Is there any way to convert MP3 recording files
to WMA format within the computer .

Cousin Ken

Hi,

HERE is a free program from Microsoft called Windows Media Encoder that will convert mp3 files (amoung other file types) to Windows Media Audio files.

Best Regards,

Dave


------------------
Wm. David McMahan
Nat'l Product and Support Manager
Generalmusic USA
GEM Community Forums

Thank you Dave for your quick reply.
What version would you recommend.

Cousin Ken

This is a little bit off the topic since the post topic is about converting from one compression symantic to another compression symantic.
I still have this great difficulty in understanding why so many choose to compress audio material thus changing and greatly limiting it's sonic spectrum. What is so bad about saving as wav/aiff vs. 320mp3? Sorry, I think some know this is a tickling of my pet peave. We must all at least realize that using ANY compression to "save" audio is not saving anything. The audio is redrawn completely different and is merely a shadowed representation of the real thing. The exact coordinates of the audio's sampling structure is discarded. As long as you know that folks, that it's not the real thing, it's psuedoed audio. Even with the price of a MB of storage now being cheaper than it has ever been, surely I too would compress music files to save space, but not at the expense of totally changing the music's harmonic structure, and it does. It's like this: Saving a sound file and using compression saves space at the expense and deterioration of that sound file itself which is being compressed and "saved" only as a likeness. In reality, LOL we are not saving anything as it was. We will be blessed when a day finally comes when we can compress music and decompress music without any effects to sonic integrity. I've said my share.

Nice on MORPH, I'm the same I don't compress anything down I've recorded. If you've spent ages doing a song why spoil the outcome by compressing.

Hi,

Use the standard 32bit version/series 9.

Windows Media Encoder 9 Series

That should work just fine.

Best Regards,

Dave

------------------
Wm. David McMahan
Nat'l Product and Support Manager
Generalmusic USA
GEM Community Forums

Regarding audio compression:

BTW, No offense meant here.

When audio CD's first came on the market, there was a small group of folks that suggested using a black magic marker to seal the outer edge of the CD so that none of the laser light would be lost. They said that a portion of the audio was lost due to the leakage of the laser through to edge of the CD. These folks said they could hear the difference. This was BS and so is a lot of the down talk about compression. Sure too much compression can be heard and can ruin a good recording. But if done properly to the right audio content using a good compression scheme, the audio will be all but indistinguishable from the original but will take much less storage area and stream more efficiently.

If you don’t need to compress data, don’t. But it is a useful practice in certain circumstances.

Dave

Dave yes you are right. when it comes to certain circumstances, a representation that is sonically very close is good enough, like an ipod for example. Have you ever seen the differences between an mp3 and it's original wav file with a good editor though? what a difference! The harmonic shelf is literally chopped like an axe hit it. It is totally missing, and editing by frequency instead of time is nearly impossible because their is really no telling where the thing is going to go harmonically. I have noticed that if you enhance high frequencies before compression, it helps somewhat, but if you add more than a max of 6 dB to a 50% signal to anything about 8K or above all you wind up with is a bunch of end order siblance. Do that and you may as well record the sound of a metal rake against a cement sidewalk. I can't really knock down Fraunhoffer mp3 type compression so much though because it is a heck of a lot better than anything else that anyone else to date has come up with.
In short, mp3 of higher bit rate are acceptable for casual listening, but dont think you are going to be successful at any kind of frequency editing methods when it is put up on the editing block. Once you magnify it and look for splitting zones, you will say, What is this?, because it does not even 'look' like music at that level! Thanks! At least we are all on the same page and understand just what an mp3 is: a DIGITAL REPRESENTATION of sound that is incorrect in harmonic structure, if having any structure at all.

Hi MORPH!

I would even goes as far as saying that an uncompressed wave file is still not a true representation of the original audio content. In fact recording by any means is never exactly like listening to live instruments. Of course if the live instruments are digital keyboards playing samples, then that right there means that the samples are not exactly like the original instrument that was sampled, and a digital recording of the keyboard, even as a wave file will certainly be missing some audio content.

Then you have to take into consideration the amplification. Audio systems made for computers are anything but high fidelity. High-end studio monitors are much better but still add colorization to the sound.

Another thing that causes a problem is the frequency loss that everyone will eventually suffer. Certain frequencies that can be seen on a computer screen with programs like Sound Forge (I use SF ver8) and others may never actually be heard by the listener.

And on and on....

Lol,

Dave


------------------
Wm. David McMahan
Nat'l Product and Support Manager
Generalmusic USA
GEM Community Forums

Thank you all for your comments which have been very interesting to a raw beginner of 72 years.
I am realy a singer and once a microphone is used there wll some change to the sound.
My exploring of WMA was to find a medium to forward songs by email to people on dail up internet connections where larger files may strain the friendship.


Cousin Ken

O
M
G

My MP3's and WMA's sound AWESOME through my sound system. The audience never EVER said anything like, "Hey - that's a sonic misrepresentation !"
I play - thay dance - we all enjoy.
Sheesh.

yeah, what he said!!!!

There are two kinds of compression. Lossless and Lossy compression.

Lossless compression doesn't change the sound at all, Lossy doesn't change it noticibly unless an agressive lossy percentage is specified by the user.

compressing computer files (data, sound, programs) has nothing to do with sound compression.

Hi Ken,

I'm sorry to but in on your conversation but there is a simple solution which we've been using for some time.

The solution goes like this:

a) link to www.cnet.com
b) go to 'Downloads'
c) search for Power MP3 WMA Convertor.

This will allow you, once installed, to convert between MP3, WMA and WAV at all availible bit-rates. Nb, on the evaluation version you can only convert one file at a time.

I hope that helps,

Rachael,
'Excalibur' New York Central Harbour

Thank you all for all your suggestions.
I have found the I can play MP3's in one programme and reccrd in WMA in another

Cousin Ken

This is off the top of my head, but a fitting addendum to Morph's dilemma- The reason why a lot of people cannot tell the difference between 320kb mp3's and uncompressed has a lot to do with the output Digital to analog converter they're using. The cheap ones, sigma delta, as they are named, act like switching power supplies to make audio signals.(hence, how you can get 16 bits of resolution out of a 1 bit DAC) But in order to keep the switching speed out of the gigahertz range, the cheap DAC's are pro-rated to what the average ear can hear. So, audio information is dedicated exponentially from the low end up. As you hit the 20 khz ceiling, the cheap DACs reproduce these higher frequencies less faithfully. Ergo,the highest quality MP3 will show it's limitations on a high quality DAC, made of resistors, versus the uncompressed file, but cheap DACs will stifle uncompressed audio.