24 個の投稿 / 0 new
最終投稿
#1 2017-11-15 09:04

Where to download WAV files?

Hello :D Is there a link somewhere where i can download WAV files to use for my videos?
Thank you :D

2017-11-15 18:04

WAV files containing what? Voices, music, sound effects?

You could just install Audacity, put MP3 files onto it, and export it to WAV file

2017-11-15 18:20

Use YouTube video downloader to dl them as MP4 and convert them to wav.
There are several options to do that. I use an old version of format factory.

2017-11-15 18:45

i use a site called Online Video Converter to convert youtube videos into the wav files
but i have to say this, use it with caution, it can sometimes have annoying popups if you go back a page to convert again, so i just close it then reload the page again instead of clicking the button then have to convert again

2017-11-15 19:45

With Complete Youtube Saver, there's an option to save a WAV file directly while viewing the video. Unfortunately CYS only has a plug-in for Firefox.

2017-11-16 04:24

There's also that site, Convertfiles Online, that also does the job too. Albeit a bit slow but efficient. That's the only way to convert Niconico videos to wav. Though there's very little reason to...

2017-11-17 12:22

Converting YouTube videos into .wav is super bad, because the guy who made that video had some .wav file, then he rendered it into a lossy format, then he uploaded it onto YouTube, YouTube re-encoded it into a lossy format, and then you have that file, you render it into a lossy format, and you upload it onto YouTube or wherever and it gets re-encoded into a lossy format again.

Furthermore, the guy who made that video probably got his .wav file by converting some other YouTube video into a .wav file, and whoever made that video got it by converting some other YouTube video into a .wav file, etc. By the end of the day, you get files that sound like ass, because every time it's re-encoded into a lossy format (i.e. anything other than .wav or FLAC), the quality gets worse. Especially if some idiot in the middle of that chain decides to encode it into a lower bitrate for some stupid reason.

Instead, you should just torrent (or buy if you want to do it legally) the album that has the original song, FLAC is best but 320 kbps mp3 is sufficient, and convert that into .wav. Alternatively, you can try to find a semi-professionally produced cover of the song because those might be available for free high quality download and some people might find it refreshing if you don't use the original version every time.

2017-11-17 15:13

Phew. I got a bit worried after reading four online-video-to-audio recommending posts in a row that noone would mention the quality losses that one would stumble upon while choosing this method. But since I'm lacking knowledge about the specifications myself, except recognizing that 320 kbps MP3 files generally should work pretty well, I didn't want to be the guy breaking this streak.

My best suggestion right now, apart from just pointing to Awaclus, would be checking out http://www.piapro.jp, grabbing stuff either by making an account and getting access to the download function (haven't tried this myself) or by downloading the streaming MP3 files directly by finding them through the DevTools window in Google Chrome. Unfortunately, if I remember correctly, the streaming MP3 files are of worse quality than the downloadable ones, but still in better shape than audio found on YouTube, I'd assume.

Then use Audacity to convert the desired songs into .wav files.

2017-11-18 15:55

or dont convert it into wave file at all, use the original mp3 or mp4 as sound sorce when you edit your video in programs like sony vegas or magix video

awaclus argument is true but also weak since a sound file is small, for a large 15 minutes video the sound file can take less than 30mb if a file is so small it will be copied or riped of a file or converted with allmost no quality lose. the only way to reduce a sound file quality is to convert it intentionally from a 24 bit 128.000 hz studio quality file into a 16 bit 48.000 hz streaming quality file

for example this high quality track takes less then 5mb, sound files are really small and not worth to mention unless someone reduce the quality intentionally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-h6MoF7HLA

In this case i can only say trust your ears, if a sound file sounds good than the same "quality" is what you get when you rip it off for your own video.

I am useing the freeware Free Youtube mp3 converter to take sound from a video

2017-11-18 20:04
Quote:
convert it intentionally from a 24 bit 128.000 hz studio quality file into a 16 bit 48.000 hz streaming quality file

So basically you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Bit depth and sample rate are only relevant for lossless (i.e. wav and FLAC) files, and if you go higher than 16 bits and 44.1 kHz (i.e. CD quality), not even a trained audio engineer using the best audiophile gear will be able to tell the difference. And that's assuming the audio was ever available in that quality in the first place; it's more likely that it was already mastered in CD quality so any 24-bit 128 kHz file you'll find has just been upscaled, which doesn't increase the quality at all.

