Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Wma to Mp3? (Read 9200 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Wma to Mp3?

First I apologize  for what probably seems to be such a dumb question, but I can not find an answer to this anywhere.

If I am converting WMA's to Mp3's and the bitrate of the original wma is 160 kbps can I convert these files to a higher kbps in mp3 format, or does this not preserve any of the sound quality and just take up more space?  Is it true WMA's are less of a "lossy" format than MP3?

thanks

Wma to Mp3?

Reply #1 –
Not only you will not get better qualily, but actually you'll get worse quality:

Start with this link of the wiki:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Transcoding
(Clarification: wma to mp3 is lossy to lossy)


Edit 2:  About your second question. A wma file can contain WMA-Lossless (which is not your case). That much is true of "wma being less of a lossy format".

Wma to Mp3?

Reply #2 –
Just know that this additional loss in quality may or may not be audible.  It is all up to your ears.  We can't tell you how much quality will be lost or if you will be able to hear it.  The general rule of thumb is to never perform a lossy-to-lossy transcode.  I suggest you transcode a few source WMA files to different bitrates/settings with the Lame mp3 encoder.  Complete a few blind ABX tests to determine which setting is right for you.

About your last question dealing with WMA quality over mp3...  I wouldn't read into the Microsoft hype.  I remember back in the day they said that a 64kbps WMA file was equal to that, in terms of audio quality, of a 128kbps Lame mp3 file.  The only thing they didn't mention was that the version of Lame they were comparing WMA to was rather old.  I think it was in the 3.8.x range.  I don't know what they are saying now.  Either way, in my experience, WMA 9.2 (standard) sounds on par with Lame.  I could differentiate it just as much as Lame at the 128kbps VBR setting (-V 5 for Lame) from the source lossless files.  This doesn't mean that you or anyone else can or can't, I just figured I would give you my opinion.

Wma to Mp3?

Reply #3 –
well I know it is frowned upon to do what I am doing but I am still going to convert the WMA's to Mp3's......when I convert though you are recommending I use the same bitrate that the WMA's are already in?

Wma to Mp3?

Reply #5 –
screw this, Ill just convert the protected WMA's to non protected WMA's  That makes the most sense, right?

Wma to Mp3?

Reply #7 –
No, that is still a lossy-to-lossy transcoding process.  I am telling you to transcode the files to various settings using the Lame mp3 encoder and then determine which setting is right for you.  Either way, you won't be able to convert these WMA files to another lossy format (AAC, mp3, WMA, ogg vorbis, etc.) without a large amount of theoretical loss.  Conducting a few tests (should take you all of 10 minutes) will allow you to determine which format (mp3, AAC, WMA), encoder (Lame, Microsoft, Nero, iTunes/QuickTime), and setting is right for your lossy-to-lossy transcoding needs.  We can't tell you which setting to use, how much quality will be lost, or anything else like that.  These numbers can't be determined with concrete measurements and facts.  Nobody else but you is going to have the combination of your music, equipment, listening environment, and ears.

Wma to Mp3?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: nyboard on
screw this, Ill just convert the protected WMA's to non protected WMA's  That makes the most sense, right?

If you are talking about decoding the original WMA and reencoding to WMA then there will be some loss in quality, and WMA is not necessarily the best choice for the target codec (need to try it for yourself).

If, on the other hand, you are talking about (potentially) illegal circumvention of the copy protection without transcoding, then that is something that we cannot discuss here.

Wma to Mp3?

Reply #9 –
Lets put it in this way:

You can preserve the source file's quality only if you convert to a lossless or completely uncompressed format. For instance, to FLAC or WMA Lossless.

If you decide to re-encode to a lossy format, like MP3 or WMA (not lossless) you will always introduce some additional quality loss. Depending on many things the combined quality losses may or may not make the re-encoded files sound perceivably worse than the original lossy source files. If you use correct settings and a high enough bitrate it is possible that you may not notice any additional quality problems. For instance, 160 kbps WMA -> 320 kbps MP3 or WMA is probably better than 160 kbps WMA -> 160 kbps MP3 or WMA, but only you can say if the difference is audible to you.

If you are going to burn Audio CDs in order to get rid of the DRM protection you can archive the CDs and they will at least preserve the quality as it is in the source files. You can then always rip and encode files in the preferred format (and accept the possible additional quality loss). That would also be the legal way if the DRM protection allows burning Audio CDs.

Wma to Mp3?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
I remember back in the day they said that a 64kbps WMA file was equal to that, in terms of audio quality, of a 128kbps Lame mp3 file.  The only thing they didn't mention was that the version of Lame they were comparing WMA to was rather old.  I think it was in the 3.8.x range.


Whatever it was had to be already out in 1999, so maybe 3.0, but I don't ever remember them saying it was lame.  More likely whatever mp3 encoder they put in WMP, which they had all incentive to make sure wasn't as good as WMA.

Wma to Mp3?

Reply #11 –
If I had to convert from WMA to MP3, I'd just use V0 (the highest quality VBR LAME setting).  The file will be bigger, but that's not an issue for me...  I always use V0.

If I had to convert WMA to WMA, I'd probably use the same bitrate for the 2nd encode.  If I noticed any deteration, I would try a higher bitrate.    (I probably wouldn't do any ABX tests unless I noticed, or thought I noticed, quality loss.)

Wma to Mp3?

Reply #12 –
encoding anything to with a lossy algorithm always results in quality loss.
if you start with WMA, and are decoding it and then re-encoding to mp3, or wma again, you will simply have another round of quality loss.
this is why transcoding (converting from one lossy format to another) is considered to be almost always a bad idea. it simply results in more rounds of quality loss.

I will sometimes transcode (say, if I have a player that won't play wma files, I'll convert to mp3) but I will always keep the original files.

now, if what you meant by "convert protected wma to non-protected wma" was a lossless process (like some illegal hack that simply strips the encryption from the wma without actually messing with the audio stream) then you wouldn't be going through another round of quality loss (although you may be illegal).
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

Wma to Mp3?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: DonP on
Whatever it was had to be already out in 1999, so maybe 3.0, but I don't ever remember them saying it was lame.  More likely whatever mp3 encoder they put in WMP, which they had all incentive to make sure wasn't as good as WMA.


I remember it being compared to Lame.  Microsoft put a little * next to their numbers and said which version of Lame it was at the bottom of that web page.  They didn't specifically say "same as 128kbps Lame" but they did say "same as 128kbps mp3*"  It might have been Lame 2.98 or something like that.  I do remember that the version of Lame they tested was actually a year or two old.  There was a new version out when MS made those claims and they didn't "test" it, they used an older version.