Does WMA -> MP3 Conversion ruin quality?

[chris888222]

I downloaded the Pokemon White 2 Super Music Collection set, but that thing is in WMA format which I can't play on iPhone without conversion.

If I convert it to MP3, will the quality be bad? I want to use Aimersoft Music Converter.

EDIT: Can I simply change the format by renaming the file?

Sorry if this is in the wrong section.

 

[infinete]

Depends on the bit quality, WMA is ussually 320kbps, converting to mp3 will not reduce the quality depending on what bit rate you convert it to. most of my songs are at 192kbps but if you are worried just convert them to 320. Never used that program but itunes can do the job just as well, just need to change a few settings. and no, you cannot simply change the extension.

 

[beta4attack]

Try Format Factory for conversion, it's a good program. Although I do not know about the quality thing, but I think the one above me is right.

 

[LockeCole_101629]

it depends on bitrate also the what codec the uploader/source use to convert the song.

Any software will do the job, I'm also not audiophile, but I'm sure LAME is the best codec for MP3 conversion (I said codec, not software)
so if your preferred software had option to use whatever codec you have on the list, pick LAME
http://lame.sourceforge.net/

 

[chris888222]

Depends on the bit quality, WMA is ussually 320kbps, converting to mp3 will not reduce the quality depending on what bit rate you convert it to. most of my songs are at 192kbps but if you are worried just convert them to 320. Never used that program but itunes can do the job just as well, just need to change a few settings. and no, you cannot simply change the extension.

iTunes changes it to AAC.

Well, I deleted the whole album because I screwed it up (everything was renamed Gym Leader Battle).

I'm redownloading from another site. I hope it''s in MP3.

 

[infinete]

itunes... edit>preferences>import settings>import using> "mp3 encoder" (& just bellow) > settings>Custom>stereo bit rate>"320kbps".

 

[chris888222]

Now this file is in 320kbps M4A. @.@

 

[infinete]

now that is odd. I just tried a few of my wma songs, and ripped an album, converted to mp3 just fine. m4a though is a audio only video file....wikipedia states that "M4A stands for MPEG 4 Audio and is a filename extension used to represent audio files."

what you can do though is to highlight all of the m4a songs, right click on them and click "create mp3 version". very strange though. :S

 

[chris888222]

All is going well now! Converted to 320kbps MP3. Thanks for all the help!!

 

[infinete]

Awesome, good to hear

 

[xist]

Transcoding between lossy formats will almost always result in a loss of quality. Whether it's perceptible to you is another matter entirely...if you can help it never transcode.

 

[ouch123]

Transcoding between lossy formats will almost always result in a loss of quality. Whether it's perceptible to you is another matter entirely...if you can help it never transcode.

I agree with this statement. If you're worried about audio quality, the best thing you can do is look for a pair of headphones with a good, balanced frequency response. To my knowledge, even the best earbuds can't compete with lower-end studio headphones, though I could be wrong.

 

[chains_of_androm]

Best practice would be getting something like FLAC if you want to preserve quality. However 320 is very good already, most people, even with high-end setups would have trouble distinguishing them easily.

 

[xist]

Best practice would be getting something like FLAC if you want to preserve quality. However 320 is very good already, most people, even with high-end setups would have trouble distinguishing them easily.

FLAC is lossless. MP3 320 CBR is Lossy. One can give you other formats without issue (including 320), the other can't.

If you start with FLAC you can go to any format as you're going from a complete audio format to a reduced size encode. As for 320....i'ad actually many people even without high-end setups can detect the difference between FLAC and a lossy format using ABX testing (i've done it myself). It's when you're detecting the difference in quality between lossy formats (at 192 and above) that things get more complicated and more interesting. I was certainly surprised when i was experimenting.

If you're worried about the actual loss, you need to do some ABX comparisons between your two files. If you want to see any changes you can use something to view the different spectral content and actually visualise the difference.

In reality you probably won't notice the difference from your AAC to MP3 but it's possible you may introduce artefacts by transcoding. Also going to 320 for a transcode is nigh on pointless.

 

[Rydian]

Converting lossy to lossy loses data, period (converting anything to lossy loses data). Whether you notice or not varies on a lot of things, including yourself.

 

[Pleng]

I agree with this statement. If you're worried about audio quality, the best thing you can do is look for a pair of headphones with a good, balanced frequency response. To my knowledge, even the best earbuds can't compete with lower-end studio headphones, though I could be wrong.

If you have better quality headphones I'd say you're more likely to notice artefacts introduced by encoding/re-encoding.

Best practice would be getting something like FLAC if you want to preserve quality. However 320 is very good already, most people, even with high-end setups would have trouble distinguishing them easily.

FLAC is lossless. MP3 320 CBR is Lossy. One can give you other formats without issue (including 320), the other can't.

If you start with FLAC you can go to any format as you're going from a complete audio format to a reduced size encode. As for 320....i'ad actually many people even without high-end setups can detect the difference between FLAC and a lossy format using ABX testing (i've done it myself). It's when you're detecting the difference in quality between lossy formats (at 192 and above) that things get more complicated and more interesting. I was certainly surprised when i was experimenting.

I think the point that was trying to be made here was that going from WMA to FLAC, if your device supports FLAC, will not reduce the quality any further. Re-encoding from WMP to MP3 will. Whether or not you can tell the difference is another story entirely...

 

[xist]

I think the point that was trying to be made here was that going from WMA to FLAC, if your device supports FLAC, will not reduce the quality any further. Re-encoding from WMP to MP3 will. Whether or not you can tell the difference is another story entirely...

No. Re-encoding from any lossy format as a starting point to anything else will always cause a deterioration and possibly introduce artefacts (the ones which are a bit like "beeps" are those that most irritate me). If you need to have music in different formats then you need to start from a Lossless source - i.e FLAC. Going from Lossy(WMA) to Lossless (FLAC) is the most pointless transcode anyone could ever attempt and would give you a result which was inferior in every way.

 

[aireca]

for some reason this thread become a format wars

 

[xist]

for some reason this thread become a format wars

How exactly? It's simply don't transcode. Only encode Lossy formats from Lossless. If you're going to transcode it's possible even with quality losses you'll never notice the difference anyway.

There's no sign of, for example, AAC is better than MP3! NO! Ogg is better than WMA! No. AAC is better than Ogg!

 

[Rydian]

It's not that, there's actually important differences between lossless compression (such as FLAC) and lossy (such as MP3/WMA).

Same sort of difference btween JPEG and ZIP. Convert a BMP to JPEG, then zoom in and notice the pixels changed (to varying degrees depending on the JPEG quality level). On the other hand you can zip up a BMP, then when you unzip it it's the same file it was before.