Converting iTunes files to .mp3

[exilera]

I haven't found anything in the licencing agreement that specifically states you cannot convert the .m4p files from iTunes to .mp3. After all, you paid a buck for a song, you should be able to convert it. Is there any way to do this? It seems normal converter programs do not work. Burning to a CD and back again to .mp3 is an option, but I'd rather not waste a CD whenever I buy a new song.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Here.

 

[Gurck]

Converting from one lossy format to another will result in a noticeable loss of quality.

 

[exilera]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Converting from one lossy format to another will result in a noticeable loss of quality.

What would you suggest then? iTunes only saves files in a .m4p format.


I wish emusic.com had more mainstream stuff; that's an ideal site ($.25 per download and saves as .mp3!).

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: exilera

Originally posted by: Gurck
Converting from one lossy format to another will result in a noticeable loss of quality.

What would you suggest then? iTunes only saves files in a .m4p format.


I wish emusic.com had more mainstream stuff; that's an ideal site ($.25 per download and saves as .mp3!).

I thought you could buy apple lossless from the itunes store?

 

[abaez]

What basically I did was create an audio cd from whatever I downloaded then rip back to mp3.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: exilera

Originally posted by: Gurck
Converting from one lossy format to another will result in a noticeable loss of quality.

What would you suggest then? iTunes only saves files in a .m4p format.


I wish emusic.com had more mainstream stuff; that's an ideal site ($.25 per download and saves as .mp3!).

I thought you could buy apple lossless from the itunes store?

Unfortunately not. While I disagree with your sentiments regarding the iPod, I will wholeheartedly assert that the iTMS needs work (as do all legal online music distribution networks), specifically in the arena of getting lossless audio. I want CD quality for my $1/song, and bandwidth being slim is a poor excuse considering bandwidth is a tiny fraction of the price of that song.

As far as the OP goes, just use a CD-RW for that job or strip the copy protection via other means and then convert. Unfortunately, any other method of circumventing the copy protection outside of the burn and re-rip will technically be illegal as you'll be cracking the encryption. As always, lossy to lossy is not recommended.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Unfortunately not. While I disagree with your sentiments regarding the iPod, I will wholeheartedly assert that the iTMS needs work (as do all legal online music distribution networks), specifically in the arena of getting lossless audio. I want CD quality for my $1/song, and bandwidth being slim is a poor excuse considering bandwidth is a tiny fraction of the price of that song.

How does the file size compare between lossless and lossy?

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Unfortunately not. While I disagree with your sentiments regarding the iPod, I will wholeheartedly assert that the iTMS needs work (as do all legal online music distribution networks), specifically in the arena of getting lossless audio. I want CD quality for my $1/song, and bandwidth being slim is a poor excuse considering bandwidth is a tiny fraction of the price of that song.

How does the file size compare between lossless and lossy?

Quite a bit larger. Figure about 60% of the original, non-compressed file for lossless. Lossy is whatever you want the bitrate to be, so you can calculate the difference. But even a 320kbps MP3 (what mp3 maxes out at IIRC) will likely be 1/2 the size of a typical lossless file. Lossless is great for archiving and transcoding, and that's why I prefer it.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Unfortunately not. While I disagree with your sentiments regarding the iPod, I will wholeheartedly assert that the iTMS needs work (as do all legal online music distribution networks), specifically in the arena of getting lossless audio. I want CD quality for my $1/song, and bandwidth being slim is a poor excuse considering bandwidth is a tiny fraction of the price of that song.

How does the file size compare between lossless and lossy?

Quite a bit larger. Figure about 60% of the original, non-compressed file for lossless. Lossy is whatever you want the bitrate to be, so you can calculate the difference. But even a 320kbps MP3 (what mp3 maxes out at IIRC) will likely be 1/2 the size of a typical lossless file. Lossless is great for archiving and transcoding, and that's why I prefer it.

Ok, so bandwidth _is_ really an issue.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Unfortunately not. While I disagree with your sentiments regarding the iPod, I will wholeheartedly assert that the iTMS needs work (as do all legal online music distribution networks), specifically in the arena of getting lossless audio. I want CD quality for my $1/song, and bandwidth being slim is a poor excuse considering bandwidth is a tiny fraction of the price of that song.

How does the file size compare between lossless and lossy?

Quite a bit larger. Figure about 60% of the original, non-compressed file for lossless. Lossy is whatever you want the bitrate to be, so you can calculate the difference. But even a 320kbps MP3 (what mp3 maxes out at IIRC) will likely be 1/2 the size of a typical lossless file. Lossless is great for archiving and transcoding, and that's why I prefer it.