For the record, 15 minutes of 16-bit 44.1 kHz audio in takes about 155 MB. 15 minutes of 24-bit 128 kHz audio takes about 646 MB. If your audio takes less than 30 MB, it's lossy, at which point you don't care about bit depth or sample rate, you just care about the bit rate and what the compression algorithm is. AAC is generally more effective than MP3; 256 kbps AAC/320 kbps MP3 are generally considered to be sufficient when you only do the compression once or maybe twice in a pinch, but the damage still adds up over time if you keep re-encoding it over and over again until you don't even have to be that aforementioned audio engineer to tell the difference.

Quote:
for example this high quality track

...is not at all high quality in reality. It's 192 kbps AAC like everything on YouTube, which is actually pretty bad and anyone can easily hear the difference between that and lossless quality if you do a direct comparison and I can actually tell just from listening to songs on YouTube without having the comparison available that the quality is audibly worse than lossless.

Quote:
In this case i can only say trust your ears, if a sound file sounds good than the same "quality" is what you get when you rip it off for your own video.

This is not entirely true either. These parts about it are true:

- if your ears can tell that a file is better than another file, it probably really is better
- if you use a better sounding file to begin with, the result will also sound better

But other than that, it's not true. Many people who don't have a lot of experience in listening to audio might listen to a low quality file and not notice that it's low quality unless they directly compare it with a higher quality file. Many people who use really crappy equipment won't be able to tell the difference even when comparing the two files because their equipment doesn't reproduce the high frequencies accurately anyway. The same is true if you have significant hearing damage and your ears can't hear the high frequencies. If you really want to be sure, check the file with a frequency analyzer — it's fine if the high frequencies look pretty natural, and it's not if there's a clear cut-off point at, say, 12 kHz or 16 kHz. If there's a clear cut-off point but it's higher than 16 k, it's less than ideal but people can live with it. There was a more in-depth guide about using frequency analysis to confirm the quality of an audio file, someone else posted it on Iwara some time ago, IIRC it was pretty accurate.

And when you rip it off for your own video, it is not going to sound the same unless you use a lossless audio codec when rendering your video. For the record, mp4 doesn't support any lossless audio codecs so as long as you use mp4, the quality gets worse for sure. And when you upload your video and the audio gets re-encoded by the streaming service, the quality gets worse again. I think Iwara doesn't do that for the "Source" quality as long as your file meets the requirements, but YouTube certainly does.

2017-11-18 22:04

yes that why i said you are right. theoretically files lose quality but in practise its so little that you can trust your ears and you dont have to bother with details. Most people doesnt have 300€ speakers so they dont have to care about high quality sound anyways. I cant tell a difference and my videos doesnt ment to be still avaible in 2050 for the future D;

http://ecchi.iwara.tv/videos/yolrqt9jdsoedy3k
the sound in this video is a copy of a copy and im quiet sure it will still work the same way in 20 years :0 for me its enough i dont have any higher expectations

2017-11-18 22:35
Quote:
theoretically files lose quality but in practise its so little

No, it sounds like shit in practice when lossy files get compressed again.

Quote:
Most people doesnt have 300€ speakers so they dont have to care about high quality sound anyways.

That's not true either. You don't need 300€ speakers to hear the artifacts of lossy compression, the sort of basic earphones that ship with your smart phone are already good enough.

Quote:
the sound in this video is a copy of a copy

And that's exactly what it sounds like. The high frequencies are weak and washed out.

Quote:
im quiet sure it will still work the same way in 20 years

Yes, that video will sound the same in 20 years (wtf are you even talking about). But if I downloaded that video, re-encoded it and uploaded it again today, it would sound even shittier than it already does.

If you don't care that your videos sound horrible, then that's your problem and I'm not particularly interested in convincing you to start caring about it. But stop giving people advice when you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

2017-11-18 23:13
Quote:
No, it sounds like shit in practice [...] If you don't care that your videos sound horrible, then that's your problem [...] And that's exactly what it sounds like. The high frequencies are weak and washed out.

you must be a speaker salesman. i have no complains about a 5mb mp3 file you are totally exaggerating D;

2017-11-18 23:22

#1 : even though i don't know where to get lossless wav format song, i only can give small tips as follows :

1> convert to wav only for sync editing in MMD. set the output video to no audio.
2> do not re-encode from lossy audio sources , any process of encode will most likely drop the quality from original source, unless that's not your concern.
3> if looking for vocaloid songs, get them from the site provided by #8 , you can also get them from many streaming sites [ quality will vary, usually lower than from that site].
4> if looking for sound effect and ambient wav , use search engine [ex:google] for : [optional:free] sound ambient effect.
5> mux your no sound video rendered from MMD with source audio channel from the song file you have.

i hope this help

~旦_(^O^ ) cheers

2017-11-18 23:26

I'm not a speaker salesman, As I said, I can use the standard Samsung earphones and your video still sounds like shit on those.

