How to make an audio file smaller?

[aruwin]

Does anybody know how to compress an audio file without losing the quality?I have millions of songs on my computer and there is less space now.I wanna burn them on cd but I gotta wait until my burner is repaired(which takes a long time bcuz my I'm too busy)

[mats.hogberg]

Depends on if the music is compressed already or not.
If it's "raw" wav files, they can be losslessly compressed with FLAC or APE or other lossless audio codec.
If it's MP3 or other already compressed format, it can't be further compressed without losing some quality.

/Mats

[thecoalman]

Any recompression loses quality, how much depends on what format they are now and how much you recompress them.

What format you have and what's the bitrate?

[aruwin]

both wav and mp3.Is there any software that can do the compressing without quality loss?

[mats.hogberg]

Again: wav can be losslessly compressed with FLAC or APE. (There may be other lossless audio codecs too.)
mp3 can't be further compressed without losing quality.

/Mats

[AlanHK]

both wav and mp3.Is there any software that can do the compressing without quality loss?

Leave the MP3s as-is.

You can use lossless compression on the WAVs, eg FLAC, or APE.

But if you use MP3 at 320 k bit rate, you will get very good results, and be compatible with more playback software and devices.

[DereX888]

Does anybody know how to compress an audio file without losing the quality?I have millions of songs on my computer and there is less space now.I wanna burn them on cd but I gotta wait until my burner is repaired(which takes a long time bcuz my I'm too busy)

I really would like to know where on earth you found a person (or service) where they REPAIR a burner?!
(sorry for OT, but I really want to know)

[jman98]

Does anybody know how to compress an audio file without losing the quality?I have millions of songs on my computer and there is less space now.I wanna burn them on cd but I gotta wait until my burner is repaired(which takes a long time bcuz my I'm too busy)

I really would like to know where on earth you found a person (or service) where they REPAIR a burner?!
(sorry for OT, but I really want to know)

DereX888 - Note that the original poster is from Malaysia, so his answer to your question isn't likely be very useful to you.

Having never been to Malaysia, maybe it is cheaper there to repair an existing burner than to buy a new one, but in North America, Western Europe, etc. the parts and labor costs for repair would cost a lot more than to buy a new burner. That's why DereX888 wants to know where the original poster found to get a burner repaired, but I think DereX888 forgot to look at the location field of the original poster.

[AlanHK]

I think when he does get around to taking it in to a shop he'll end up replacing it.

Even in Malaysia I'd be surprised if it was cheaper to get it fixed than replaced. After all, they make a lot of CD drives there. New ones are cheap; used ones are dirt cheap. Labour in Malaysia isn't third-world level either.

I've spent a few months in Malaysia on and off, and I live in Hong Kong now, so this isn't just supposition.

[DereX888]

Well, yes, I didn't look up the OP's location, but nevertheless I am sure there is no country in the world where anyone is able to repair broken burner at the cost lower than buying a new one, even if it is some 3-rd world country. Unless someone fix it basically for free, just for the sake of it (a hobbyst?)
Hence my curiosity.

[EddyH]

Actually 320k MP3s could give compatibility problems on some players; certain standalone devices only work up to about 256kbit.
I'd say for the uncompressed files, convert to VBR MP3 with a good quality encoder (Lame, etc) at a decent quality setting (Q2 or so) - which will sometimes briefly hit 320k, but generally be 256 or under and so hopefully not overload any portable/set top players. This will give a result basically 'transparent' to CD, and an overall bitrate in the low 200s, far outstripping the compression of a lossless codec.
If you have to go CBR because VBR doesn't work for some reason, try 192 or 224kbit encoding, this will still sound better than anything you'll download

Any existing compressed files, leave them as-is, unless they're very much over-size; preferably oversize, sounding worse than their bitrate would suggest, and you have little storage space left, then it would be worth recompressing it to a size more worthy of it's quality (because sometimes the people you download from aren't as careful as they should be when it comes to this kind of media treatment)

Can't comment of course on your personal circumstances re: money and cost of drives, but nowadays you may be as well just to buy a new HD as put too much effort or thought into mass compression and conversion, when even 750Gb drives (like, 1000 CDs...) are fairly affordable.

