Recording format conversion

[jlfinkels]

I've got a decent collection of music in iTunes, but now that my iPod has gone to the electronic graveyard I'm looking into getting away from DRM protection when I download music. I've got a few questions I could use help with from those more knowledgeable. BTW, I'm running Windows Vista to avoid any confusion with software.

 

1. What is a good music library manager other than iTunes? What are people using if not iTunes?
   
2. What is the simplest and/or most effective format to keep music? MP3? AAC? MP4? I'd like to keep CD quality sound of course, but there are so many options it's hard to decide.
   
3. Is there a way to bulk convert an iTunes library? At least the music that isn't DRM protected?
   
4. Can you convert the M4P (DRM protected) to an unprotected format? I think I can simply burn them to CD then bring them back into the library, but I was curious if there is a simpler way.
   

 

Thanks!

 

--jeff

[Fergus_fiddler]

http://www.formatoz.com/

 

I'm very happy with this prog - and it's free!

 

Cheers,

 

Fer

[Hereward]

http://www.formatoz.com/

 

I'm very happy with this prog - and it's free!

 

Cheers,

 

Fer

 

Thanks Fergus. That is a really useful bit of kit for me.

 

Ian

[MandolinRefugee]

My wife uses sonic stage on our computer, and it works like a charm. We were using windows media player as the media library manager, but I bought a set of powered studio monitors, and everything sounded scratchy. I thought that it was the monitors that were the problem, but we tried different software, and they were crystal clear.

 

It`s pretty easy to manage the files, as near as I know, but our version is in Japanese, and I`m still trying to wrap my head around it.

 

C.D. quality is in .wav format, but it really takes a trained ear (IMHO) to tell the difference between .wav and .mp3 when you are playing them through speakers worth less than $1000.

 

Cheers,

 

Daunt

[RatFace]

It takes a trained ear (IMHO) to tell the difference between .wav and .mp3 when you are playing them through speakers worth less than $1000.

 

mp3 at 128kbit/s is pretty poor, in my experience. 160 kbit/s is pretty much indistinguishable from the original. Depends on the encoder of course.

[ragtimer]

It takes a trained ear (IMHO) to tell the difference between .wav and .mp3 when you are playing them through speakers worth less than $1000.

 

mp3 at 128kbit/s is pretty poor, in my experience. 160 kbit/s is pretty much indistinguishable from the original. Depends on the encoder of course.

To my relatively trained ear, 128K b/s MP3 is as good as .WAV -- EXCEPT for our favorite instrument!

As someone mentioned in my thread over on Tunes and Songs, free reeds are especially rough on encoders, so decent concertina sound will require at least 160 Kb/s.

 

I haven't fooled with WMA yet so can't comment on it. --Mike K.

[FatBellows]

I've got a decent collection of music in iTunes, but now that my iPod has gone to the electronic graveyard I'm looking into getting away from DRM protection when I download music. I've got a few questions I could use help with from those more knowledgeable. BTW, I'm running Windows Vista to avoid any confusion with software.

 

1. What is a good music library manager other than iTunes? What are people using if not iTunes?
   
2. What is the simplest and/or most effective format to keep music? MP3? AAC? MP4? I'd like to keep CD quality sound of course, but there are so many options it's hard to decide.
   
3. Is there a way to bulk convert an iTunes library? At least the music that isn't DRM protected?
   
4. Can you convert the M4P (DRM protected) to an unprotected format? I think I can simply burn them to CD then bring them back into the library, but I was curious if there is a simpler way.
   

 

Thanks!

 

--jeff

 

That's a lot to ask in one post. But here's a geek's answer with the techno-geek explanations omitted:

1. Asking what software is "good" is like asking people what's the best dessert. You'll get ten-thousand opinions, try a few, and decide for yourself anyway. I'd suggest using/testing some of the software available for free download at CNet's download.com site. Reason being, I find they are a trustworthy source for safe software in cheap to free market.

 

2. MP3 is a very lossy, poor overall reproductive format. It's popularity has to do with being the first format able to include metatags (the track info such as artist and title) inside the file and being small due to the compression used. For better sound reproduction, use ogg-voorbis or flac formats if really accurate reproduction matters more than size. Skip all the technical stuff - it really only matters to high-end sound engineers.

 

3. The Itunes engineers want you to stay with them forever. The DRM cab be defeated but you need the advice of a geek who's used Itunes. Like a good geek, I'm using Linux and don't deal with Itunes.

 

4. No. Itunes wants to own your music and allow you to play it when you've been good. You'd need another geek who's used and beaten Itunes. They exist, but I don't know any.

[jlfinkels]

Thanks for all the great input everyone. Here's what I've done so far trying to keep it simple. Thanks for the ideas fatbellows, but Linux is way beyond my skills and I'm trying to follow the KISS principle

 

1. Downloaded the program mentioned by Fergus and converted everything to MP3. I used the "near CD quality" (128Kbps) setting for everything except my concertina files which I did at 160Kbps as suggested (thanks ragtimer).

 

2. Got winamp to manage my music since it was free and seemed easy to use

 

3. Trying to convince the SO to buy me a nice MP3 player for my birthday/Hanukah/Sadie Hawkins day to replace the dead iPod. Wish my luck on that one!

 

4. Figured out that I can burn my purchased music to CD's then reload them using winamp as an MP3. Not pretty but it will work.

 

The only question I'm left with is what are some recommended software packages to burn MP3's?

[Boney]

Well, to my ear, 128K can't handle a lot of music well. Cymbals sound especially gritty and spitty. I'd use a minimum of 160K, and anything with a lot of high overtones or complexity, 192K at least.

[RatFace]

Well, to my ear, 128K can't handle a lot of music well. Cymbals sound especially gritty and spitty. I'd use a minimum of 160K, and anything with a lot of high overtones or complexity, 192K at least.

 

I've sometimes wondered whether home-made recordings actually need higher bit rates than professional recordings because they tend to have a lot more hiss/background noise.

[jlfinkels]

Well, to my ear, 128K can't handle a lot of music well. Cymbals sound especially gritty and spitty. I'd use a minimum of 160K, and anything with a lot of high overtones or complexity, 192K at least.

 

I tried converting the AAC 128Kbps to MP3 192Kbps and 160Kbps, but it didn't sound any different to me. Should I have noticed any real difference after it had been upconverted? Maybe I did something wrong.

 

--jeff

[Boney]

Well, to my ear, 128K can't handle a lot of music well. Cymbals sound especially gritty and spitty. I'd use a minimum of 160K, and anything with a lot of high overtones or complexity, 192K at least.

I tried converting the AAC 128Kbps to MP3 192Kbps and 160Kbps, but it didn't sound any different to me. Should I have noticed any real difference after it had been upconverted? Maybe I did something wrong.

For many applications, especially in casual listening, I probably wouldn't tell the difference between 128K MP3 and 192K or higher. But every once in a while, something will jump out at you. Like I said, a high, silvery, shimmering cymbal will get an spitty "edge" to it, for example. It's relatively subtle, but if your ear is attuned to it, it can be annoying. I can't say I've specifically noticed something that sounds better in 192K than 160K, but I haven't really looked for it either. If something has a lot of high frequencies and a lot of complexity, I'll often use the higher bandwidth just to be safe. Remember, some people hear high frequencies better than others, and you may not notice something that'll bother someone else.

 

AAC is supposed to be better than MP3, especially in higher frequencies. But you've already lost something going from the original to 128K AAC, and converting that to 160K or 192K MP3 won't bring it back. But I'd be surprised if there weren't many instances where you could hear a difference between the 128K AAC file and a 128K MP3 file.

[ragtimer]

Well, to my ear, 128K can't handle a lot of music well. Cymbals sound especially gritty and spitty. I'd use a minimum of 160K, and anything with a lot of high overtones or complexity, 192K at least.

I tried converting the AAC 128Kbps to MP3 192Kbps and 160Kbps, but it didn't sound any different to me. Should I have noticed any real difference after it had been upconverted? Maybe I did something wrong.

--jeff

I haven't tried reconverting any of my concertina recording WAV files yet, but I can assure you that at 128 kb/s they sound really gritty and mushy, really poor compared to the WAV originals. If 160 K doesn't sound any better, I will keep upping the bit rate till the sound is "fixed."

 

For piano music, I can't tell 128 K MP3 from CD-standard WAV. --Mike K.

[Boney]

I haven't tried reconverting any of my concertina recording WAV files yet, but I can assure you that at 128 kb/s they sound really gritty and mushy, really poor compared to the WAV originals. If 160 K doesn't sound any better, I will keep upping the bit rate till the sound is "fixed."

 

For piano music, I can't tell 128 K MP3 from CD-standard WAV. --Mike K.

I haven't noticed any of my concertinas being particularly difficult to record, or needing a higher bit rate -- 128K was OK (not perfect, of course), even lower is quite listenable. It could be more an issue with your microphones or amp or something.

[Jody Kruskal]

I was told by a professional sound engineer that the new standard in itunes is ACC 256 and that one would be hard pressed to hear any difference between WAV and that. The files are sure smaller though.

[jlfinkels]

I haven't tried reconverting any of my concertina recording WAV files yet, but I can assure you that at 128 kb/s they sound really gritty and mushy, really poor compared to the WAV originals. If 160 K doesn't sound any better, I will keep upping the bit rate till the sound is "fixed."

 

For piano music, I can't tell 128 K MP3 from CD-standard WAV. --Mike K.

 

That will be an interesting test trying the different conversions. Let us know what you find out.

[Stiamh]

Perhaps you realize this, but you don't have to have an iPod or buy music from Apple to use iTunes - it's very useful as an organizer and player of your digital music. You can set it to convert music "imported" (ripped) from a CD to several formats including mp3 (128, 160 or 192 bits), and it will happily import anything you have lying around in mp3 also. I was put onto this by a friend who has another brand of mp3 player but finds iTunes a very handy management system. The directory structure it creates on your hard disk is very easy to find your way around in.

 

If you do want to buy from the iTunes store, you'll find that increasingly stuff (especially trad-folk offerings) is available in "iTunes Plus" format (m4a not m4p) - no DRM. Not difficult to convert to mp3 or anything else anyway.

[ragtimer]

I haven't tried reconverting any of my concertina recording WAV files yet, but I can assure you that at 128 kb/s they sound really gritty and mushy, really poor compared to the WAV originals. If 160 K doesn't sound any better, I will keep upping the bit rate till the sound is "fixed."

 

For piano music, I can't tell 128 K MP3 from CD-standard WAV. --Mike K.

I haven't noticed any of my concertinas being particularly difficult to record, or needing a higher bit rate -- 128K was OK (not perfect, of course), even lower is quite listenable. It could be more an issue with your microphones or amp or something.

I don't think it's in my recording setup, since the WAV files sound jsut fine (not counting my sloppy performance and the Stagi reeds). But after the MP3 conversion you can really hear the difference.

Now maybe the free MP3 plug-in I donwloaded for use with Audacity is not the best one around. MP3 codes are not created equal, for sure.

 

Jody mentions the new ACC 256 scheme. I wonder if it compresses as small as MP3, which achieves 10:1 or better on file size?

Wonder how soon a WIndows update will add it to the Media Player?

--Mike K.