Free mass mp3 converter?

I love getting various soundtracks from this site and others, but is there a FREE program that lets me reconvert their bitrates all in one batch, without having to come back to my PC every minute to confirm each mp3 or have some ad pop up?

I just wanna reconvert a bunch of OSTs for my mp3 player, 320 bitrate takes way too much space than it should on a portable earphone player...

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Converting mp3s is always a bad idea, not only for the bitrate downgrade, but also because the re-encoding process will considerably harm the audio quality.

That said, I you really want to do it, dbpoweramp is what you need. Just don't share the resulted mp3s with anyone ...

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Well I don't think Ill need super high quality when I'm listening to it on earphones on the go. And I will be backing up the ORIGINAL audio files naturally, since I do know lower bitrate = lower quality. On the go though, I want my player to hold as much songs/music as possible.

DBpoweramp I tried before I made this topic, but it said my mp3 encoder expired or something, how do I deal with that?

Most amazing jew boots

As I said, it's not only the lower bitrate, but also the fact re-encoding decreases quality in itself.

And you can either get a cracked version from some torrent, or try to find a free alternative. =p

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Thanks!

And yeah I got that, but I reencode all the time using Adobe audition, and the difference through the earphones is so minor, I can't really tell half the time. Its more evident on bigger speakers, but like I said, its just for on the go. My player is only 2 GB, and I really don't feel like investing into yet another huge 40 GB player after my Ipod froze years ago.

How ya doing, buddy?

if your mp3 player can play wma, convert it to wma instead. the size is smaller but the quality on lower bitrates is were wma stands out over mp3. Look it up if you dont believe me. I convert mp3s to wma for my pod because the base is much fuller even at 96kbps compared to mp3.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Any facts to back this up?

AFAIK this only depends on how the codec is optimized for low bitrates. I don't know if LAME is especially optimized to bitrates lower than 128kBit/s but I'm certain there is a MP3 codec out there that is.

If you want truly low bitrates you could try MP3 with SBR if your player supports it. This was promoted as mp3PRO by Coding Technologies. There is a similar solution for AAC (AAC+SBR) which compresses even better.

FELIPE NO

For low bitrates, OGG is the best way to go, but few players support it. Then comes WMA, and only MP3Pro after that.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

@niki: You also don't provide anything to back this up.

I did a search myself on hydrogen audio, which reveals this:
Results of Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps (July 2007)

So I was right, it's AAC that 'beats' everyone else.

How ya doing, buddy?

It's just a commonly admitted thing, really. Here's what I used to double check earlier though. 1 year old and doesnt include AAC, and it is sampled based, as opposed to yours which is user rating based. As always, it shows that audio quality discussions are highly subjective.

And you were still absolutely wrong about mp3pro, hehehehe.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

While numbers, waveforms and samples can determine which is techinically better, as long as it satisfies one person's hearing, it doesn't matter too much in the end, unless you're trying to do recording or various pro like sound productions.

Since my purpose was, after all, for my own personal musical amusement. But I do know what you guys mean.

Anyway, I converted the OSTs I wanted and it sounds great, thanks again guys!

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by niki

And you were still absolutely wrong about mp3pro, hehehehe.

I never really used mp3PRO anyway *g*

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Kairi Li

While numbers, waveforms and samples can determine which is techinically better, as long as it satisfies one person's hearing, it doesn't matter too much in the end, unless you're trying to do recording or various pro like sound productions.

I totally disagree. Even with lossy codecs it's the highest priority for the developer of the codec to ensure that the the difference between original waveform and decoded waveform is minimal. And of course 'difference' is measured in a precise mathematical way.
If a lossy codec was only about how 'good' it sounds to the user there would be enormous possibilities to increase compression. This is not related to psycho-acoustics which are based on the concept of human hearing and data processing in the brain (ear only has limited resolution for this frequency band, data processing tends to discard faint sounds followed by loud sound spikes, and so on).

And finally: 'good' is a subjective term. Something that you perceive als 'good' doesn't have to be 'good' for another person (this even depends on the mood the person is in).
Again psycho-acoustics tend to work well for the majority of us humans. There are of course exceptions (like always), but the whole thing is backed up by research.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by LiquidAcid

And finally: 'good' is a subjective term. Something that you perceive als 'good' doesn't have to be 'good' for another person (this even depends on the mood the person is in).

While I agree with you on the rest, I think that's mostly what she meant. Kinda like some people will *need* lossless to breathe, while others are genuinely happy with 128kbps mp3s. =)

I was speaking idiomatically.

She should have said something like:
It doesn't matter that much what codec I choose because the playback chain is limiting.

I totally accept this, because it's true: The decoders on portable players are not really accurate, the DAC is crap (try to fit some high-quality DAC into such small environment...) and the headphones are also crap (when compared to high-quality audio equipment - see shure in-ear phones).

I mean the whole point of this thread is to get more music on a portable. And I hope nobody has the expectations to get everything out of their FLACed albums with a portable *gg*
It simply won't work.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Yeah, LiquidAcid, we get it. Big audio e-penis.

On my older flash mp3 player, it supported WMA, so I used that at 80kbps stereo. Since I use my portable player when I'm out (intended use?), there's background noise and the like, making it hard to notice artifacts. I convert from my MP3 collection (usually 170-256 range) to the WMAs.

I use my phone as my mp3 player now, and I use HE-AAC at 56kbps joint stereo. Same as above paragraph as for sound / conversion.

When I'm out, I just want to hear the music, as I'm sure Kairi Li does, along with probably every portable player owner on the planet. I couldn't care less about hearing an artifact here or there. I don't need to (and probably wouldn't anyway) be able to hear the bassist's eyelids closing while they perform, as I would at home listening on proper equipment.

On a side note, aoTuV vorbis @ 20-30kbps gives me a boner over how awesome it sounds considering the bitrate.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Roph

When I'm out, I just want to hear the music, as I'm sure Kairi Li does, along with probably every portable player owner on the planet. I couldn't care less about hearing an artifact here or there. I don't need to (and probably wouldn't anyway) be able to hear the bassist's eyelids closing while they perform, as I would at home listening on proper equipment.

ack

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I'm pretty sure foobar does this and it also has the added bonus of being a great player.

Jam it back in, in the dark.