• 0

Converting AAC To Wma

Asked by Schwa83,

 Share

Question

18 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Proficient

richter

Posted
Posted (edited)

One thing, don't do it! Converting one lossy format to another can only make thing worse. iTunes AAC aren't highest quality as is, and converting them to WMA (why on earth WMA?) will make them sound like sh++.

Download CoreAAC, google for it, it is directshow filter and will allow you to play AAC files with WMP.

Update: Link to above is http://coreaac.corecodec.org/ - Since AAC from Apple are protected with their DRM (Fairplay) I do know if they can be played using this filter. Regular AAC files are no problem. You can test it yourself. Anyway, if you do not have your heart set solely on WMP, I believe foobar2000 can handle those files, if iTunes is not an option.

Edited by richter
  • 0
Grand Master

BajiRav

Posted
Posted
  NrthnStar5 said:
Is there a way i can convert apple's audio aac format to wma? I want to buy music from iTunes, but i want to play it with wmp.

585602954[/snapback]

  richter said:
One thing, don't do it! Converting one lossy format to another can only make thing worse. iTunes AAC aren't highest quality as is, and converting them to WMA (why on earth WMA?) will make them sound like sh++.

Download CoreAAC, google for it, it is directshow filter and will allow you to play AAC files with WMP.

585603573[/snapback]

I doubt you can play apple's files in anything else but iTunes since they are DRMed by their own FairPlay !

  • 0
Mentor

NetRyder

Posted
Posted
  dhan said:
I doubt you can play apple's files in anything else but iTunes since they are DRMed by their own FairPlay !

585603622[/snapback]

True. It's going to be a multi-step process, and it doesn't seem worth it to me.

AAC files w/ DRM (.m4p) -> AAC files w/o DRM (.m4a) -> WMA

The first step won't lead to quality degradation, but transcoding from AAC to WMA certainly will.

NrthnStar5, if you're going to play your music in WMP, why not just buy the tracks from the MSN Music Store (or any of the several others available)?

  • 0
Proficient

richter

Posted
Posted
  NrthnStar5 said:
I want to buy music on iTunes that you can't get elsewhere, specifically Disney tunes.

Why does everyone say wma sounds crappy? I think it sounds good. lol

585603657[/snapback]

I was just updating my post when you get same answer from someone else. I forgot DRM protection.

Anyway, you can either strip DRM protection and then use directshow filter to play it with WMP, I think it should work then, use alternative player besides iTunes which can play DRM files. Just for god's sake don't transcode.

WMA is crap to me compared to MP3 and especially MPC, which I use. If it sounds good for you then there is no reason for you not to use it. Whatever rocks your boat.

  • 0
Mentor

NetRyder

Posted
Posted
  nellydoom said:
would i be able to change AAC to mp3 as i want to buy music from itunes but my mp3 player dont support AAC (its an iriver h320)

585603684[/snapback]

It would involve the same process I mentioned above - stripping the DRM off the AAC files, then transcoding the DRM-free AAC file to MP3 (= quality loss).

It's tedious and you'll lose quality, but it's possible.

  • 0
Proficient

BigDaddy5

Posted
Posted

I personally subscribe to napster, and remove the DRM from the WMA's for very legit reasons, such as you can't open a DRM'd WMA in any sort of music editor to edit the music in anyway.

I used virtuosa, you can import your DRM'd WMA, then convert to un-DRM'd MP3. I don't know if virtuosa supports AAC, but it may.

They're both lossless formats, but since I'm using a 128kbps WMA and converting it to a 192kbps, the loss isn't very noticeable.

  • 0
Proficient

richter

Posted
Posted

What do you mean both are lossless? There is WMA Lossless, but that's not what Napster is selling. They sell 128 kbs WMA files. Transcoding those to 192, 320 MP3 or anything else DOES NOT restore lost data nor does make it better. It can only make it sound worse. When you compress a file into a lossy format (MP3, AAC, MPC, OGG Vorbis...) the loss of data is not possible to restore. The only reasonable transcoding would be transcoding from high quality source, for example -alt preset insane MP3 to 128kbs MP3 which you would use for your portable and API file for listening on your computer. Other was around does not acceptable - it just doesn't make sense.

Anyway, I'm sure you can all read about audio compression, so I'm not going to force anyone not to use 64kbs WMA or Blade encoded MP3s.... Your choice.

  • 0
Proficient

BigDaddy5

Posted
Posted
  richter said:
There is no point into re-encoding 128kbs to 192kbs, it will only sound worse. Why do you think you gain any quality? Transcoded file will be lower quality than 128kbs no matter the bitrate. It's pointless. Do some testing and see for yourself.

585610663[/snapback]

Wow, bro, read both my posts. I NEVER said there was a gain in quality. Infact, I said the COMPLETE opposite.

I flat out said "the loss in re-encoding isn't very noticeable." Thanks for not reading a freakin word of this thread and just jumping in at the end.

And also, if your testing, you should compare formats. A 128 kbps wma is NOT the same as a 128 kbps mp3. The reason to encode in a higher bitrate is so that you keep the frequencies that the 128kbps wma doesn't eliminate. a 128 kbps is comparable to a 160kbps or even 192 kbps mp3.

And I DJ, so the equipment I'm "testing" it on isn't some 5.1 creative labs surround sound computer setup, it's professional equipment. Thanks again though.

  • 0
Proficient

richter

Posted
Posted

I'm not native English speaker and I apologise if it sounded harsh, it was not intended. I don't understand this: "The reason to encode in a higher bitrate is so that you keep the frequencies that the 128kbps wma doesn't eliminate." - Did you mean does eliminate? I understand encoding to 192kb, but transcoding from 128kbs to 192kbs is really bad idea. WMA is worse than MP3 at that bitrate and does NOT compare to 160kbs or higher MP3 (LAME). While WMA is not the worst, it certainly is not all that good. Well, don't trust me, go to hydrogenaudio.org and see tests Roberto did, I believe their results should have more credibility than my words.

Anyway, anyone should use whatever they like, I was saying that it's bad idea IMO because you gain nothing but a bigger file size.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to question listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.