Lossless Way To Hslf The Size Of Your Mp3's?

["The Avatar Man"]

I tried this out

HERE

It claims it can createwma files half the size of mp3's without any quality loss since "it does not modify the original in any way"I assume this means it does not actually reencode the file.I tried it and I could not tell the difference between the mp3 and the wma that was half the size,but I want the opinion of more experienced ears.Is there or isn't there quality loss in the transition?
can you guys please try it and post your opinions.

get it from here.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme.../bonuspack.aspx
choose "net install" and you can choose to only download this thing

["The Avatar Man"]

Please try it out guys

[4play]

i did try this and i did notice a bit of loss but considering hte file size they are very good.

still i do not like the idea of converting all my mp3's to wma just to save space.

[smellmycomputer]

according to WMP a wma ripped at 64k is cd qualiy, so i wouldn't belive it

also in my experience of mp3 and wma ripped at the smae bitrate the mp3 is slightly smaller

[andrew2022]

i use a 56kb bit rate and i can tell th dif between it and 128

[Storm]

Originally posted by smellmycomputer@21 August 2003 - 13:48
also in my experience of mp3 and wma ripped at the smae bitrate the mp3 is slightly smaller

same amount of bits/second and still smaller???? thats prolly only a couple of k, at most...... the header and stuff (if mp3 even uses that)........ and maybe the diff can b found in the tags????


also, TAM, its not possible 2 compress w/o loss.......... (w/o noticable loss is possible though)

[Storm]

Originally posted by smellmycomputer@21 August 2003 - 13:48
also in my experience of mp3 and wma ripped at the smae bitrate the mp3 is slightly smaller

same amount of bits/second and still smaller???? thats prolly only a couple of k, at most...... the header and stuff (if mp3 even uses that)........ and maybe the diff can b found in the tags????


also, TAM, its not possible 2 compress w/o loss.......... (w/o noticable loss is possible though)

[Storm]

Originally posted by smellmycomputer@21 August 2003 - 13:48
also in my experience of mp3 and wma ripped at the smae bitrate the mp3 is slightly smaller

same amount of bits/second and still smaller???? thats prolly only a couple of k, at most...... the header and stuff (if mp3 even uses that)........ and maybe the diff can b found in the tags????


also, TAM, its not possible 2 compress w/o loss.......... (w/o noticable loss is possible though)

[firebird32]

converting to wma can cause some problems.. some of my mp3's seem to fade in and out...go figure..biggist software company in the world..worst software

[sunrat]

Please don't transcode already compressed files, especially if you're gonna share them. it can only degrade the sound.
To achieve good quality you need to encode directly from wav files, or straight from the CD. I usually use Ogg Vorbis format at quality level 5. Quality 4 is similar to 128kb/s mp3. and you wont notice much difference in the sound at quality3, but the file size is signifcantly smaller.
However, any format suffers at 64kb/s, and if converted from another compressed format the sound will be even worse.
Try Ogg at quality 3, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
http://www.vorbis.com/index.psp
has all the info.

Actually just tested encoding from wav to ogg q2, and even that low bitrate (average 85kb/s) sounded quite good, and about 3Mb for a 5minute track! B)