If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Can a .m4a audio file be converted into a .mp3 one losslessly?
|
Ads |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Can a .m4a audio file be converted into a .mp3 one losslessly?
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2019 23:50:07 -0400, Nil wrote: On 02 Apr 2019, wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general: On Tue, 02 Apr 2019 14:51:56 -0400, Nil wrote: If the original M4A is high enough quality and you convert to a high- resolution you might not notice the difference. If you're going to be editing the files you should consider converting the M4A to WAV format, doing all your editing in that domain, then converting them to MP3 as the very last stage. I am not sure how that changes anything. It is still the equivalent to an analog "copy of a copy". It makes a difference if you do multiple edits and save your work in the interim. If you were working on the original compressed file you'd be recompressing it each save. Doing all those edits on the WAV file avoids that. I think most serious editors do that because it takes a whole lot longer to "load" than simply to copy the MP3. (Based on Sound Forge) If you save as WAV it is almost instant. Any other format chugs along. +1 on that, and on SoundForge, probably the best editor around, especially if you add some DX plugins to extend its capability. The only thing missing is spectral editing, but there are other programs for that. I think one of the best was the old Adobe Audition 1.5, before Adobe ruined it. :-). I always marvel at just how smooth and truly excellent the editing experience is when using SoundForge (in comparison to so many other audio editors). But as for a good cheap alternative, there is always Goldwave. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Can a .m4a audio file be converted into a .mp3 one losslessly?
In message , Bill in Co
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] I've just tried. Unfortunately, neither my old Goldwave nor my old WinAmp did, so I doubt my standalone player would. I just tried with another .aac file I have, and old GoldWave still didn't like it, but old WinAmp did, so there are obviously more than one kind of .aac file. It may have something to do with the licensing, OR you didn't install a converter pack for Goldwave, if that option exists. With aac we're getting I suspect it doesn't, and that modern GoldWave versions do take m4a. (I have 5.58.) into Apple territory here, and Apple likes to lock things down, as I recall. But there are programs out there. I don't think it's due to the kind of aac file, it's due to whether or not the converter has been added to the program or not, and the licensing stuff Not entirely. I did try somebody's suggestion of just renaming one of the .m4a files to .aac, and neither my GoldWave nor my WinAmp 5.61 would load it; whereas a file I already had, which was called *.aac when I got it, _did_ load into the WinAmp. [] Yes, I was going to bring up the analogy with JPEGs, but you've already done it. The purists out there would insist on never using a JPEG for anything. :-) The analogy would be to only use WAV files for everything, with FLAC being perhaps a close second. I can't imagine living with that limitation, in terms of disk space, etc. However, if I were an audio engineer working in the studio, that would of course be different. Of course. (Might even look at more than 16 bit depth and/or more than 44100 sample rate.) Since I use a portable tiny mp3 player, disk space is still important to me. Come to think of it, even on the HD too, as I have tons of audio files collected and stored there over all the years, and there wouldn't be enough space for WAV files. [] the differences are typically inaudible, if you do it right. Just be sure to keep the bitrate the same, or preferably higher, in the conversions. Hmm, bitrate: I'd always (I think) go via WAV, with no compression (i. e. raw). When you convert one format to another, I think the intermediary step is WAV anyways, so I'm not sure you gain anything by selecting WAV (since I believe that step happens anyways as it's being converted from one format to the Well, I think the intermediate step is raw audio data; WAV is a representation of raw audio data, just with a header saying (among other things) how it's packed. [] That's where we differ - I rarely use as _high_ a rate as 128kbps for .mp3! 96kbps is about the highest I use normally. For 22050 Hz (which I use if there's no content above 11 kHz) I don't think I've used over 48k for mono, 64k for stereo. Well, I'm talking about good quality music files here on a decent sound system,, not just stuff off the radio. For the latter, I agree. I'm perhaps more cloth-eared (-:. Although even on spectrograms (i. e. showing frequencies beyond my limit - which I think is somewhere between 10 and 15 kHz now), I'm surprised how much even relatively modern material (up to '70s or even later) has no content above quite a low frequency. I tend to only change sample rates in binary steps (I feel that's an extra distortion otherwise), so I don't _often_ use 22050 (as that _can't_ contain anything above 11025), though it does sometimes happen. (For a lot of material from 78s, I find I _can_ use 11025 - i. e. there's nothing much above 5500. And _some_ more modern material.) That's sample rate rather than bit rate, of course, but the bit rate needed nearly always halves when the sample rate does, as you'd expect. A _lot_ of material I have recently extracted from videos (even if losslessly extracted) has already been brick-wall filtered - a lawnmower cut on the spectrogram; 15 kHz seems a popular one, with 16 and 13 not uncommon. [] files, or those who insist that anything that has been digitized sounds inferior to, say, vinyl records, Oh, purlease (-:. A system