android
  #1  
Old 12-29-2011, 01:45 PM
Noex Noex is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 10
Default An M4A to MP3 Converter

I'd like to know if there is a free software that can convert M4A to MP3 without changing the bitrates.

I have a software that I does it but bitrates end up being the low quality 128kbps. If there isn't one that can do it for free I'll gadly pay for a software that does. Any suggestions?
Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

  #2  
Old 12-29-2011, 01:51 PM
McDougal's Avatar
McDougal McDougal is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,375
Default

By M4A I'm assuming you mean the AAC format?

If so, then you are aware that AAC to MP3 is a lossy to lossy conversion, which reduces quality. If you have to do this for compatibility issues, then there are some options.

What I would use is iTunes, but if you don't want to install it, you could use foobar2000. You'll have to download LAME.exe from rarewares and place it into the foobar2000 folder if you go that route.

It's also a good idea to convert the MP3 to the same bitrate that the AAC file is at for less quality loss. Don't convert to a higher bitrate than the AAC file is at as it won't help but make larger file sizes.
__________________
iPod Touch 4G 32GB; Google Nexus 7 32GB
JVC HAS600B;Pioneer SE-M390;Audio-Technica ATH-P5

Retired Devices:
Sansa Fuze 8+16GB Rockboxed
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 12-29-2011, 02:11 PM
Noex Noex is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by McDougal View Post
By M4A I'm assuming you mean the AAC format?

If so, then you are aware that AAC to MP3 is a lossy to lossy conversion, which reduces quality. If you have to do this for compatibility issues, then there are some options.

What I would use is iTunes, but if you don't want to install it, you could use foobar2000. You'll have to download LAME.exe from rarewares and place it into the foobar2000 folder if you go that route.

It's also a good idea to convert the MP3 to the same bitrate that the AAC file is at for less quality loss. Don't convert to a higher bitrate than the AAC file is at as it won't help but make larger file sizes.
Noted. Thanks for the help and fast response.
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 12-29-2011, 02:14 PM
McDougal's Avatar
McDougal McDougal is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,375
Default

You're welcome, glad to help !
__________________
iPod Touch 4G 32GB; Google Nexus 7 32GB
JVC HAS600B;Pioneer SE-M390;Audio-Technica ATH-P5

Retired Devices:
Sansa Fuze 8+16GB Rockboxed
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 12-30-2011, 01:30 AM
Adub's Avatar
Adub Adub is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: T DOT
Posts: 1,604
Default

Tbh I would reaquire the files in flac or mp3.
Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 12-30-2011, 11:10 AM
McDougal's Avatar
McDougal McDougal is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,375
Default

I agree, but I have to wonder why the OP wants to convert from AAC to MP3. The only reason I would do it is if something I had didn't work with the AAC files.
__________________
iPod Touch 4G 32GB; Google Nexus 7 32GB
JVC HAS600B;Pioneer SE-M390;Audio-Technica ATH-P5

Retired Devices:
Sansa Fuze 8+16GB Rockboxed
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 02-28-2012, 05:10 AM
Tripzone Tripzone is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville, Fl
Posts: 24
Default

I've done this before when I wanted to save some YouTube audio onto my Clip+. I use a nice little program called, (oddly enough), Free M4A to MP3 convertor. Works great.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg M4A-to-MP3-convertor.jpg (96.6 KB, 6 views)
Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 02-28-2012, 10:35 AM
Satellite_6's Avatar
Satellite_6 Satellite_6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 871
Default

The iTunes mp3 encoder is horrible. Use something with LAME in it. :S

Well it probably doesn't matter much for trans-coding anyway. . .
__________________
satelliteaudioblog.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 02-28-2012, 06:20 PM
Angelopsaro's Avatar
Angelopsaro Angelopsaro is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 57
Default

Back in the days when i wanted to add a lot of songs on my phone i used easy cd-da extractor for converting files to the eAAC+ format from suggestions i got from friends. I remember that 96kbps was the same to my ears to the 128kbps in the mp3 format maybe even better. same for 112-128 kbps for the equivelant 192kbps in the mp3 format.
I thinks its a high quality compressing format, better that mp3 thats why.

Now days i got plenty of space so i dont bother.

Neverthless cd-da extractor was the only program i could find to convert in eAAC+ and it was overall a good program. Dont know if its good now days though.
Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 02-28-2012, 08:44 PM
McDougal's Avatar
McDougal McDougal is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelopsaro View Post
Back in the days when i wanted to add a lot of songs on my phone i used easy cd-da extractor for converting files to the eAAC+ format from suggestions i got from friends. I remember that 96kbps was the same to my ears to the 128kbps in the mp3 format maybe even better. same for 112-128 kbps for the equivelant 192kbps in the mp3 format.
I thinks its a high quality compressing format, better that mp3 thats why.

Now days i got plenty of space so i dont bother.