[yoda313]

As eddyh mentioned going peak on mp3 might not work with some players - 256 or lower would probably be ideal.

Two alternatives - try mp3pro at 64kbps and you might be impressed. I find it to be the same quality level as mp3 128 at half the file size of 128. Best thing is mp3pro reads as mp3 on most stuff I've tested it on - including portable mp3 cdplayers.

The other thing is wma at 64kbps. More and more devices are wma compatible now and I also like wma at 64kbs. Its comparible to mp3 128.

Those two suggestions are only if you want to squeeze them down to as small a size as possible without too much loss.

If you are simply leaving them on the computer and not taking them anywhere then use one of the lossless codecs mentioned earlier - though be warned I don't think there is too much portable player support for those. Where as mp3 and wma are much more compatible.

The best thing is to go back to your original source and start fresh. Assuming these are from your cd collection rerip them to the lossy codecs and you'll be happier. If they are store bought files than you really probably are better off leaving them intact to preserve quality.

Experiment and see what you like - but don't dump "original" files without backing them up first or putting them on removable media you can access later.

[EddyH]

forgive me for the coming outburst, but:

Two alternatives - try mp3pro at 64kbps and you might be impressed. I find it to be the same quality level as mp3 128 at half the file size of 128. Best thing is mp3pro reads as mp3 on most stuff I've tested it on - including portable mp3 cdplayers.

The other thing is wma at 64kbps. More and more devices are wma compatible now and I also like wma at 64kbs. Its comparible to mp3 128.

Those two suggestions are only if you want to squeeze them down to as small a size as possible without too much loss.

GNAAAAAAAAAAGHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO! BAD YODA!
I know it's just personal preference, but seriously - awful and very lossy choices. People's personal clarity of hearing / sensitivity varies greatly, and though they may work well for you, I'd take the mouse out of the hand of anyone about to compress to these formats OR bitrates (not just "AND") with an intention of it being 'high quality'.

Not to mention they're highly licensed and restrictive; there's not much that will play or convert mp3pro, as Thompson still hold patents and licenses on it, and though a lot of stuff WILL play WMA, it's generally less compatible and harder to reconvert. Plus, though it's only personal preference, it's compression artefacts are arguably uglier than mp3 even at equivalent bitrates. 64k will go well with a streaming video or whatever, where it gives a better "internet quality" than you otherwise would have, but it's not hi-fi, no more so than 64k mode was on Sony's HiMD (oh, how that much-hyped mode sucked balls).

People have been working on this for years, and though we have had some reasonable breakthroughs, we're not at the 64k level yet (but really, it's not needed any more) and for the time being your main way of improving quality is to raise bitrate / lower compression. If you're really desperate, try AAC (MP4, as used by e.g. iPod) which is slightly more efficient and cleverer than MP3 without ruining the sound quality (can get away with 128-192k with it sounding great - would still probably drop to mono for 64k tho), but mp3pro's / wma's methods for disguising their raw lack of quality and making it seem a bit better to the casual listener actually destroy audio information quite badly. At that rate, mp3pro does not encode any frequencies above ~10khz and generates the illusion of higher treble by adding various "heights" and intensities of noise above this; and IIRC it's a similar method for WMA, though it's corruptive effect is more striking. Neither have a decent stereo stage.

If you are simply leaving them on the computer and not taking them anywhere then use one of the lossless codecs mentioned earlier - though be warned I don't think there is too much portable player support for those.

it is a good choice, if absolute bitwise PCM fidelity is required. still wasteful otherwise though.
(the rest of the advice passes the "no AUGGHH" test )

Experiment and see what you like - but don't dump "original" files without backing them up first or putting them on removable media you can access later.

always a good idea.... except the original problem here is that the HD is getting full and the burner is broken...

[DereX888]

I agree mp3PRO is a miss rather than hit.
Aside from its comparatively low quality and being a 'dead format' (AFAIK Thomson abandoned it completely few years ago) there is a handful of devices supporting it.

IMHO the best doable solution is to find another hard drive(s) - if new ones are too expensive for OP's budget, second-hand ones should suffice - and start moving/storing it there...





Bad Yoda! ( = Darth Yoda? )