A 5 MB mp3 is fine as long as the song is no longer than 2:30 and it's being encoded directly into mp3 from the lossless source material. If you're encoding it from an mp3 that was encoded from an AAC that was encoded from an AAC that was encoded from an AAC that was encoded from a high quality mp3 that was encoded from the original CD quality file (a very realistic scenario), it'll end up sounding like your video.

2017-11-18 23:58

alltought even i wouldnt recoment smartphone speakers they have really horrible quality. get at least something in the range of 50€ with some decent ear shells than you find out my video sounds pretty k D; again i never said you are wrong. you just exagerating much.

2017-11-19 09:31
Quote:
smartphone speakers

Earphones, not speakers. I can't hear it on a smart phone speaker, but I sure can hear it on the earphones that come with one.

Quote:
get at least something in the range of 50€ with some decent ear shells than you find out my video sounds pretty k

My usual setup is AKG K-712 plugged into the headphone amp of a Focusrite Scarlett 18i8. The degradation of sound quality in your video is just as obvious with those as it is with the Samsung earphones.

And no, I'm not exaggerating. You're downplaying the issue.

2017-11-19 09:44

awalkus just ignore edd, hes talking bullshit for the sake of having someone pay attention to him, he doesn't care that you have a point

2017-11-19 14:29

I would, but I don't want someone else to read this conversation and believe what edd is saying.

2017-11-19 15:12

speakers = earphones, i wasnt make a difference. im useing only headphones

allright we leave the question whos exagerating and whos downplaying aside its everyones personal choice what sounds acceptable and what sounds allrdy bad. a video doesnt sounds bad just because you said so, you dont have that kind of comanding power D;

Guthix i have aknowledged awaclus "point" allrdy in my first reply, the following conversation was more about how much quality lose is tolerated. gtfo if you just come here to piss on my leg bro.

back to the topic question, i know only portals for download mp3 files. if you want to find some WAV files you can try to search tumblr or twitter

2017-11-20 15:17

I should compose a list of things people here can argue violently about.

...A better idea might be a list of things everyone gets along on.

2017-12-30 11:23

Here is useful report how I extracted a WAV file for this video: http://ecchi.iwara.tv/videos/lyz8qsozqf85qq3a
1. Noted that I could not download the original song release from NicoNico at that time, because of a NicoNico update that my video grabbers had not yet had been updated to.
2. Downloaded about 20 different Dive to Blue videos from Iwara, and examined each of them with SPEK: http://spek.cc/
3. Noted that all downloads except one were mere 128 kbit/s LoFi, so I discarded them instantly one by one. (SPEK is pure gold for deciding the best possible sound source file).
4. Decided to extract a WAV file from this video: http://ecchi.iwara.tv/videos/dg1zgcnazukwrre0 , that has considerably better sound quality than 128 kbit/s according to SPEK.
5. Used Pazera_Free_Audio_Extractor_PORTABLE_20.zip to extract a WAV file. BEWARE!! All newer versions of Pazera are INFESTED with ADWARE that you only can get rid of by a RE-INSTALL of Windows. Do ONLY use the 2013-11-19 PORTABLE 7.8 MB version that I use, found here: https://www.videohelp.com/software/Pazera-Video-Converters-Suite/old-ver... , if you decide to use Pazera.

2017-12-30 02:37

SPEK seems like a useful tool for sure.

2017-12-30 12:16

SPEK http://spek.cc/ reveals a lot of surprises,
for example that old MMD 7.39 automatically reduced the sound quality of any soundtrack to mere 128 kbit/s AAC. So when I re-upload old MMD-PV:s like these https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53u7jwnkExY AND https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53u7jwnkExY AND https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VoCOYBQJw8 , then I'll add the original song release soundtrack on top of the MMD soundtrack, so I hear two competing soundtracks. Then I'll slide the new soundtrack in place, adjusting in 0.01 s steps until I can see and hear that it's in place. Finally I'll mute the old soundtrack, and save, and check with SPEK, and upload as private, and instantly download, and check the download with SPEK, and delete the private upload if it became 126 kbit/s instead of 192 kbit/s. (YouTube uploads from inside any video software typically becomes 192 kbit/s instead of 126 kbit/s). I never make an upload public at any video site, without checking its private download with SPEK first.

I always examine my soundtracks with SPEK between EVERY step in my video production. Your softwares might reduce the sound quality when you least expect it, and SPEK will helpfully reveal it.

Another surprise, in this video http://ecchi.iwara.tv/videos/y7gjehdvlfov95g5 , the motion distribution video surprisingly has better sound quality than the original song release video. Appearantly the song creator did a non-optimal NicoNico upload of the song, and the motion creator later on got the original soundtrack by E-mail from the song creator?