PDA

View Full Version : Burning WAV files into CDs



frog1
06-16-2005, 01:15 AM
I have many wav files from my audio lectures, most of them are around 60 minutes in length and 65 MB in size. I would like to burn them into CDs so that I can play them with my CD walkman.

If I burn them as audio CDs, one standard CD-R disc can only accomodate 1 wav file of mine.

If I burn them as data CDs, I can burn 10 such files into one CD-R disc but such data CDs can not be played on my CD walkman.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

jscheuer1
06-16-2005, 09:57 PM
There are walkman type CD players that can play data CD's. Riovolt is one brand. Make sure it is rated for mp3 and windows media. Even with such a player, you will fit more onto a data CD by converting to .mp3 format.

djr33
01-07-2008, 06:59 AM
Best idea is to make an actual audio cd that will be playable in anything. Many programs can do this, such as itunes (free, though not exactly freeware), and likely many freeware/shareware apps you could try/use.
MP3s would be fine, but only for some players and you'd need to convert anyway... so... just make an audio CD, I'd say.

jscheuer1
01-07-2008, 07:09 AM
Hi,
I have found a great [broken off topic link removed] service provider when I need to make lot of copy of any particular CD and it works very well for me. it works very well for me. you can get lot of copy of your CD in short of time. Good luck.

This was not the question, the OP of this rather old thread only wanted to burn CD's for his/her own use, besides - your link was broken anyway, it went nowhere.


Best idea is to make an actual audio cd that will be playable in anything. Many programs can do this, such as itunes (free, though not exactly freeware), and likely many freeware/shareware apps you could try/use.
MP3s would be fine, but only for some players and you'd need to convert anyway... so... just make an audio CD, I'd say.

How does this help with:


If I burn them as audio CDs, one standard CD-R disc can only accomodate 1 wav file of mine.
??

tech_support
01-07-2008, 09:17 AM
Wav files take up a lot of space. If you make it an audio CD, I think it'll only count the minutes, not the MB's.

djr33
01-07-2008, 10:08 AM
Audio CDs use the AIFF format, and a special setting within that. A wav file is uncompressed audio (generally), and that is bound to be large. Just like a DVD movie which isn't just the raw video data, the audio on a CD is in fact somewhat compressed, but not in a very lossy way. Storing a raw wav is neither useful nor efficient in terms of listening to it, so it's much better to use a program that will *automatically* convert the data to Aiff (standard format for CDs) and burn a disc that will be playable in any CD player. (A few really old players don't like burned discs and will only play professionally produced discs, but those are very rare now.)

Yes, it sounds "minutes", but also megabytes. That 74 minute limit (or whatever it is, as it varies per CD format-- is it 80 now?) is based on the datarate of the aiff format. So, sure, minutes more than size, if you're automatically converting. Using mp3 has a slight advantage there (though NOT in compatibility) in that it will be able to fit more songs on a disc as mp3 compresses to a smaller size (at more, though not very noticable, quality loss) than aiff.

jscheuer1
01-07-2008, 03:02 PM
Wav files take up a lot of space. If you make it an audio CD, I think it'll only count the minutes, not the MB's.

Looks like this old 2005 thread has been resurrected due to a now deleted post by yerveries who it appears is no longer a user (banned). However, there seems to be a bit of misinformation being offered so I will try to clarify.

First of all, for a spoken word type CD, as was originally mentioned here, .wav need not necessarily be all that large. It's quality can be reduced and it can be made monaural. If compression is desired though, mp3 is the most universally supported format.

Yes, it's true that an audio CD will be the most universally supported format in common CD players. However, the aiff or whatever it is called is rated as minutes per CD, regardless of quality, not bytes. And there are players that support mp3 and wav, even other formats. Even at a very high quality, mp3 will take less room on the disk than burning it as an audio disk.

This is not just theoretical here. I suggested the riovolt (and others) to frog1 because I have one. It is a small walkman type player. If I burn my own compilation CD's for it in high quality mp3 format, I can fit hours and hours of music on one disk. My biggest problem is often finding enough songs that really go together to put on one disk, not fitting those few 'must haves' into 80 or less minutes (this varies by burner, some will only allow 74, audio disks could always technically fit 80 minutes - it just isn't advised). This has several advantages over dealing with a large multi-disk changer. Aside from cost and size of both the player and the media, I can shuffle all of the tunes easily, rather than just one disk at a time. The larger multi-disk player would also most likely use more energy and be more prone to requiring servicing or replacement. The small 'Rio' can also handle the common audio CD's in my collection.

