patton307 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I have ruckus through my school. And I have taken of the drm on some music through fairuse4wm. I want to put the music on my itunes library for my ipod, however as you know, wma is not compatible. So I used easywma to convert the music to aac at like 160kbps. It sounds alright, but I can definately tell some quality loss. Couple questions. 1. Can I take the original wma files and put them to apple lossless? In theory the wma wouldn't lose that much if any quality doing this??? If this can be done, which software is best for this that keeps the id3 tags? 2. If #1 doesn't work, can I burn the wma's to a music cd and then re rip them to my computer? Would that be better quality then going from wma directly to aac? Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synaesthesia Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 No.1 would give you better quality. No.2 Wouldn't make any difference! I say convert them, but use a good quality high bitrate AAC or MP3 or Apple lossless, not 160kbs. For me the best program to convert WMA to whatever is iTunes for windows! iTunes for Mac doesn't do it for some reason, but iTunes for windows can covert WMA files! Just choose your desired format + bitrate in the preferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patton307 Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 Itunes for mac has the ooption to encode to apple lossless, just right click the file and clip convert. Or does the windows version do a better job at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UZi706 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 iTunes for Mac doesn't do it for some reason, but iTunes for windows can covert WMA files! Because Mac has no use for that {censored} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patton307 Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 one more question. I noticed that when i converted the WMA files to Apple Lossless the whole albums were like 400+mb in size. If the WMA is already a lossy format, then where did it get the extra memory? I thought that if I encoded from WMA to lossless it would just keep the same size as the previous??? But I can say that the quality is excellent doing this. 2. After I encoded to Apple Lossless and noticed the enormous file sizes I encoded to 192 AAC, and noticed that the quality was much much better then the first WMA to AAC conversion. Why is this? WMA to Apple Lossless to AAC be the best bet to keep quality? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UZi706 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 one more question. I noticed that when i converted the WMA files to Apple Lossless the whole albums were like 400+mb in size. If the WMA is already a lossy format, then where did it get the extra memory? I thought that if I encoded from WMA to lossless it would just keep the same size as the previous??? But I can say that the quality is excellent doing this. 2. After I encoded to Apple Lossless and noticed the enormous file sizes I encoded to 192 AAC, and noticed that the quality was much much better then the first WMA to AAC conversion. Why is this? WMA to Apple Lossless to AAC be the best bet to keep quality? Thanks Just a thought, don't use WMA's, they mess up everything... Like how they're trying to do that conversion where a WMA can only be played in WMP on that specific machine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patton307 Posted February 1, 2008 Author Share Posted February 1, 2008 up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts