difference, and most don't care what the rate is as long as it sounds good to them.

Cheers,

Gary

You're yelling at the wrong guy. I never said I expected anything. I replied to people who said it made any difference to convert MP3 to WAV.
I don't understand how someone who spends lots and lots of time finding that perfect sounding arranger, will ever settle for 64 kbps. I never make MP3's (if I ever make them) below 192 kbps. You might as well buy an old AM-radio in a garage-sale if you think 64 kbps is good enough...



------------------
Roland EXR-5 user - http://www.exr5.tk

Gary and others,

You could also encode the .wav files to .mp3PRO format. With .mp3PRO you still get 64kbps but the quality is comparable to a higher encoded .mp3. Plus with that mp3PRO quality you still get the 'smaller' size file vs. a standard .mp3 which is not only convenient for those on a dial-up connection but it will take up less space on your Server vs. storing a larger sized encoded .mp3.

You will need the Thomson Multimedia Player/Encoder though. PS: There are a few Media 'players' that will play .mp3PRO encoded files, eg., MusicMatch Jukebox, Winamp, Thomson Multimedia's own player, plus others.

You can find the Thomson Multimedia Player/Encoder here:

Thomson Multimedia Player/Encoder

Btw, it's free of course.

Best regards,
Mike

Thanks Mike, that's good information for everyone.

Cheers,

Gary

Burkels, I thought I was a lonely voice there, regarding this MP3 to WAV lark, till you spoke up. I suppose I started this by asking for higher quality MP3s of Gary's great voice.

From how I read it, Terry and Gary seemed to be implying that they were converting the MP3s back to their 'original' WAV state.

This was why I especially said "I didn't think you could 'reverse-engineer' MP3s back to their former glory" and later on, "MP3 is lossy compression... how have you regained what has been lost forever?" and mentioning sorcery

The only compressed audio files which can be 'unzipped' to their original former WAV state are ones produced with the lossless codecs... hence my mention of FLAC and Monkey's Audio.

I took some time finding a codec that wouldn't produce flanging or other artifacts in the 128kbps MP3s on my site.

I purposely wanted to keep file sizes small enough for internet distribution... but, they had to have sound good.

Scott Yee has one of my recordings in FLAC format... 'If'. Once he listens to it... then compares it to my 128kbps MP3 file of the same song... I think he'll be impressed by how much of the original sound was retained during conversion to MP3 using this older Fraunhofer codec.
http://www.ping.be/satcp/eac13.htm

If I was using bundled codecs in programs such as Nero... Total Recorder... Musicmatch etc... I'd definitely have to go 192kbps or above to get the same kind of quality.

Gary, there would be a marked difference in quality between your 64kbps 22kHz MP3s and at least 128kbps 44kHz encoded MP3s (depending on the quality of the original WAV master of course)... I'd still love to hear em if you get a chance!

MP3-wise, it's the jump from 192kbps to 256kbps and beyond when most people start finding it harder to discern any improvement in quality.

All the best,
Rich

[This message has been edited by RichUK (edited 03-05-2004).]

Rich
I was not implying anything other than they could be converted back to wav. files. Perhaps you read more into it than that.

What is true though, from my readings on the subject, is that the data that is compressed and lost to mp format is usually not within normal hearing range anyway @128kbs.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

Possibly Terry!

It was your

'You could take the mp into something like Acid or Music match jukebox etc. and convert back to wav you know, for the fuller version of sound'

...which I couldn't understand.

Cheers,
Rich

Rich,

I'll burn some higher quality MP3s sometime in the near future, but for now, between the music and writing biz, I'm too busy to tackle another project.

I would personally like to thank everyone that took the time to listen to the files, and I really appreciate all of the wonderful comments from everyone.

Back to the salt mines,

Gary