Paying the additional $$ for .WAV files seems ridiculous to me. Is there a way to convert the mp3's LANDR sends you to a .WAV so I can burn a CD, so I can listen to it in my car and on other systems?
 
Does this conversion impact the audio quality any? I've seen 3rd party converters online, but just wondered if these are legit and actually work good.
 
Any other suggestions on mp3 to .wav conversion would be greatly appreciated.
 
~Jeff

You could simply pull an mp3 into a new project in SONAR, and SONAR will convert it to the project sample rate/bit depth; then export it (or just grab it from the project audio folder TBH, since you are not processing it further).
 
Not an elegant "batch conversion" method, but not overly painful.
 
Edit: Just be sure you have "copy audio to project folder" checked on import; and if for a CD, set the project to 16/44.1K.
 
Edit2: Actually the project audio is 32-bit float (wav) after that import.

You can convert the format, but you can never get back the higher quality of a WAV version; that's really what you're paying the extra for.

Yeah, I thought about that. I didn't know I could import mp3's into Sonar. Will try when I get home. That works for me!
 
Thanks Mett!
 
P.S......If this is so easy, why is LANDR charging so much for wav's?
 
As an aside.....the master I received from LANDR was surprisingly good. The "High" was way too much (unlistenable), but the "Medium" setting sounded really good. For me personally, as I've only been at this for a year now, it really gives me an idea of how my mix sounds (too much low end, etc, etc). So now that I hear that, it's much more easy to fine tune my mix.

I think you just answered my P.S question, John. Makes sense.
 
Thanks.

That topic comes up from time to time, but mp3 is "effectively 20-bit" so going to a 16-bit medium for final isn't losing much as long as the initial bit-rate on the mp3 is good (not sure what LANDR is using though).

Bit depth isn't really the issue with mp3s.

Hey Jeff.  It is the lossy data compression of the MP3 format and the possibility of digital artifacts that is the issue, so you have already lost quality.  That said, every formal blind study conducted has suggested that at the higher bit rates (256+),  surprisingly no one could tell the difference. 
Here's the press summary from a McGill University study  in 2009:
http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pdf
 

Yeah, I'm no mp3 snob. I think mp3 is a good format.
 
What it's not, though, in any sense, is a master format. All streaming services and download services will do all kinds of wacky encoding and transcoding. And the best bet, in all cases, is to deliver a high quality lossless master. Whatever happens downstream will happen. But you want to start from the best position possible.

John T
Yeah, I'm no mp3 snob. I think mp3 is a good format.
 
What it's not, though, in any sense, is a master format. All streaming services and download services will do all kinds of wacky encoding and transcoding. And the best bet, in all cases, is to deliver a high quality lossless master. Whatever happens downstream will happen. But you want to start from the best position possible.

+1 John. Perfect summary.