Group: rec.audio.misc

Post about audio here if you can't post anywhere else.

Add group to favorites Add group to favorites
   indietro Back to post list     indietro Send new message to group
Search:

Post Subject:

Optimizing WMA files

Reply from: pricec123@gmail . com
Date: 09 Apr 2008, 01:17
Optimizing WMA files

I have a Rio Carbon with about 3gb of WMA files on it... many of which
I did not take the time to optimize before loading them on. Listening
to the music now is not as much fun as it used to be because I'm so
tired of the varying audio levels and frequency patterns from one song
to another. Here's my question: It seems to me that it's just not
worth the effort to try and optimize the files now because they are
already compressed, and before they could be optimized they would
first have to be converted to WAVE, optimized, and then re-compressed.
Which is a lot of work, and they would probably end up sounding even
worse than they do now. Am I right about this, or is there an easy
solution?

C. Price

Reply from: UnsteadyKen
Date: 09 Apr 2008, 01:31
Re: Optimizing WMA files


said...

> Am I right about this, or is there an easy
> solution?
>
>
What you want to do is "normalize" the files, there are several
programs out there that can do this.

Payware
* w w w .suggestsoft . com /soft/kanzsoftware/sound-normalizer/

Freeware
* w w w .dirfile . com /songs db.htm
--
Ken

Reply from: DaveW
Date: 10 Apr 2008, 00:50
Re: Optimizing WMA files

You are correct.

--
--DaveW


<pricec123@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:9310c94b-0b71-4e68-87ef-bd8c6de4661f@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
>I have a Rio Carbon with about 3gb of WMA files on it... many of which
> I did not take the time to optimize before loading them on. Listening
> to the music now is not as much fun as it used to be because I'm so
> tired of the varying audio levels and frequency patterns from one song
> to another. Here's my question: It seems to me that it's just not
> worth the effort to try and optimize the files now because they are
> already compressed, and before they could be optimized they would
> first have to be converted to WAVE, optimized, and then re-compressed.
> Which is a lot of work, and they would probably end up sounding even
> worse than they do now. Am I right about this, or is there an easy
> solution?
>
> C. Price






Login:
  Username:    Password: 
 
   Lost Password? click here!
Thread: