Converting Mp3's To Wave

[the_faceman]

sure, you could rip at album to WAV files, (never encoding them to mp3), then burn said WAV file to a new cd and you'll have a perfect copy.

BUT - what you're trying to say is you can turn a 128 or 192 (or even 320) kbps cd for that matter, into a perfect digital copy by converting the file to wav first from the mp3.

this is BULLSH*T - like someone said earlier in the post, once the data is lost, it's gone forever, you're not going to recover the info, just make a much larger file. and when you burn it you'll notice no difference at all. i really hope you just posted in order to get replies like the one's you've had so far, because you are talking out of your ass otherwise.

you can't even convert a 128kbps mp3 to 192kbps and get ANY improvement in quality, just a filesize increase.

[ezyryder]

Originally posted by Icebound@29 October 2003 - 03:40
if u don't believe me, then just try it. the difference in quality is 100% obvious to me. maybe it's the fact that 99% of the audio files i download are group-released albums by PMS, AMRC, FNS, and countless others. these releases are ripped to 192 kbps almost all the time. in fact, u can take a retail cd and rip it on your computer to whatever rate you want and convert it back to .wav in its original condition. people have been doing this for years, it was very common back in the day. i noticed a total lack of any mention on this here and thought i'd bring it up to people that were unaware of the fact that you can take your downloaded songs and convert them to their original format and burn them to a 100% retail quality cd. all converters are not equal, i am only vouching for Acoustica's mp3 to wave converter plus.

don't be stupid. If you convert to 192kbps, it will never be cd quality again if you reconvert it. MP3 isnt just a compressed format, when encoding, a lot of the clarity, low ends and high ends which most speakers and ears don't pick up. they are deleted, gone, so how can you retreive them? that is part of what makes mp3 smaller.

If you cut off your legs and throw them away to fit into a small box, they won't be reconnected when you come back out of a small box. not unless your david blaine.

[Icebound]

whatever you all say, the fact is, my cd's burned after converting sound way better than cd's burned from mp3's. everything you're saying i've read in many places. but it is, in fact 1411 kbps and sounds way better. i'm not saying everything is retreivable, just that converting first sounds way better. i'm a musician and i pay close attention to detail in audio quality. are you saying that just because everything you've said is true that the finished quality after burning can't be better? simply a .wav file -- even converted from an mp3 file -- is higher quality than an mp3. jesus christ

[ezyryder]

yes. I agree it can be better than the mp3. One reason is at a higher birate the stereo imaging will work better, this is a major factor in music recordings clarity. this
creates the feeling of higher quality, when infact it is just better processing. the data that made the file complete is lost, so it will not be on a level with a proper cd, but granted it will be better sounding (not quality in a sense) due to the processing.

[Icebound]

my point exactly, and when it takes like a minute and a half to convert a whole album it's not a hassle at all. i just delete all the .wav files after burning. when burning cd's i want it to sound the very best it can. i've been doing it for years and i just burned a cd from straight mp3 and the sound was very different.

[sparsely]

either way, it's still converted to cda format in the end.
Unless you can reference some technical reports on the subject, I still think you're just dumb.

[Adster]

I still think you're just dumb.

thats a bit harsh


I would have said insaine

[Icebound]

i don't know the technical details, i just know the sound difference. and as for reference why don't you try it just once. my reference is the difference between two of the same cd's only one was converted first. and what's with the name calling lol! starpunchers

*Edit @Sparsely:

i wouldn't give personal details about your wife in your avatar

that was too tempting

[sparsely]

I'm not married, foo

[fr600]

Mee too...