where even high-quality pickups have distortion percentages in the whole numbers. Not to mention the recent trendies who buy these cheap record players that have started to appear; I think some of them are mid-quality, but I gather some have playing weights of several grammes. Which I wouldn't let at the records which now (a very limited selection, and virtually all old stuff) seem to cost about 20 pounds. And I didn't even get into the so called purists who insist that vacuum tube amplifiers have much less distortion than any transistor amplifiers (but which was admitedly true back in the 1960's and early 1970s, as I do recall). There are two aspects to that. Before limiting, I think most valve (UK for "toob") amplifiers _do_ have higher distortion, but it's a form that the human ear finds less objectionable; and at limiting, solid state circuitry tends to clip limit, which is very audible, whereas valve ones limit more gracefully. But, when used in mid-range, I'd defy most people to tell the difference (between well-designed circuitry of both types). simply because it was digitized, or even that those expensive gold plated monster cables are required for the purest sound to the loudspeakers. :-) Gold plated _connectors_ have some use _if_ you're replugging often - [] different; it's basically the corrosion problem again. Yup, only for the corrosion thing. But some think the gold makes better sound. :-) The placebo effect is prevalent in most things, and if they can afford it and it makes them happy ... (-: So my advice is let go of the mantra about lossless conversions, and just do it and enjoy the music. But recode it at a minimum of 128 kbps, using Joint Stereo mode. I also prefer to use a fix bitrate, but there are those who like to use a variable bitrate, which is another story. I've nothing against VBR (as long as the converter uses some sort of look-ahead), but the old LAME encoder I use (and/or the GoldWave I use it from) doesn't/don't have VBR. VBR files can (admitely rarely) be problematic for some audio utilities or some audio programs, which is why I stick with the simple CBR format, which works flawlessly on everything, without any hidden surprises along the way. Well, as we've already discussed, if I was going to do further processing, I wouldn't use any (lossy) compression at all. (Probably not lossless [is that what FLAC is?] either, for the extra hassle.) [] I have a similar philosophy about making backup images for my HD. I *always* do a complete image backup - no incrementals. I just don't trust it. Everything is contained in only one file - there is only one file to go wrong, if it goes wrong, and there are no other dependencies. :-) I image my C:-plus-hidden, and sync. my D: (with one of three complete copies used in rotation), so am similar to you - no incrementals or differentials. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Can a .m4a audio file be converted into a .mp3 one losslessly?
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Can a .m4a audio file be converted into a .mp3 one losslessly?
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] I've just tried. Unfortunately, neither my old Goldwave nor my old WinAmp did, so I doubt my standalone player would. I just tried with another .aac file I have, and old GoldWave still didn't like it, but old WinAmp did, so there are obviously more than one kind of .aac file. It may have something to do with the licensing, OR you didn't install a converter pack for Goldwave, if that option exists. With aac we're getting I suspect it doesn't, and that modern GoldWave versions do take m4a. (I have 5.58.) Oh, ok. I also recall they still had a version that worked with Windows XP, but that the later versions wouldn't. (I used it for awhile too, as I have a collection of audio editors), Another good and affordable audio editor, but perhaps less well known, is Acon Acoustica, from Germany (was better for me than Goldwave in terms of audio restoration): https://acondigital.com/products/aco...-audio-editor/ into Apple territory here, and Apple likes to lock things down, as I recall. But there are programs out there. I don't think it's due to the kind of aac file, it's due to whether or not the converter has been added to the program or not, and the licensing stuff Not entirely. I did try somebody's suggestion of just renaming one of the .m4a files to .aac, and neither my GoldWave nor my WinAmp 5.61 would load it; whereas a file I already had, which was called *.aac when I got it, _did_ load into the WinAmp. Oh, ok. I don't know the answer then. [] Yes, I was going to bring up the analogy with JPEGs, but you've already done it. The purists out there would insist on never using a JPEG for anything. :-) The analogy would be to only use WAV files for everything, with FLAC being perhaps a close second. I can't imagine living with that limitation, in terms of disk space, etc. However, if I were an audio engineer working in the studio, that would of course be different. Of course. (Might even look at more than 16 bit depth and/or more than 44100 sample rate.) Since I use a portable tiny mp3 player, disk space is still important to me. Come to think of it, even on the HD too, as I have tons of audio files collected and stored there over all the years, and there wouldn't be enough space for WAV files. [] the differences are typically inaudible, if you do it right. Just be sure to keep the bitrate the same, or preferably higher, in the conversions. Hmm, bitrate: I'd always (I think) go via WAV, with no compression (i. e. raw). When you convert one format to another, I think the intermediary step is WAV anyways, so I'm not sure you gain anything by selecting WAV (since I believe that step happens anyways as it's being converted from one format to the Well, I think the intermediate step is raw audio data; WAV is a representation of raw audio data, just with a header saying (among other things) how it's packed. [] I stand corrected. :-) That's where we differ - I rarely use as _high_ a rate as 128kbps for .mp3! 