AudioWav

We recently talked about this on the other listing that spoke of iTunes big "Beatle surprise". I won't repeat here but I agree with what you're all saying. The other angle to this is for them to answer "what will sell the best". I think there are certainly more non-audiophiles than audiophiles as evident by what the markets bring to the consumer. Even the old version of Napster back in the day may have been "fun", but holding everything else constant (legalities, etc.) I don't think anyone ever stopped and thought about the quality of sound they were getting. It was more about rushing outside to tell friends "hey look I've got 10,000 songs on my player" - much like it is today except now it's 99 cents at a time or a subscription. Granted some of that is certainly "listenable" but I'd much rather pick up a CD (new/used) and rip it myself - then save the CD to rerip when the next big format comes out.

I used to use Winamp myself back in the day. Over time the app seemed to get more and more bloated. Also, I didn't like the fact that almost anyone with an IDE seemed to be writing a plugin without any regard for sound quality. True there was some quality stuff out there, but during browsing you couldn't notice the difference unless you ether tried it or went by the subjective "stars" system of rating. With that said, if you notice a difference in quality you might check the other forums on this site for Media Monkey settings. I've seen them here, but it's been a while so you may have to dig a little. I also like the help you get from MM on tag editing. The quick answer would be if you like the sound of WA, use it. But if you're interested in digging into settings (which is pretty much what we all do on this site) then that would be my suggestion.

I'm looking for a converter to rip the audio from an MP4 movie to wav for further processing. Free is nice, cheap is almost as nice. I have Audition, so a VST would work as well. There are many out there from looking at google, but I'd like some opinions first from my audiophile forum friends. Thanks!

Although I'm an iTunes customer, I don't have a single native iTunes file on my iPod. It contains all of my 320's (MP3s). Granted the software may be "dumbing the files down" once they add it to the iPod, but at any rate... I agree with you Chris - I think it would chew up HD space and the need to go out and buy a new iPod.

I agree with you all. I'm betting it also has to do with the fact that the general public really doesn't care about the difference in sound once you get past the "generally accepted" quality of a 128 bit mp3 (or equivalents). This is confirmed when I come to a stop light in traffic and hear some guy next to me with lower end that is so distorted it sounds like bodily functions rather than bass. Too bad. We'll just have to see. I'm all for helping with creating a voice if we can find the forum to do so.

Thanks very much. I will check it out!

Thanks a lot! Do you know of a good software spectrum analyzer for wav or MP3 files? Or can I do with with TrueRTA software?

Thanks to everyone who replied with the great advice! It is really appreciated. The orginial recording was done on a Tascam DM 4800 64 ch digital board. We're compensating for a room that is basically shaped like a bull horn and we'll be in our own location soon so we're not trying hard to fix things acoustically. Guitars/vocals/drums are Mic'ed. We've EQ'ed the room, etc. We don't normally record the music portion and probably for this reason. I just do it as a form of "study" to hear my mix and how I can do better next time. Sometimes I'll hear something nice that I'd like to take the time to fix and so I thought I'd ask. I'm not a professional by any means but I do have years of experience behind the board on Sunday morning, primarily analog until we got the 4800. Nice board by the way if you're shopping. Thanks again!

Being that I'm a GenX'er and right at 40, I appreciate the Beatles but I'm not really a fan. I remember Lennon and McCartney's solo stuff in the early 80's, and remember it being decent but again this announcement doesn't do much for me. What does drive me crazy is the fact that Apple doesn't realize the potential of lossless. They already have a robust catalog to choose from (in general) and I agree with everyone that if they'd offer this I'd pay more per single. If the existing 24/96 download sites had the catalog that iTunes did I'd have been gone along time ago from iTunes. I appreciate the fact that the single downloads allow me a "perfect album side" and so I stay due to them at least being "listenable". I recently downloaded a song that was cut off during the first 1 to 1.5 seconds of the song. When I emailed them about it, asking for them to fix (not for a refund) the next time I logged in the song automatically downloaded again; the SAME cut with the SAME error, and no response from them. Hopefully no one will find this error with any Beatles songs.

Yeah really Bill - I agree! If they want to impress me, how about 24/96 downloads, DRM free, and nothing changes about their fee structure. Or if that's too much to ask, how about compression free downloads? I know - I'm still dreaming...

I recently recorded some music at my Church. In order to compensate for the acoustics of the room, I had to have the vocals louder than they should be for listening back to the recording on a CD. Everything else is mixed at acceptable levels, so if I can reduce the loudness of the vocals I'd have a decent little recording. I've got Adobe Audition but I'm still learning how to use the mastering effects. Is anyone familiar with a way to reduce the overall loudness of the vocals using Audition 3.01? Thanks!

I am new to dBpowerAmp, and I've been using RazorLame/LAME for years. I just installed the latest version of dBpoweramp today (both apps using LAME 3.98.2). Out of curiosity I took a stereo WAV file, and made two separate MP3s using the two apps mentioned. Then I took both mp3 files into EncSpot Pro. While reading the LAME header on both files using EncSpot, the quality value for the dBpowerAmp file was "58" and the file generated using RazorLame was "60". They were sonically equivalent according to my ears, and all other properties matched identically. Understand that by no means am I drawing a conclusion about one being better than the other based on these findings. However, I would like to attempt to get them to match (60/60). Since I'm new to dBpowerAmp I'm wondering if there is a setting I'm missing. Within Razor Lame, the settings I used were -b 320 -m s -h -q 0, optimization: quality, stereo mode and constant bit rate. Within dBpoweramp the settings I used were CBR, 320 kbps, Slow encoding, frequency "as source", channels "2 forced stereo (CD)". I'm guessing that since I can set the q value to 0 in RazorLame, and only chose "Slow encoding" in dBPoweramp, that this might be the difference. I have found that most apps use a q value of 2 on their "best" setting but I'm not sure if that is the case here. I've also got Adobe Audition 3.0.1, but I've not been able to find good documentation for it so I've been "self taught over the years". If anyone is familiar with comparing the quality of two audio files using that I would welcome any instruction you'd be willing to give. Thanks!

Thanks - you too!

Ahh. I see your delima now. Unfortunately I'm out of ideas at this point. I'm definately interested in what you find though. Such a program would be very useful. I wonder if Chris (this site's founder) knows of such an application that would be accurate?

Blueixus I totally agree with you. I just downloaded the app today, and wow! I had been reading on this site for a little while now about how it performed well and everyone was right. At the time of my writing above I had no idea it would do that as well. Anthony I would download the trial, kick the tires, and I'd be surprised if you didn't end up with it yourself. It's 36 dollars well spent!