Convert MP3 file to WAV in Mac Mini

houston,

Formats:

WAV and AIFF should sound identical to the orightincal CD. both are 1 to 1 copies of original (if CD). in iTunes, AIFF has the advantage of linking cover art -where WAV will not allow that.
.
"Apple lossless" will be nearly identical to the original but will be about 60-70% file size.
.
AAC is a compressed so data is thrown away. In a system that is very detailed the 320kbps setting soundsvery good. the 128bps sounds OK.

On a MacMini in iTunes, your best bet next to WAV is Apple Lossless. Supposedly it is a lossless compression scheme (so no data is lost), while, as already pointed out, it takes up practically half the space of a WAV file. If you want to find out which is best for your system+room+music+ears just rip a few different cuts in the various formats and have someone else play them back for you taking note of your observations to see if you can tell the difference...or just play them back yourself.

Houstonreef, are you saying that a WAV file of an MP3 source sounds better to you than the original MP3?
Forgive me if I am stating the obvious, but it's the quality of the source material that defines how good any given file format (native or lossless) will sound. Furthermore, MP3 and AAC are lossy formats which subtract data from the full resolution source. Ideally, you should rip from CD to WAV, AIFF (for Mac), FLAC, or ALL (for Mac). The last two are lossless compression formats, and are bit perfect.

In a previous thread, "Lossy to Lossless" I reported that when I converted some old MP3s to Apples Lossless, they sounded better. I have not done any blind tests, but have converted about 50 of them and listened to most several times. I stand by my original claim. The MP3s I have converted to Apple Lossless have better definition and sound punchier.

They do not sound as good as CDs ripped directly to Apple Lossless. And I know nothing is being added, or necesarily taken away, they are still lossy files.

In the previous thread referred to above, Mlsstl suggested it might be that, in my system, the codec that converts Apple Lossless to audio is different, and maybe better, than the codec that converts MP3 to audio. I tend to think this may be the case. But am wondering what others think.

Also, is it true that converting an MP3 to Apple Lossless would always make it sound worse than the original MP3?

In a previous thread, "Lossy to Lossless" I reported that when I converted some old MP3s to Apples Lossless, they sounded better. I have not done any blind tests, but have converted about 50 of them and listened to most several times. I stand by my original claim. The MP3s I have converted to Apple Lossless have better definition and sound punchier.

If it sounds better to YOU, that's where it should end for YOU. Why would it make any difference what others think?

Responding for myself; I said the conversion MAY sound worse. You are asking the software to fill in all of the information that has been stripped of the file in the first place, without any access to that information. In doing so it basically makes up all the stuff that it's adding based upon what is already there in the highly compressed version. If you can live with that, and it sounds better to you, have at it.

I cannot imagine why anyone would do that unless the mp3 was all they had access to (as in a file straight off the Internet from iTunes). I don't buy any music that way. If there is music that interests me I'll buy the disc and rip the files in a lossless format. Disc space is cheap and my iPod holds 60gb of music so I find no reason to compromise the music for the minor convenience of downloading.

On another note pertinent to the original query; I'm pretty sure that WAV files do not support tagging so you may lose some of the metadata like album artwork in doing that conversion. Apple Lossless does support metadata so that would not be an issue. I'm not entirely clear on this issue so someone with more knowledge should chime in.