96kbps is about the highest I use normally. For 22050 Hz (which I use if there's no content above 11 kHz) I don't think I've used over 48k for mono, 64k for stereo. Well, I'm talking about good quality music files here on a decent sound system,, not just stuff off the radio. For the latter, I agree. I'm perhaps more cloth-eared (-:. Although even on spectrograms (i. e. showing frequencies beyond my limit - which I think is somewhere between 10 and 15 kHz now), I'm surprised how much even relatively modern material (up to '70s or even later) has no content above quite a low frequency. I tend to only change sample rates in binary steps (I feel that's an extra distortion otherwise), so I don't _often_ use 22050 (as that _can't_ contain anything above 11025), though it does sometimes happen. (For a lot of material from 78s, I find I _can_ use 11025 - i. e. there's nothing much above 5500. And _some_ more modern material.) That's sample rate rather than bit rate, of course, but the bit rate needed nearly always halves when the sample rate does, as you'd expect. A _lot_ of material I have recently extracted from videos (even if losslessly extracted) has already been brick-wall filtered - a lawnmower cut on the spectrogram; 15 kHz seems a popular one, with 16 and 13 not uncommon. [] I think we're both old enough that presbycusis has set in. When I was younger I think I could hear up to around 18 kHz or so. But not any more. So having a brick wall cutoff at 15 kHz on some material seems ok. files, or those who insist that anything that has been digitized sounds inferior to, say, vinyl records, Oh, purlease (-:. A system where even high-quality pickups have distortion percentages in the whole numbers. Not to mention the recent trendies who buy these cheap record players that have started to appear; I think some of them are mid-quality, but I gather some have playing weights of several grammes. Which I wouldn't let at the records which now (a very limited selection, and virtually all old stuff) seem to cost about 20 pounds. Maybe that's how they get away with it at that price - using several grammes for the pickup. Not on my records, you don't!! And I didn't even get into the so called purists who insist that vacuum tube amplifiers have much less distortion than any transistor amplifiers (but which was admitedly true back in the 1960's and early 1970s, as I do recall). There are two aspects to that. Before limiting, I think most valve (UK for "toob") amplifiers _do_ have higher distortion, but it's a form that the human ear finds less objectionable; and at limiting, solid state circuitry tends to clip limit, which is very audible, whereas valve ones limit more gracefully. But, when used in mid-range, I'd defy most people to tell the difference (between well-designed circuitry of both types). And the FET amps might be closer to the valve amps in terms of that type of distortion, near clipping But I wasn't thinking of the clipping aspects so much, but rather the THD and IM distortion at normal audio levels, way before clipping, which I'm rather sure are much lower for transistor amps than tube (valve) amps. But maybe all the whooplah of prefering valve amps was primarily over the clipping aspects, as you just implied. My feeling is if you're in that situation, you simply need a higher power amp, so you never drive it into clipping in the first place. :-) simply because it was digitized, or even that those expensive gold plated monster cables are required for the purest sound to the loudspeakers. :-) Gold plated _connectors_ have some use _if_ you're replugging often - [] different; it's basically the corrosion problem again. Yup, only for the corrosion thing. But some think the gold makes better sound. :-) The placebo effect is prevalent in most things, and if they can afford it and it makes them happy ... (-: I guess that's one way to look at it. :-) So my advice is let go of the mantra about lossless conversions, and just do it and enjoy the music. But recode it at a minimum of 128 kbps, using Joint Stereo mode. I also prefer to use a fix bitrate, but there are those who like to use a variable bitrate, which is another story. I've nothing against VBR (as long as the converter uses some sort of look-ahead), but the old LAME encoder I use (and/or the GoldWave I use it from) doesn't/don't have VBR. VBR files can (admitely rarely) be problematic for some audio utilities or some audio programs, which is why I stick with the simple CBR format, which works flawlessly on everything, without any hidden surprises along the way. Well, as we've already discussed, if I was going to do further processing, I wouldn't use any (lossy) compression at all. (Probably not lossless [is that what FLAC is?] either, for the extra hassle.) [] FLAC is indeed a lossless format, but I've never used it. For one thing, it only reduces the filesize by about half anyways, so why bother. And it's not universally supported. Wiki has an interesting article on it, and gives at least some hints as to how it does its thing. I have a similar philosophy about making backup images for my HD. I *always* do a complete image backup - no incrementals. I just don't trust it. Everything is contained in only one file - there is only one file to go wrong, if it goes wrong, and there are no other dependencies. :-) I image my C:-plus-hidden, and sync. my D: (with one of three complete copies used in rotation), so am similar to you - no incrementals or differentials. Yup. I'm just getting more conservative in my approaches as I get older. :-) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Can a .m4a audio file be converted into a .mp3 one losslessly?
