Converting Mp3's To Wave

[Icebound]

i've never seen this discussed here and wondered if any of you convert ur audio, whether it be mp3, ogg, etc. into wave files before u burn them to cd. i've been doing this forever. it turns ur burnt cd's into perfect 1411kbps cd quality discs. some think nero converts to wave automatically, but if it does -- they have a lot of work to do because the quality is a total 180 from tracks converted to wave manually first. cd's u buy in stores r wave files. i use acoustica mp3 to wave converter plus, as i have always been using it. if u burn music cd's i HIGHLY suggest finding a converter. once u do, i bet u'll end up reburning everything u have -- as i did while back.

if this knowledge is so standard and practiced to discuss, my bad. i've never seen it here.

[Gre1]

But why do that when 192k quality is just fine and that's how cd's come noone wants to encode for no reason.

[Icebound]

no, cd's come at 1411 kbps -- considerably more than 192.
and if u can tell a difference between 96 and 192, then saying
1411 isn't much better than 192 is ridiculous.
i think u need to do a little research

[Adster]

1411 isn't much better than 192

true but to me I can't tell the different between a real CD and 192 bit but I cna with anything lower

for the question I always burn as audio but I just drag them with nero and make a music CD it must convert them to wav itself the reason I do this is

1 you cna change the gap in between songs liek for eg Pink floyd have no gaps its very annoying burnign as data and you can't change the gaps.
2. some CD players don't play mp3s and I want to be able to play them anywhere

you might think this is a dear way considering in Aust it Cost $1.50 per CDr here but quality matters to me also it look good haveign the back and front covers to make it look bought

[sparsely]

listen to me:

Once music is encoded to mp3, you've lost quality you'll never get back. You can decompress it to a .WAV, but you're just making it bigger.
That's all. You don't regain any quality. It's exactly the same as it was in mp3 format, you're just wasting your time.

If you want high quality, use vbr mp3's or go for ape's, mpc, ogg or something else.

[Gre1]

The only thing that matters is that u can hear it so everybody quit complaining and arguing an turn on some music, .mp3 .wav .ogg and bang your head against something. :lol:

[sparsely]

We're not arguing.
Someone seems to have false assumptions, and it's our duty to tell the truth cuz

A: it'll save them wasted time converting
B: (Most Important) They won't pass along the misinformation to others.

[Adster]

problem with VBR is ppl dont like you sharing them and also some players can have trouble reading VBR

[Icebound]

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.

[Adster]

once you have ripped a wav from a retail CD to 192 you have lost quality you cannot get the quality back too it original form

[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 :lol:

[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 :P

[sparsely]

I'm not married, foo

[fr600]

Mee too... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Johnny_B]

@Icebound

MP3 encoding is a lossy process. Every time you convert to MP3, inaudible information will be removed, hence some data will be lost permanently. There is no way to get that data back simply because it does not exist anymore in any shape or form.

When you convert an MP3 to WAV (lossless process, quality is 100% kept), it will only have the information that is present in the MP3. The inaudible part will still be gone since it was removed from the MP3 in the first place. The audio will sound exactly as it did when it was in MP3 format. Not better nor worse.
It will just take up more space in order to please the standards of the WAV format.
If you think you are listening to a better and improved audio file, it's just a placebo. ;)

This works exactly like JPEG compression. You can save a JPG as a BMP, but it will only have the quality of the original JPG. Compress the BMP as JPG again, and you will get worse quality than the original JPG.

[Icebound]

u guys r beating a dead horse. i'm not saying it's perfect, but it does sound better.
get this guys:

IT SOUNDS WAY BETTER, I'VE GOT TWO OF THE SAME CD'S ONE CONVERTED AND IT SOUNDS 100X BETTER.

same brand cd, same burning method, only one has been converted first.

get acoustica mp3 to wave converter plus and just try it once. u can't hear the difference on the computer, u have to test it in a car stereo ideally -- where the sound is all around you. just try it once and then tell me it's the same. i'm not fucking retarded, ok. i've been doing this for a long time. burning mp3's sucks ass, period. until then, my cd's will always sound better than yours :P

[InverseKinetix]

Originally posted by Icebound@30 October 2003 - 07:02
u guys r beating a dead horse. i'm not saying it's perfect, but it does sound better.
get this guys:

IT SOUNDS WAY BETTER, I'VE GOT TWO OF THE SAME CD'S ONE CONVERTED AND IT SOUNDS 100X BETTER.

same brand cd, same burning method, only one has been converted first.

get acoustica mp3 to wave converter plus and just try it once. u can't hear the difference on the computer, u have to test it in a car stereo ideally -- where the sound is all around you. just try it once and then tell me it's the same. i'm not fucking retarded, ok. i've been doing this for a long time. burning mp3's sucks ass, period. until then, my cd's will always sound better than yours :P
who cares, why are you still using cd's?

can't remember the last time i used an audio cd, get an mp3 player

[Adster]

I agree taht audio CDs are better to use then data CDs but I dont agree that their better quality ripping a 192 back to wav

the reason audio is better

you can change gaps inbetwen songs (eg Pink Floyd)
you know that the disk will play on EVERY CD player
its nice to have all the covers to make it look bought onyl put 1 album on per CDR $1.50 each

[Icebound]

my whole point was not to have everyone "convert" to my converting practices, just to bring up a topic that is never discussed for those who have never heard of converting their mp3's to .wav before burning cd's -- a practice as old as ripping cd's.