So for one person's use, it should be obvious that to carry around his/her old lectures on disk for personal use, something like the 'Rio', using a compressed format like mp3 would be a real advantage, if 'as the caller says' they want to fit as many as possible on one disk.

djr33
01-09-2008, 01:51 AM
mp3 is the most universally supported format.Simply wrong. All devices (computers [nearly all media players therein as well], dvd players, and all CD players) will play a standard audio format.
mp3 IS smaller, and it will also work well for portable mp3 players, but not when the desired output is a CD. The only use for mp3 is stuffing more info on a particular CD, and that is only useful when the particular player is mp3-compatible, which is far from all (and then limited to that and other mp3 compatible cd players).

As for that being the most efficient... no, it's not. CDs are by now an outdated format and their only real use is: or 2. if you happen to have an mp3 compatible player, go for mp3-- fine. But otherwise, just go for an actual mp3 player*, like the ever popular ipod or any number of similar devices. There's a reason they're so popular-- convenient, easy, no discs to deal with, and an incredible number of songs can be stored. MUCH more efficient than any compression ratio with CDs. Perhaps DVDs burned with mp3s could put up a fit in that argument (or bluray would be interesting), but such players do not exist to my knowledge. Plus, not having the discs around is perhaps the best part. mini-disc players became popular because they were smaller and more efficient than CDs, but they quickly died out in favor of the even better mp3 player.

*Note, though, that mp3 is also an old and outdated format. Now, AAC is up there among the best, or there are other formats that might get it even smaller, at the loss of a bit more quality. AAC is what itunes uses, and I now use that for the soundtracks to any video clips I release on the internet. Great quality, tiny bitrate.

WAVs can be compressed, but not too well (even though the original design of the format was uncompressed media storage). Anyway, it's irrelevant, as they aren't designed to work on portable devices in general.

As for this thread being three years old now, well, evil spammer, I say. But an interesting discussion nonetheless.

jscheuer1
01-09-2008, 02:39 AM
If compression is desired though, mp3 is the most universally supported format.




mp3 is the most universally supported format.Simply wrong.

Try to restrain yourself from quoting out of context. My information is correct as regards the original question, when it was posed.

However, feel free to use whatever you like for your private collection of your own recorded lectures that you wish to listen to on a Walkman type device. :).

djr33
01-09-2008, 03:11 AM
No, I meant this in terms of CDs. I'm not claiming you meant that as a format for anything in general.

For YOUR personal situation I do agree that mp3 on CD makes sense, but that category is by far a minority of people today.

jscheuer1
01-09-2008, 04:40 AM
I also addressed the original question. CD's, for instance, may be outdated, but hardly outmoded - and in 2005 when this question was asked, were the media of choice for this question. Without going to some alternative file format and supporting player, frog1 could never overcome the time constraint problem of the audio CD and still use CD's.

I only mentioned my particular use of these techniques to emphasize how efficient they are when compared to the normal way of utilizing CD's, and to show that I wasn't just talking theory.

djr33
01-09-2008, 04:47 AM
Well, if we're discussing it now anyway, might as well consider the updates. In 2005 mp3 players had not caught on, true. Still though, mp3 on CD was NOT the most compatible. It was more efficient, yet.

jscheuer1
01-09-2008, 05:25 AM
We wouldn't even be discussing it now if some, now deleted, spammer hadn't brought this thread back to life. That doesn't change the fact that you quoted me out of context, a context that also included going beyond the normally supported file format for CD's and then told me that I was 'simply wrong', which wasn't even the case. Would an apology for that be out of the question?

djr33
01-09-2008, 06:09 AM
You WERE wrong. It was not intended to be out of context. I hate when people copy/quote an entire post, so I just chose the relevant portion to show you to which part I was referring, not to have you re-read what you wrote.


First of all, for a spoken word type CD, as was originally mentioned here, .wav need not necessarily be all that large. It's quality can be reduced and it can be made monaural. If compression is desired though, mp3 is the most universally supported format. [... (And including the rest of the post.)]
In no sense is mp3 the most universally supported format, except for mp3 devices. CD players MAY have mp3 available. They may not. Therefore, aiff is MUCH MUCH more supported.

jscheuer1
01-09-2008, 07:10 AM
OK, we will have to agree to disagree then. You believe I am wrong, I believe you are wrong in saying so.

djr33
01-09-2008, 10:12 AM
I'm wrong to say you're wrong, yet I don't hear you saying still that mp3 is the most compatible format for CD players. Did I misread something?

jscheuer1
01-09-2008, 02:35 PM
I think you did. I said mp3 was the most supported format for compressed audio. The fact that it can be used on CD's which can later be played on devices (many that are Walkman like), was a separate concept. That's what I meant when I referred to being taken out of context.

Please review the entire thread. I can see how just skimming it might lead one to believe I was saying otherwise. But if you actually read my posts, I don't see how you could think I was saying that.

BLiZZaRD
01-09-2008, 07:58 PM
Do I need to make pop corn and charge admission for this?

boxxertrumps
01-10-2008, 01:03 AM
It would be a profitable venture.

jscheuer1
01-10-2008, 02:15 AM
All this because some now banned spammer's deleted post in this ancient thread brought it to the top here in 2008?

I do dislike being quoted out of context though. Generally I would let that go or be less adamant about it, but being labeled wrong at the same time - just a little more than I am willing to let slide by.

Does anyone reading this entire thread seriously think, as djr33 has so far maintained, that I asserted mp3 as the most widely supported file format for CD's??!

tech_support
01-10-2008, 03:02 AM
All this because some now banned spammer's deleted post in this ancient thread brought it to the top here in 2008?
If you left the thread alone, it would've died off.


However, there seems to be a bit of misinformation being offered so I will try to clarify.

...if you actually read my posts...
That was just a slap in the face. You're basically saying that you're right, and we're wrong. Behave John. Keep your thoughts to yourself.

...labeled wrong at the same time...
Er, you're currently saying that djr33 is wrong. You're getting your own treatment here.


First of all, for a spoken word type CD, as was originally mentioned here, .wav need not necessarily be all that large. It's quality can be reduced and it can be made monaural. If compression is desired though, mp3 is the most universally supported format.
So you're basically saying for a CD, mp3 is the most universally supported format. That's how I read it.

jscheuer1
01-10-2008, 03:33 AM
If you left the thread alone, it would've died off.

That's true but, with the misinformation remaining on top.


That was just a slap in the face. You're basically saying that you're right, and we're wrong. Behave John. Keep your thoughts to yourself.

I believe I am correct here though.


So you're basically saying for a CD, mp3 is the most universally supported format. That's how I read it.

I believe you have read wrong. Where did I say that?

djr33
01-10-2008, 11:41 AM
I read every word of your posts.

You say that you are responding to the original intent of the poster, who was asking about BURNING CDs, nothing to do with the most compatible digital format in general.
When you that "mp3 is the most compatible" in a thread titled "Burning WAV files into CDs", how should one not interpret that as the most compatible... [for CDs], especially after you say you are specifically responding to the original question?

jscheuer1
01-10-2008, 01:34 PM
Looks like this old 2005 thread has been resurrected due to a now deleted post by yerveries who it appears is no longer a user (banned). However, there seems to be a bit of misinformation being offered so I will try to clarify.

First of all, for a spoken word type CD, as was originally mentioned here, .wav need not necessarily be all that large. It's quality can be reduced and it can be made monaural. If compression is desired though, mp3 is the most universally supported format.

Yes, it's true that an audio CD will be the most universally supported format in common CD players. However, the aiff or whatever it is called is rated as minutes per CD, regardless of quality, not bytes. And there are players that support mp3 and wav, even other formats. Even at a very high quality, mp3 will take less room on the disk than burning it as an audio disk.

This is not just theoretical here. I suggested the riovolt (and others) to frog1 because I have one. It is a small walkman type player. If I burn my own compilation CD's for it in high quality mp3 format, I can fit hours and hours of music on one disk. My biggest problem is often finding enough songs that really go together to put on one disk, not fitting those few 'must haves' into 80 or less minutes (this varies by burner, some will only allow 74, audio disks could always technically fit 80 minutes - it just isn't advised). This has several advantages over dealing with a large multi-disk changer. Aside from cost and size of both the player and the media, I can shuffle all of the tunes easily, rather than just one disk at a time. The larger multi-disk player would also most likely use more energy and be more prone to requiring servicing or replacement. The small 'Rio' can also handle the common audio CD's in my collection.

So for one person's use, it should be obvious that to carry around his/her old lectures on disk for personal use, something like the 'Rio', using a compressed format like mp3 would be a real advantage, if 'as the caller says' they want to fit as many as possible on one disk.

Now, a sane person can read that and think I am saying mp3 is the most universally supported format for CD? I think not. End of discussion - at least as far as I am concerned.

djr33
01-10-2008, 03:22 PM
Well, now that you have explained what you meant, I can certainly see how you intended that. However, it wasn't clear upon reading it the first time. This reminds me now, ironically, of a discussion we had of diction.
Anyway, this discussion was fairly extraneous, and I'd be fine if you'd like to simply remove our posts and let this drop back down to '05.
Anyway, no harm intended.