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Can a .m4a audio file be converted into a .mp3 one losslessly?
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 21:14:23 -0400, Nil
wrote: On 03 Apr 2019, wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general: I think most serious editors do that because it takes a whole lot longer to "load" than simply to copy the MP3. (Based on Sound Forge) If you save as WAV it is almost instant. Any other format chugs along. If you're saying what I think you're saying, I don't think that's true. When you open a compressed audio file, most editors will load it into RAM until you save it. You can edit the RAM copy as much as you want with no data loss, but as soon as you save it to a compressed format file the data loss occurs. If you save multiple times, multiple cycles of loss occur. As evidence, note that after a save, if you quit the application, it quits right away. There is no unexpected cleanup. At least, that's have every audio editor I've used works. I am saying I think the work file in RAM is WAV. Then you have the option of how to save it, knowing another compression will lose more than the first. These days with storage as cheap as it is, I would seriously think of only using WAV if I was an audiophool. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Can a .m4a audio file be converted into a .mp3 one losslessly?
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 21:14:23 -0400, Nil wrote: On 03 Apr 2019, wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general: I think most serious editors do that because it takes a whole lot longer to "load" than simply to copy the MP3. (Based on Sound Forge) If you save as WAV it is almost instant. Any other format chugs along. If you're saying what I think you're saying, I don't think that's true. When you open a compressed audio file, most editors will load it into RAM until you save it. You can edit the RAM copy as much as you want with no data loss, but as soon as you save it to a compressed format file the data loss occurs. If you save multiple times, multiple cycles of loss occur. As evidence, note that after a save, if you quit the application, it quits right away. There is no unexpected cleanup. At least, that's have every audio editor I've used works. I am saying I think the work file in RAM is WAV. Then you have the option of how to save it, knowing another compression will lose more than the first. These days with storage as cheap as it is, I would seriously think of only using WAV if I was an audiophool. https://manual.audacityteam.org/man/digital_audio.html "Audio CDs and most computer audio file formats use 16-bit integers. Audacity uses 32-bit floating-point samples internally and, if required, converts the sample bit depth when the final mix is exported " https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...xample.svg.png The mantissa is 23 bits, but there is an implicit "1" to the left of the number. So it's a 24 bit number, in "integer terms". The mantissa representation ranges between 1.000 and 1.999 kind of thing, and the .000 and .999 part is the 23 bit mantissa. The exponent is adjusted (normalized), to keep the rest of the number within that range. The representation is a function of the kind of math that the designers think will be applied to the samples. You could, for example, run an FFT on the samples and make a spectral plot, without needing to "launder" the samples in advance. With that internal representation, they're "ready to go". Paul |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Can a .m4a audio file be converted into a .mp3 one losslessly?
On 03 Apr 2019, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general: FLAC is indeed a lossless format, but I've never used it. For one thing, it only reduces the filesize by about half anyways, so why bother. And it's not universally supported. FLAC natively supports information tags that can be read by any player that plays FLACS, which is almost every one that's not named Apple. I see no advantage to using uncompressed WAV files for anything except editing. If FLAC isn't "universally" supported, it's within inches of it. Windows 10 even supports it as an OS feature. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Can a .m4a audio file be converted into a .mp3 one losslessly?
