Question About Converting WMA (313kps) to WAV or MP3

[George]

I know how to do this, but what I need to know is which will get me better SQ?

Converting to 320 MP3 or WAV?

If the same, I plan to save as MP3, since the file will be much smaller. 

[Gustav]

I know how to do this, but what I need to know is which will get me better SQ?

Converting to 320 MP3 or WAV?

If the same, I plan to save as MP3, since the file will be much smaller. 

wait your original file is wma? then, Mp3

[George]

wait your original file is wma? then, Mp3

Yes.

Right, so no info lost, since the original is 313 K and the converted format is 320 MP3?

[orbital]

As a habit, when making conversions between compressed formats, I always use WAV as an intermediary then delete it. It is perhaps completely unnecessary, but I feel more comfortable that way.

[George]

As a habit, when making conversions between compressed formats, I always use WAV as an intermediary then delete it. It is perhaps completely unnecessary, but I feel more comfortable that way.

Otherwise you agree with the above?

If I were to do it the way you suggest, I would convert WMA to WAV then that WAV to High Bitrate MP3?

[orbital]

Otherwise you agree with the above?

If I were to do it the way you suggest, I would convert WMA to WAV then that WAV to High Bitrate MP3?

Yes, and yes.
I mean I don't know the converter you use, but theoritically there should not be any loss of information. But still, different formats may use different compressing techniques, so the information lost on WAV WMA may not exactly be the same information that would be lost on mp3. So I figure that using a WAV in between would not hurt  you can delete the WAV file right after you convert it to 320 mp3.

edit:correction

[George]

As a habit, when making conversions between compressed formats, I always use WAV as an intermediary then delete it. It is perhaps completely unnecessary, but I feel more comfortable that way.

interesting...

I just tried your way (WMA>WAV>MP3) this yielded a 9 MB file.

My original conversion (WMA>MP3) yielded a 9 MB file.

[George]

Yes, and yes.
I mean I don't know the converter you use, but theoritically there should not be any loss of information.

I am using switch.

But still, different formats may use different compressing techniques, so the information lost on WAV WMA may not exactly be the same information that would be lost on mp3. So I figure that using a WAV in between would not hurt  you can delete the WAV file right after you convert it to 320 mp3.

edit:correction

OK, I'll use the Mp3 created from the WAV then. I think I finally get what you are saying here. 

[orbital]

interesting...

I just tried your way (WMA>WAV>MP3) this yielded a 9 MB file.

My original conversion (WMA>MP3) yielded a 9 MB file.

I am curious too, are they exactly the same (or very close) in kilobyte sizes?

As I said, it is probably an unnecessary two-step process but it does not hurt.

[George]

I am curious too, are they exactly the same (or very close) in kilobyte sizes?

As I said, it is probably an unnecessary two-step process but it does not hurt.

When I right click on the files, I get for both a reading of 9,394,676 bytes. 

[Iconito]

George: EVERY time you recompress a file (with a lossy format, that is) you degrade quality, so it's guaranteed that your 320 Kbps MP3 will be worse than your original 313 Kbps WMA. If your primary concern is quality, then go for an uncompressed WAV (although an MP3 could be fine. You could just try and let your ears decide... But if you go for an MP3, note that the "in between WAV" effectively makes no difference at all, so save you the time)

[71 dB]

Right, so no info lost, since the original is 313 K and the converted format is 320 MP3?

You can't think that way because WMA and MP3 allocates bits differently. The result will be worse than your original WMA. Like Iconito said, everytime you convert the quality suffers. The coding errors cumulate. It's the same as if you take analog copies of copies of copies...

[George]

You can't think that way because WMA and MP3 allocates bits differently. The result will be worse than your original WMA. Like Iconito said, everytime you convert the quality suffers. The coding errors cumulate. It's the same as if you take analog copies of copies of copies...

Except when converting to WAV, right?

[Iconito]

Except when converting to WAV, right?

Except when converting to uncompressed WAV, yes (or any other lossless format)

[George]

Except when converting to uncompressed WAV, yes (or any other lossless format)

Thanks.

[71 dB]

Except when converting to WAV, right?

Yes, converting to WAV gives you the WMA quality because it is 100% copy of it, just using more (redundant) bits.

Convertion

WAV => 192 kbps MP3

gives probably better sound than

WAV => 320 kbps MP3 => 256 kbps MP3

This is something all people don't realise. 

[George]

Thanks !!

[drogulus]

    The best practice is to keep a lossless archive like WMA Lossless, FLAC, Apple Lossless (ALAC), or any of several other lossless formats, and make all your lossy files from the archive. That way you don't have the cumulative error problem. However, if you do need to convert a compressed file to another format use a very high bit rate. I've done this with 256 kbps mp3s, using AAC at ~300-350 kbps to produce files of roughly equivalent quality. I only do it for files that have no lossless original.

[George]

    The best practice is to keep a lossless archive like WMA Lossless, FLAC, Apple Lossless (ALAC), or any of several other lossless formats, and make all your lossy files from the archive.

I'm guessing that WAV counts as a lossless format?

Yes, I'm a beginner to this stuff.

[Iconito]

I'm guessing that WAV counts as a lossless format?

That depends on you, actually...

From Wikipedia: "Though a WAV file can hold compressed audio, the most common WAV format contains uncompressed audio in the pulse-code modulation (PCM) format. PCM audio is the standard audio file format for CDs, containing two channels of 44,100 samples per second, 16 bits per sample. Since PCM uses an uncompressed, lossless storage method, which keeps all the samples of an audio track, professional users or audio experts may use the WAV format for maximum audio quality"

So we know now that a WAV file can hold compressed audio... Just don't do that. And note that the above text might make you think that PCM works only at 44,100 Khz, 16 bits stereo, which is not true. You could perfectly create, for instance, a 11,025 Khz, 8 bits mono file... Don't do that either.

To summarize: When creating a WAV file, be sure to choose PCM, 44,100 Khz, 16 bits stereo in your program's format (or "codec", or "compression" or "output" or whatever your program calls it) option, and you'll end up with an exact copy of the original file/CD.