Quick question...how do i compress my music files into small sizes?

[diabloii]

i need to convert some of my 4-5mb songs to as small as possible; what are good programs to do this on and what should i do to compress them?

i'm looking to bring them to 1-2mb or so without losing mushc quality; is it possible? what hsould i do?

thanks

 

[cire]

its going to sound like crap if you want the songs that small. "there's no free lunch"

 

[socrates63]

I'm assuming you're referring to mp3 files. These things are already compressed, so if you want smaller file sizes, you're gonna sacrifice the sound quality. There's no getting around that.

The other thing to look into is other audio formats. I'm not too familiar with anything other than wma. From what I've read, with wma, you can achieve similar audio quality as mp3 but at lower bitrates than mp3.

 

[seeberg]

He's pretty much right on that one. My format of choice is VBR mp3's, due to versatility(they can play on anything that plays digital music), and the minimum quality level I run at is approx 75%(3/4 full) on whatever slider controls the encoding quality. It sounds literally within 95% or more of an original CD, if you need quality, there it is. If you need to fit more tunes into the same space, then it's probably time to save up and invest in a higher capacity player. A bunch of us here would be glad to help you in your search if you feel like taking the plunge, but don't expect your wallet to be happy about it

Quote:

Originally Posted by socrates63 The other thing to look into is other audio formats. I'm not too familiar with anything other than wma. From what I've read, with wma, you can achieve similar audio quality as mp3 but at lower bitrates than mp3.

Ewww! WMA format is teh poop, I'd stay away from it like the plague, no offense.

,
Abe

 

[gshan]

64-96kbps WMA would be the way to go for the 1-2 mb route. Experiment.

 

[Joey_V]

MP3->WMA converter is probably one of the only ways. Unless you want to experiment with Sony's Atrac format.

 

[cire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gshan 64-96kbps WMA would be the way to go for the 1-2 mb route. Experiment.

seriously, dont even bother. anything less than 128kbps sounds like ass. personally, i cant stand anything less than 192kbps and i listen through senn MX550s haha

 

[seeberg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey_V MP3->WMA converter is probably one of the only ways. Unless you want to experiment with Sony's Atrac format.

Nooooo! Not Atrac! Gaahhh! Atrac is pure evil, I have the same feelings toward it as I do with WMA files. Anything that tries to tie you into a format and then use copy protection to keep you by the balls buying into that format is a bad idea from the get-go, IMHO. Anything with DRM or similar I just stay away from as a general rule. But of course, no offense intended. I'm just the negative horse's behind on this one

Quote:

Originally Posted by cire seriously, dont even bother. anything less than 128kbps sounds like ass. personally, i cant stand anything less than 192kbps and i listen through senn MX550s haha

Agreed. My setting of VBR is right at that point, with a weighted average at 192kbps. I think peaks hit 224 or 256 or something like that. Either way, if you're gonna go small, VBR is the only way to go, IMO.

,
Abe

 

[arspy87]

Don't convert from MP3 to WMA. The conversion from lossy-to-lossy is going to hurt the sound further. Do you have the original source material (like the CD, or WAV or FLAC backups or whatnot)? Convert from that to your new format.

 

[Joey_V]

Unless you have an absolutely good reason as to why you want to convert... just leave it.

 

[MonkeyButt]

Although some won't go this far even this low, 192 is supposed to be the audiophile lowest standard . . . and don't go too small because you may end up having to re-rip everything again once you discover that it does make a difference.

Conserving space in lieu of sound quality will probably come to haunt you later. Why buy expensive portable phones when you will be killing the messenger (i.e., the music itself)? You can hear a difference between 192 and 128 . . . .

 

[seeberg]

Agreed, and yes, I can hear very audible differences between 192kbps(and VBR in that range) and 128kbps files. I actually had to use my collection of headphones in the ripping process to determine what setting to put VBR to, and the setting I have is the absolute edge of being accurate and keeping size as small as possible. I had to audition several discs to make sure of this, and IMO, it paid off very well. With the ripper I used, each step of -5% of the original 75%(which sounds no different than 100% VBR to my ears) did register an audible degrade, and the effect increased as the percentage dropped.

,
Abe

 

[gshan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cire seriously, dont even bother. anything less than 128kbps sounds like ass. personally, i cant stand anything less than 192kbps and i listen through senn MX550s haha

True, even 128kbps sounds pretty lousy in some songs while listening in a relatively quiet environment. The WMA route works well if you're at the gym, or riding a busy commute.

 

[perplex]

encode at a really low setting OGG.

 

[socrates63]

For the WMA detractors, you may find ExtremeTech's audio codec shootout interesting... you probably won't agree with the findings but maybe interesting nonetheless. This is the article that I was primarily referring to in my earlier post. I have read similar articles touting WMA elsewhere but I can't remember where. And of course, there are other places which tout other codecs as the biggest and baddest thing there is... to each his own

This is just a FYI for anyone interested, and my desire to show to OP that wma may offer a possible solution to his problem... let's not start a codec war.