In message , Nil
writes: On 03 Apr 2019, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general: FLAC is indeed a lossless format, but I've never used it. For one thing, it only reduces the filesize by about half anyways, so why bother. And it's not universally supported. FLAC natively supports information tags that can be read by any player that plays FLACS That sounds rather obvious (-: , which is almost every one that's not named Apple. I Older software, and in particular older hardware, still exists, and many people use it (especially in the case of the hardware [i. e. portable players]). see no advantage to using uncompressed WAV files for anything except editing. If FLAC is indeed truly lossless, then I see no reason why it should make any difference whether you use it or WAV for editing. Inside the editor, the audio is going to be in raw format anyway, not either WAV or FLAC; it's only when it's being saved or loaded that the format has meaning. I suppose if the time to save/load is noticeably longer (because of the compression) and you do a lot of saving while you're editing it might make a difference to you, but it won't make any difference to the _quality_ if it's lossless. If FLAC isn't "universally" supported, it's within inches of it. Windows 10 even supports it as an OS feature. Remember one of the 'groups this thread is going to is the XP one, and the other is the 7 one! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Stop calling unmarried people "single" as if they are incomplete. I prefer spouse-free. It is not a coincidence we are the new majority. - Scott Adams, 2015 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Can a .m4a audio file be converted into a .mp3 one losslessly?
In message , Nil
writes: On 03 Apr 2019, wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general: I think most serious editors do that because it takes a whole lot longer to "load" than simply to copy the MP3. (Based on Sound Forge) If you save as WAV it is almost instant. Any other format chugs along. If you're saying what I think you're saying, I don't think that's true. When you open a compressed audio file, most editors will load it into RAM until you save it. He's referring to the actual loading into RAM. If you have an older processor, the time to load is noticeable, especially for a long recording. (I am still _aware_ that it takes longer to load an .mp3 [into GoldWave] on this apparently four-core processor under 7 than it does a .wav, but it's sufficiently quick that I don't care.) You can edit the RAM copy as much as you want with no data loss, but as soon as you save it to a compressed format file the data loss occurs. Agreed for the saved file. Whether what remains in RAM changes, depends on the editor. GoldWave, when I say save a mono .mp3 from a source that was (nominally) stereo (and came from a .wav), asks me if I want the "displayed" (and I assume the RAM-held) to change to reflect the format saved. I would hope most editors either default to keeping the original or ask, but I don't know. If you save multiple times, multiple cycles of loss occur. Save _and reload from the saved_, yes. Otherwise, see above. If you're only saving intermediate results during an editing session, _probably_ not - though if you're doing so just in case you make an edit you want to undo (further than your editor's "undo" can manage), I wouldn't save in a lossy format anyway. As evidence, note that after a save, if you quit the application, it quits right away. There is no unexpected cleanup. At least, that's have every audio editor I've used works. GoldWave too; but I assume all that means is that they dump their buffers. If by "unexpected cleanup" you are referring to the "do you want to save changes" prompt you get in lots of software not just audio editors if you quit _after_ a change without a save, I wouldn't have called that a "cleanup". -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The early worm gets the bird. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Can a .m4a audio file be converted into a .mp3 one losslessly?
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Can a .m4a audio file be converted into a .mp3 one losslessly?
Nil wrote:
On 03 Apr 2019, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general: FLAC is indeed a lossless format, but I've never used it. For one thing, it only reduces the filesize by about half anyways, so why bother. And it's not universally supported. FLAC natively supports information tags that can be read by any player that plays FLACS, which is almost every one that's not named Apple. I see no advantage to using uncompressed WAV files for anything except editing. If FLAC isn't "universally" supported, it's within inches of it. Windows 10 even supports it as an OS feature. I simply meant there are some audio utilities or audio players that won't recognize it (along with some other formats too), like some portable mp3 players, for example. And since it only reduces the file size by half, for both reasons I don't see much use for it, but that's just my own take on it. :-). For me, mp3's are the saving grace, with their concurrent 10:1 or better reduction in file size, whilst yet negligible sound loss. :-) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Can a .m4a audio file be converted into a .mp3 one losslessly?
On 04 Apr 2019, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general: I simply meant there are some audio utilities or audio players that won't recognize it (along with some other formats too), like some portable mp3 players, for example. And since it only reduces the file size by half, for both reasons I don't see much use for it, but that's just my own take on it. :-). For me, mp3's are the saving grace, with their concurrent :10:1 or better reduction in file size, whilst yet negligible sound loss. :-) Unless it's quite old I can't think of a computer audio utility that can't handle FLAC. Even most hardware players newer than about 10 years should be able to play them... unless they are named Apple. I use MP3s for portable players. I use FLAC for archiving. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|