Neverthless cd-da extractor was the only program i could find to convert in eAAC+ and it was overall a good program. Dont know if its good now days though.
lol I can never imagine having such a small storage that I would have to go as low as 96kbps !
__________________
iPod Touch 4G 32GB; Google Nexus 7 32GB
JVC HAS600B;Pioneer SE-M390;Audio-Technica ATH-P5

Retired Devices:
Sansa Fuze 8+16GB Rockboxed
Reply With Quote

  #11  
Old 02-28-2012, 10:59 PM
Lagoo56's Avatar
Lagoo56 Lagoo56 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SI,NY
Posts: 738
Default

Ah I remember back in the day when I used to encode WAV cd files down to 128kbps MP3 then tried 64kbps WMA because I was advised that the WMA files would have the same SQ as the MP3 file but being half the size lol None of this nonsense applies to today.
__________________
DAPs I own: Rockboxed Sansa C250 2GB+64GB MicroSDXC
Tablets I own:Rooted 8GB Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 running Sungsonic 2 HD JB 4.1.2
Rooted 80GB Asus Memopad HD 7
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 02-29-2012, 03:36 AM
Angelopsaro's Avatar
Angelopsaro Angelopsaro is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lagoo56 View Post
Ah I remember back in the day when I used to encode WAV cd files down to 128kbps MP3 then tried 64kbps WMA because I was advised that the WMA files would have the same SQ as the MP3 file but being half the size lol None of this nonsense applies to today.

eAAC+ is different than wav and similar to the mp3pro format. 96kbps of eAAC+ has the same quality with 128kbps in the mp3 format.
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 02-29-2012, 07:35 AM
Satellite_6's Avatar
Satellite_6 Satellite_6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 871
Default

Yeah, but both will sound like crap either way. :P
__________________
satelliteaudioblog.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 02-29-2012, 09:28 AM
Enigmatic Enigmatic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post
Yeah, but both will sound like crap either way.
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio...-1/results.htm:
Quote:
The quality at 128 kbps is very good and MP3 encoders improved a lot since the last test.
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 02-29-2012, 11:59 AM
skip252 skip252 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,416
Default

It took me a bit to remember that eAAC+ was one of that names given HE-AAC early on. HE-AAC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Ef...d_Audio_Coding. Like so many claims that are made of what codec is equivalent to another at what bitrate I'd take that with a grain of salt. There's been changes to both HE-AAC and mp3.

There's so many types and flavors of AAC encoding the claim that one is the equivalent of some other codec at a particular bitrate really would need to be tested. Winamp, Coding Technologies, Nero, FAAC and iTunes each implement HE-AAC a different way. The only way to tell would be for each person would be to ABX the transcoded results they get using the encoder and settings they use.

Even then I'm not sure how much I would depend on the results from limited testing. ABX is usually done testing the lossless original against the lossy encode. Considering that transcoding involves one lossy encoder reworking the results from another it's possible to get different results depending on what the first encoder decided to toss out on a particular track.
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:11 PM
Satellite_6's Avatar
Satellite_6 Satellite_6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 871
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigmatic View Post
woah, those people are hella-deaf seriously.
__________________
satelliteaudioblog.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:21 PM
WalkGood's Avatar
WalkGood WalkGood is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 12,577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post
woah, those people are hella-deaf seriously.
I was going to say how can you say that when statistically they are all tied so there is no quality winner. But then I noticed the sarcastic smilie, heh ...
__________________
WalkGood,
Ramón

abi >> | Forum Rules | Glossary | Why Rockbox | FLAC or MP3? | irc
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:43 PM
Enigmatic Enigmatic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post
woah, those people are hella-deaf seriously.
Yes, the ability to hear and tolerate compression artefacts varies amongst individuals. That is why the best way for each individual to see for himself if he can tolerate the compression artefacts is with a you-know-what test. Another thing to note is that that listening test was done more than three years ago. LAME has improved.
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:50 PM
WalkGood's Avatar
WalkGood WalkGood is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 12,577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigmatic View Post
... Another thing to note is that that listening test was done more than three years ago. ...
I noticed that but still meaningful IMHO, what I'd like to see is the results of when he states "It's time to move to bitrates like 96 kbps or 80 kbps." With all the improvement to LAME it certainly would be interesting results to see.

Edit: yes I know it's easy for me to try but I'm fine with what my music is ripped at and I'm comfortable with 192 VBR on the go ...
__________________
WalkGood,
Ramón

abi >> | Forum Rules | Glossary | Why Rockbox | FLAC or MP3? | irc
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 02-29-2012, 02:06 PM
Enigmatic Enigmatic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WalkGood View Post
I noticed that but still meaningful IMHO, what I'd like to see is the results of when he states "It's time to move to bitrates like 96 kbps or 80 kbps." With all the improvement to LAME it certainly would be interesting results to see.
Properly encoded MP3s at c. 128 kbps have only tiny amounts of compression artefacts. So interest has moved to lower bitrates such as 96 kbps or 80 kbps: are there any audio codecs that can produce files with similarly tiny amounts of compression artefacts? According to http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio...a/results.html, a promising candidate appears to be qtaacenc.
Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:41 AM.