Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
OT: Audo file conversion
OT: Audo file conversion
I have a bunch of AAC audio files that I'd like to convert to WMA
format. Anyone know of a simple and preferably free solution?
Thanks,
Craig
I have a bunch of AAC audio files that I'd like to convert to WMA
format. Anyone know of a simple and preferably free solution?
Thanks,
Craig
Re: OT: Audo file conversion
On Apr 15, 3:38 pm, Craig <googlegroupm...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> I have a bunch of AAC audio files that I'd like to convert to WMA
> format. Anyone know of a simple and preferably free solution?
>
> Thanks,
> Craig
Er, that should be AUDIO in the header.
Creg
On Apr 15, 3:38 pm, Craig <googlegroupm...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> I have a bunch of AAC audio files that I'd like to convert to WMA
> format. Anyone know of a simple and preferably free solution?
>
> Thanks,
> Craig
Er, that should be AUDIO in the header.
Creg
Re: OT: Audo file conversion
On Apr 15, 4:39 pm, Craig <googlegroupm...@yahoo,com > wrote:
http :// www .jodix,com /
-- t14g0
On Apr 15, 4:39 pm, Craig <googlegroupm...@yahoo,com > wrote:
http :// www .jodix,com /
-- t14g0
Re: OT: Audo file conversion
On Apr 15, 4:56 pm, Tiago Rocha <diariodastril...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 4:39 pm, Craig <googlegroupm...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> http :// www .jodix,com /
>
> -- t14g0
ops, seems that this only works to convert wma to mp3... but it works
great for that :-)
try www .winamp,com , they have plugins for everything.
-- Tiago
On Apr 15, 4:56 pm, Tiago Rocha <diariodastril...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 4:39 pm, Craig <googlegroupm...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> http :// www .jodix,com /
>
> -- t14g0
ops, seems that this only works to convert wma to mp3... but it works
great for that :-)
try www .winamp,com , they have plugins for everything.
-- Tiago
Re: OT: Audo file conversion
On Apr 15, 3:38 pm, Craig <googlegroupm...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> I have a bunch of AAC audio files that I'd like to convert to WMA
> format. Anyone know of a simple and preferably free solution?
>
> Thanks,
> Craig
I've had good luck finding free stuff to do almost anything, but it
might take 3 tries or so.
A google of ' free "AAC to WMA" converter ' hits some high points.
The center quotes cuts it down from 2Mhits to 20Khits or so.
Hey, there's a unit of measure that could use defining- a single word
to describe a whole buncha hits.
Dave
On Apr 15, 3:38 pm, Craig <googlegroupm...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> I have a bunch of AAC audio files that I'd like to convert to WMA
> format. Anyone know of a simple and preferably free solution?
>
> Thanks,
> Craig
I've had good luck finding free stuff to do almost anything, but it
might take 3 tries or so.
A google of ' free "AAC to WMA" converter ' hits some high points.
The center quotes cuts it down from 2Mhits to 20Khits or so.
Hey, there's a unit of measure that could use defining- a single word
to describe a whole buncha hits.
Dave
Re: OT: Audo file conversion
"XR650L_Dave" <spamTHISbrp@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:6464a32f-6046-44b7-8bb2-8951402c3237@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 15, 3:38 pm, Craig <googlegroupm...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>> I have a bunch of AAC audio files that I'd like to convert to WMA
>> format. Anyone know of a simple and preferably free solution?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Craig
>
>
> I've had good luck finding free stuff to do almost anything, but it
> might take 3 tries or so.
>
> A google of ' free "AAC to WMA" converter ' hits some high points.
> The center quotes cuts it down from 2Mhits to 20Khits or so.
>
> Hey, there's a unit of measure that could use defining- a single word
> to describe a whole buncha hits.
>
>
> Dave
sh!tload always seemed like a universally recognized format for that
particular unti of measure. :-)
KW
"XR650L_Dave" <spamTHISbrp@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:6464a32f-6046-44b7-8bb2-8951402c3237@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 15, 3:38 pm, Craig <googlegroupm...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>> I have a bunch of AAC audio files that I'd like to convert to WMA
>> format. Anyone know of a simple and preferably free solution?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Craig
>
>
> I've had good luck finding free stuff to do almost anything, but it
> might take 3 tries or so.
>
> A google of ' free "AAC to WMA" converter ' hits some high points.
> The center quotes cuts it down from 2Mhits to 20Khits or so.
>
> Hey, there's a unit of measure that could use defining- a single word
> to describe a whole buncha hits.
>
>
> Dave
sh!tload always seemed like a universally recognized format for that
particular unti of measure. :-)
KW
Re: OT: Audo file conversion
On Apr 15, 3:54 pm, XR650L Dave <spamTHIS...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> A google of ' free "AAC to WMA" converter ' hits some high points.
> The center quotes cuts it down from 2Mhits to 20Khits or so.
That's the problem... with a dial up connection, I'm hoping to find a
known solution to avoid downloading a bunch of stuff that doesn't
work. My first choice didn't... well, it did, but it required
converting to MP3 first, then to WMA which was tedious.
thanks,
Craig
On Apr 15, 3:54 pm, XR650L Dave <spamTHIS...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> A google of ' free "AAC to WMA" converter ' hits some high points.
> The center quotes cuts it down from 2Mhits to 20Khits or so.
That's the problem... with a dial up connection, I'm hoping to find a
known solution to avoid downloading a bunch of stuff that doesn't
work. My first choice didn't... well, it did, but it required
converting to MP3 first, then to WMA which was tedious.
thanks,
Craig
Re: OT: Audo file conversion
On Apr 15, 3:57 pm, Craig <googlegroupm...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 3:54 pm, XR650L Dave <spamTHIS...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> > A google of ' free "AAC to WMA" converter ' hits some high points.
> > The center quotes cuts it down from 2Mhits to 20Khits or so.
>
> That's the problem... with a dial up connection, I'm hoping to find a
> known solution to avoid downloading a bunch of stuff that doesn't
> work. My first choice didn't... well, it did, but it required
> converting to MP3 first, then to WMA which was tedious.
>
> thanks,
> Craig
You mean I'm not the last dial-up connected drone?
Dave
On Apr 15, 3:57 pm, Craig <googlegroupm...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 3:54 pm, XR650L Dave <spamTHIS...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> > A google of ' free "AAC to WMA" converter ' hits some high points.
> > The center quotes cuts it down from 2Mhits to 20Khits or so.
>
> That's the problem... with a dial up connection, I'm hoping to find a
> known solution to avoid downloading a bunch of stuff that doesn't
> work. My first choice didn't... well, it did, but it required
> converting to MP3 first, then to WMA which was tedious.
>
> thanks,
> Craig
You mean I'm not the last dial-up connected drone?
Dave
Re: Audo file conversion
"Craig" <googlegroupmail@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:3a29f564-25e0-49d1-8de3-c1a8aea24682@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
>I have a bunch of AAC audio files that I'd like to convert to WMA
> format. Anyone know of a simple and preferably free solution?
>
> Thanks,
> Craig
You might try www .sourceforge,net or www .majorgeeks,com be sure to sort by
license on the latter as many of the proggies are shareware...
"Craig" <googlegroupmail@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:3a29f564-25e0-49d1-8de3-c1a8aea24682@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
>I have a bunch of AAC audio files that I'd like to convert to WMA
> format. Anyone know of a simple and preferably free solution?
>
> Thanks,
> Craig
You might try www .sourceforge,net or www .majorgeeks,com be sure to sort by
license on the latter as many of the proggies are shareware...
Re: OT: Audo file conversion
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:38:38 -0700 (PDT), Craig <googlegroupmail@yahoo,com >
wrote:
>I have a bunch of AAC audio files that I'd like to convert to WMA
>format. Anyone know of a simple and preferably free solution?
>
>Thanks,
>Craig
Start here: http :// www .mp3-converter,com /wma/index.htm.
If you're into sound quality, a few comments:
Anything you get with the encoder in it will be a good choice, though the
both measured and perceived accuracy among most of the mainstream encoders
diminishes above 250kbps. At lower bit rates, Fh kicks major ass.
you're sorta moving in the wrong direction for fidelity. WMA was good in
the day... AAC is sounding much better to my ears.
The biggest PITA of doing a multi-stage encode isn't inconvenience, it's
that you degrade the material each time. It's not lossless.
I'm cooked from CO, but let me paste something from my email archive here:
"
>Just an FYI, if you are switching to AAC, you can still use winamp for it.
>Winamp pretty much has a codec for every file format out there, so you
> could stick with it if you like the UI better than iTunes.
There are significant codec to codec performance differences. I don't see
it as just support a file format, but support the best codec for fidelity.
I don't have strong comparative data on AAC codecs... but I do have
consensus that Itunes' codec is supposedly the most accurate (and building
in an assumption that accuracy <physics> and good-sounding
<psycho-acoustical> are close... an assumption I'd quickly challenge if I
had the time). "
There's some goddam encoder out there that's pushed entirely for utopic
reasons... something lossless... or lossless something.
"I found a lot of good updates to my knowledge about codecs and copied you
on the stuff I shared with Scott. Lame sucks... in fact, it's time to chuck
MP3. Below 256kbps, the differences do start to show. I still need more
data on ACC but that looks like the way to go and that looks like the best
way is Itunes. I'm chucking winamp to get the Itunes codec.
We can get you wired into some real listening. It's not just clarity, but
spatial resolution. Can you hear WHERE the mandolin is? Does it stay there.
Do the harmonics stay THERE. etc.
Open source... ah:) As for codecs, it looks like the business model for
those is the company that builds their software around them is the one that
pays. Anything that Fraunhofer in Germany got behind (they invented the MP3
format and much of the perceptual methodology that underlies most
encoding... and were one of the driving forces of AAC) is quality stuff.
After reading about some of the "free" codecs, I just came away shaking my
head at a huge collection of amateurs feeling their way around in the dark.
And because their consumers are principally in that same group, the Amateur
Night codecs will get traction because Phish and Dave Mathews support the
idea because it's utopic... not because it's good. And in that step, the
inventors and early contributors suffer.. and ultimately we all do. It's
the old story... free shit means the experts can't afford to stay in the
field. I never seemed to find the caliber of technical evaluation in the
free shit side of things that I always found on the professional side. I
wish I kept those emails I used to get from some open source foundation
trying to talk me into converting to open source. A Burning-Man grade
mass-hypnosis chasing yet another Utopia. "
Ok... just a random collection of crap... hope something in there helps
you.
Mike
--
Mike W.
96 XR400
70 CT70
71 KG 100 (Hodaka-powered)
99 KZ1000P (training)
99 KZ1000P (rider)
00 Beta Rev-3
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:38:38 -0700 (PDT), Craig <googlegroupmail@yahoo,com >
wrote:
>I have a bunch of AAC audio files that I'd like to convert to WMA
>format. Anyone know of a simple and preferably free solution?
>
>Thanks,
>Craig
Start here: http :// www .mp3-converter,com /wma/index.htm.
If you're into sound quality, a few comments:
Anything you get with the encoder in it will be a good choice, though the
both measured and perceived accuracy among most of the mainstream encoders
diminishes above 250kbps. At lower bit rates, Fh kicks major ass.
you're sorta moving in the wrong direction for fidelity. WMA was good in
the day... AAC is sounding much better to my ears.
The biggest PITA of doing a multi-stage encode isn't inconvenience, it's
that you degrade the material each time. It's not lossless.
I'm cooked from CO, but let me paste something from my email archive here:
"
>Just an FYI, if you are switching to AAC, you can still use winamp for it.
>Winamp pretty much has a codec for every file format out there, so you
> could stick with it if you like the UI better than iTunes.
There are significant codec to codec performance differences. I don't see
it as just support a file format, but support the best codec for fidelity.
I don't have strong comparative data on AAC codecs... but I do have
consensus that Itunes' codec is supposedly the most accurate (and building
in an assumption that accuracy <physics> and good-sounding
<psycho-acoustical> are close... an assumption I'd quickly challenge if I
had the time). "
There's some goddam encoder out there that's pushed entirely for utopic
reasons... something lossless... or lossless something.
"I found a lot of good updates to my knowledge about codecs and copied you
on the stuff I shared with Scott. Lame sucks... in fact, it's time to chuck
MP3. Below 256kbps, the differences do start to show. I still need more
data on ACC but that looks like the way to go and that looks like the best
way is Itunes. I'm chucking winamp to get the Itunes codec.
We can get you wired into some real listening. It's not just clarity, but
spatial resolution. Can you hear WHERE the mandolin is? Does it stay there.
Do the harmonics stay THERE. etc.
Open source... ah:) As for codecs, it looks like the business model for
those is the company that builds their software around them is the one that
pays. Anything that Fraunhofer in Germany got behind (they invented the MP3
format and much of the perceptual methodology that underlies most
encoding... and were one of the driving forces of AAC) is quality stuff.
After reading about some of the "free" codecs, I just came away shaking my
head at a huge collection of amateurs feeling their way around in the dark.
And because their consumers are principally in that same group, the Amateur
Night codecs will get traction because Phish and Dave Mathews support the
idea because it's utopic... not because it's good. And in that step, the
inventors and early contributors suffer.. and ultimately we all do. It's
the old story... free shit means the experts can't afford to stay in the
field. I never seemed to find the caliber of technical evaluation in the
free shit side of things that I always found on the professional side. I
wish I kept those emails I used to get from some open source foundation
trying to talk me into converting to open source. A Burning-Man grade
mass-hypnosis chasing yet another Utopia. "
Ok... just a random collection of crap... hope something in there helps
you.
Mike
--
Mike W.
96 XR400
70 CT70
71 KG 100 (Hodaka-powered)
99 KZ1000P (training)
99 KZ1000P (rider)
00 Beta Rev-3
Re: OT: Audo file conversion
On Apr 16, 11:58 pm, Mike W. <outof...@emailbiz,com > wrote:
> you're sorta moving in the wrong direction for fidelity. WMA was good in
> the day... AAC is sounding much better to my ears.
No doubt about that. Sound quality isn't much of an issue for this
particular application.
Thanks,
Craig
On Apr 16, 11:58 pm, Mike W. <outof...@emailbiz,com > wrote:
> you're sorta moving in the wrong direction for fidelity. WMA was good in
> the day... AAC is sounding much better to my ears.
No doubt about that. Sound quality isn't much of an issue for this
particular application.
Thanks,
Craig
Re: OT: Audo file conversion
"Mike W." wrote ...
> It's
> the old story... free shit means the experts can't afford to stay in the
> field. I never seemed to find the caliber of technical evaluation in the
> free shit side of things that I always found on the professional side.
I sure have been wondering about the business model behind this google
sketchup (CAD) I'm using. And also wondering how it's affecting the
"professional side" since I've now heard of two pros who are using it (at
least as an adjunct to Autocad). There sure is a lot of blog support (which
is the first time I've become interested in the blogosphere).
Is there a difference between free and free with a pay version? Of course
there is. Just ask Jim Cook.
"Mike W." wrote ...
> It's
> the old story... free shit means the experts can't afford to stay in the
> field. I never seemed to find the caliber of technical evaluation in the
> free shit side of things that I always found on the professional side.
I sure have been wondering about the business model behind this google
sketchup (CAD) I'm using. And also wondering how it's affecting the
"professional side" since I've now heard of two pros who are using it (at
least as an adjunct to Autocad). There sure is a lot of blog support (which
is the first time I've become interested in the blogosphere).
Is there a difference between free and free with a pay version? Of course
there is. Just ask Jim Cook.
