Support and General Use > Audio Playback, Database and Playlists
WMA again
Corius:
Hey, if people have a lot of WMA, thers tonnes of programs out there that batch process your wma and conver them to .mp3, all you do is set the bitrate etc, and you can set it so it deletes the original wma's if you want it to. When you click start it should convert all the files you selected without any more input from you, so i guess that could help some people
There was one thing i noticed about .WMA support, on my really old philips 2GB jukebox (an evil entity that deserves to be punished eternally) on the box it made references to how much .wma's it could hold and how many.mp3's it could hold. For my jukebox it reckons it could hold 200 more .wmas than .mp3's not really sure why, because it based its 500 song capacity on songs at around 3-4 minutes long at 64kbps.... who listens to 64kbps!? 128 min for me 192 average then VBR for most
mnhnhyouh:
--- Quote from: Corius on June 16, 2006, 09:47:23 AM ---Hey, if people have a lot of WMA, thers tonnes of programs out there that batch process your wma and conver them to .mp3, all you do is set the bitrate etc,
--- End quote ---
Converting from one lossy format to another will result in low quality files, no matter what program you use to do it :(
h
Corius:
I've done it with some albums and i've never seen a dip in quality however most of my .wmas i have were put to nearly the highest quality that they could go, so i dont know, my suggestion was just so people sitting on the fence about wma support would know there is an alternative... if they are so bothered they should just use the evil that is itunes and let that convert there music lol.....
goffa:
Unless you were encoding an original from wma lossless (which would be the same as encoding from wav) There was a HUGE loss in quality. You may not notice it, but if you know what to listen for, its obvious.
Anyway, encoding them to a lossy format there is a loss in quality too, but it may not be as audible.
And, it this point if they were sitting on the fence BECAUSE OF wma support. I wouldn't reccomend anyone switching if it meant they had to transcode their files from lossless format to another lossless format. It would end up giving rockbox a bad name in their mind if they didn't understand what transcoding did. (it would appear that rockbox made their files sound bad)
On the other hand, if they are like me, and wma isn't that important. You can leave those files off your player until rockbox supports it, or encode the really important ones to a lossless format like flac or wavepack. That is in efficient, but the files would sound the same as the original.
I'd avoid itunes like the plague. lala.com is a good solution, you can trade for original copies of the source at $1.50/cd (shipping included). Otherwise, there are other stores that allow you to download lossless music as well.
mnhnhyouh:
--- Quote from: Corius on June 16, 2006, 09:59:35 AM ---I've done it with some albums and i've never seen a dip in quality however most of my .wmas i have were put to nearly the highest quality that they could go, so i dont know, my suggestion was just so people sitting on the fence about wma support would know there is an alternative... if they are so bothered they should just use the evil that is itunes and let that convert there music lol.....
--- End quote ---
It would be good if you could tell us what headphones you are using not to hear a difference. If you are using the supplied buds, then I can understand you not hearing much at all.
If I had some WMA that were important to me and could not re-rip, I would install iTunes, put those files on my iPod, then uninstall iTunes. That way I could play those files by booting to the iPod firmware.
h
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version