Ok, so bandwidth _is_ really an issue.

No, it really isn't. You're paying $1/song. At that price, that song should be identical in quality to the CD version, especially considering you have no physical product in your hand. Bandwidth is cheap, and there should be an option for lossless for broadband users (but they do need to keep lossy as an option for dialup folks). Apple provides very large HD clips of movie trailers completely free. There is no reason why music you pay for should be hobbled in sound quality. Admittedly, not all of this is Apple's fault. I'm sure the RIAA has draconian restrictions due to some misguided anti-piracy mindset.

 

[HJB417]

http://www.hymn-project.org/jhymndoc/

also, are you on windows, mac or other?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Unfortunately not. While I disagree with your sentiments regarding the iPod, I will wholeheartedly assert that the iTMS needs work (as do all legal online music distribution networks), specifically in the arena of getting lossless audio. I want CD quality for my $1/song, and bandwidth being slim is a poor excuse considering bandwidth is a tiny fraction of the price of that song.

How does the file size compare between lossless and lossy?

Quite a bit larger. Figure about 60% of the original, non-compressed file for lossless. Lossy is whatever you want the bitrate to be, so you can calculate the difference. But even a 320kbps MP3 (what mp3 maxes out at IIRC) will likely be 1/2 the size of a typical lossless file. Lossless is great for archiving and transcoding, and that's why I prefer it.

Ok, so bandwidth _is_ really an issue.

No, it really isn't. You're paying $1/song. At that price, that song should be identical in quality to the CD version, especially considering you have no physical product in your hand. Bandwidth is cheap, and there should be an option for lossless for broadband users (but they do need to keep lossy as an option for dialup folks). Apple provides very large HD clips of movie trailers completely free. There is no reason why music you pay for should be hobbled in sound quality. Admittedly, not all of this is Apple's fault. I'm sure the RIAA has draconian restrictions due to some misguided anti-piracy mindset.

Bandwidth isn't cheap.

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Unfortunately not. While I disagree with your sentiments regarding the iPod, I will wholeheartedly assert that the iTMS needs work (as do all legal online music distribution networks), specifically in the arena of getting lossless audio. I want CD quality for my $1/song, and bandwidth being slim is a poor excuse considering bandwidth is a tiny fraction of the price of that song.

How does the file size compare between lossless and lossy?

Quite a bit larger. Figure about 60% of the original, non-compressed file for lossless. Lossy is whatever you want the bitrate to be, so you can calculate the difference. But even a 320kbps MP3 (what mp3 maxes out at IIRC) will likely be 1/2 the size of a typical lossless file. Lossless is great for archiving and transcoding, and that's why I prefer it.

Ok, so bandwidth _is_ really an issue.

No, it really isn't. You're paying $1/song. At that price, that song should be identical in quality to the CD version, especially considering you have no physical product in your hand. Bandwidth is cheap, and there should be an option for lossless for broadband users (but they do need to keep lossy as an option for dialup folks). Apple provides very large HD clips of movie trailers completely free. There is no reason why music you pay for should be hobbled in sound quality. Admittedly, not all of this is Apple's fault. I'm sure the RIAA has draconian restrictions due to some misguided anti-piracy mindset.

Bandwidth isn't cheap.

Also note the percentage of uses still on Dialup.. I dont know the number, but im sure its still over 60%.

Downloading a 30-40meg music file on dialup is not the most fun task..

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: dawks

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Unfortunately not. While I disagree with your sentiments regarding the iPod, I will wholeheartedly assert that the iTMS needs work (as do all legal online music distribution networks), specifically in the arena of getting lossless audio. I want CD quality for my $1/song, and bandwidth being slim is a poor excuse considering bandwidth is a tiny fraction of the price of that song.

How does the file size compare between lossless and lossy?

Quite a bit larger. Figure about 60% of the original, non-compressed file for lossless. Lossy is whatever you want the bitrate to be, so you can calculate the difference. But even a 320kbps MP3 (what mp3 maxes out at IIRC) will likely be 1/2 the size of a typical lossless file. Lossless is great for archiving and transcoding, and that's why I prefer it.

Ok, so bandwidth _is_ really an issue.

No, it really isn't. You're paying $1/song. At that price, that song should be identical in quality to the CD version, especially considering you have no physical product in your hand. Bandwidth is cheap, and there should be an option for lossless for broadband users (but they do need to keep lossy as an option for dialup folks). Apple provides very large HD clips of movie trailers completely free. There is no reason why music you pay for should be hobbled in sound quality. Admittedly, not all of this is Apple's fault. I'm sure the RIAA has draconian restrictions due to some misguided anti-piracy mindset.

Bandwidth isn't cheap.

Also note the percentage of uses still on Dialup.. I dont know the number, but im sure its still over 60%.

Downloading a 30-40meg music file on dialup is not the most fun task..

That's why I said they should still offer lossy as an option.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
That's why I said they should still offer lossy as an option.

And you have a lossless option: Buy the cd.

Normal people don't give a shit.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
That's why I said they should still offer lossy as an option.

And you have a lossless option: Buy the cd.

Normal people don't give a shit.

I'd beg to differ. I'm sure that if the advantages of a lossless option were presented, or if somebody compared a 128 kbps AAC file to a CD, the lossless would clearly be preferred. As it stands, iTMS is offering inferior quality audio at roughly the same price of a store bought CD (when whole album cost is considered). Sure, the convenience of delivery is there. What we need is convenience of delivery AND the same quality. Rather than making the consumer accept some pretty damning trade-offs to get legal online music, they should make the product speak for itself in quality terms.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
I'd beg to differ. I'm sure that if the advantages of a lossless option were presented, or if somebody compared a 128 kbps AAC file to a CD, the lossless would clearly be preferred. As it stands, iTMS is offering inferior quality audio at roughly the same price of a store bought CD (when whole album cost is considered). Sure, the convenience of delivery is there. What we need is convenience of delivery AND the same quality. Rather than making the consumer accept some pretty damning trade-offs to get legal online music, they should make the product speak for itself in quality terms.

I don't think most people would be able to tell the difference in most tracks.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
I'd beg to differ. I'm sure that if the advantages of a lossless option were presented, or if somebody compared a 128 kbps AAC file to a CD, the lossless would clearly be preferred. As it stands, iTMS is offering inferior quality audio at roughly the same price of a store bought CD (when whole album cost is considered). Sure, the convenience of delivery is there. What we need is convenience of delivery AND the same quality. Rather than making the consumer accept some pretty damning trade-offs to get legal online music, they should make the product speak for itself in quality terms.

I don't think most people would be able to tell the difference in most tracks.

Agreed, especially considering the POSs most people have for speakers. Proof is in the itms's success. While I personally wouldn't buy lossy-encoded music, especially at full price, I have to admire Apple's ability to milk the masses for all they're worth.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
I'd beg to differ. I'm sure that if the advantages of a lossless option were presented, or if somebody compared a 128 kbps AAC file to a CD, the lossless would clearly be preferred. As it stands, iTMS is offering inferior quality audio at roughly the same price of a store bought CD (when whole album cost is considered). Sure, the convenience of delivery is there. What we need is convenience of delivery AND the same quality. Rather than making the consumer accept some pretty damning trade-offs to get legal online music, they should make the product speak for itself in quality terms.

I don't think most people would be able to tell the difference in most tracks.

Agreed, especially considering the POSs most people have for speakers. Proof is in the itms's success. While I personally wouldn't buy lossy-encoded music, especially at full price, I have to admire Apple's ability to milk the masses for all they're worth.

To be fair, that comment about milking applies to all legal music distribution services outside of something like allofmp3 (which is on questionable grounds legally in the US anyways). The lack of lossless as an option is almost guaranteed to be a result of the RIAA politics.

 

[LASTGUY2GETPS2]

I just did this!

http://www.hymn-project.org/

Works like a charm. I just backed up my library just in case...

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
I'd beg to differ. I'm sure that if the advantages of a lossless option were presented, or if somebody compared a 128 kbps AAC file to a CD, the lossless would clearly be preferred. As it stands, iTMS is offering inferior quality audio at roughly the same price of a store bought CD (when whole album cost is considered). Sure, the convenience of delivery is there. What we need is convenience of delivery AND the same quality. Rather than making the consumer accept some pretty damning trade-offs to get legal online music, they should make the product speak for itself in quality terms.

I don't think most people would be able to tell the difference in most tracks.

Agreed, especially considering the POSs most people have for speakers. Proof is in the itms's success. While I personally wouldn't buy lossy-encoded music, especially at full price, I have to admire Apple's ability to milk the masses for all they're worth.

To be fair, that comment about milking applies to all legal music distribution services outside of something like allofmp3 (which is on questionable grounds legally in the US anyways). The lack of lossless as an option is almost guaranteed to be a result of the RIAA politics.

Maybe so, but I'm sure applying this strategy to itms was no stretch for Apple... They may have even given the RIAA a few new ideas

 

[imported_Nacelle]

I just use a wav editor to record the song while I play it with iTunes. Then Convert to mp3