How to burn or crack protected WMA files? - Page 43 - Club CDFreaks

toasters · 24-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by smksignals

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamieManUTD
why do u always ask that? u put that in nearly every post

... perhaps because nobody answered
toasters

i think people are getting tired of the question because it's common
most of the time people enjoy helping
read or search the thread if you don't find what you want google it
then post your question if you still can't find the answer
you gotta do some work
with that said

Speak for yourself about people getting tired of it. Don't speak for everybody

Now, the Napster files are .wma and they are 128 KB. If I go convert that to 128 MP3, will the quality be the same as if I converted the wma to 192KB as a .mp3?

What I am asking is would a song encoded in wma (128 KB) inrease in quality when re-encoded into an mp3 (192 KB) song?

[Sound Hound] · 24-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by toasters

What I am asking is would a song encoded in wma (128 KB) increase in quality when re-encoded into an mp3 (192 KB) song?

Did you even read the previous post?

He answered your question to the letter. Oddly enough you omitted that part from your quote.

Raider Man · 24-04-2005

For those you having trouble with musicmatch 6.1:
If have installed any other version of Musicmatch before installing 6.1, uninstall all musicmatch programs. Do a regedit and search for MMJ and then musicmatch and delete all references to it. Reboot and then install 6.1 again and it should work. I am one of 3 people that I know did this and it worked after.

quadcrap1 · 24-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by smksignals

i think people are getting tired of the question because it's common
most of the time people enjoy helping
read or search the thread if you don't find what you want google it
then post your question if you still can't find the answer
you gotta do some work
with that said

if your mp3 is 128kbps(napster) and you change it to 320kbps it won't sound any better you can't improve quality by making it a bigger file
if the mp3 is 128kbps keep it 128kbps if it's 320kbps keep it 320kbps unless space is a problem then it's up to you

:

Actually, the answer is not so common knowledge. No matter what you do, converting a 128kbps wma file to ANY other file, no matter if the destination is anothe wma file or a mp3 file (or another format) will require first converting that wma file to a .wav file. Now, wma is a lossy format, so that resulting .wav file will NOT be the same as the original track. Specifically, information will be missing and/or changed reflecting the 128kbps wma encoding.

What you have to understand is that the encoders all assume they are encoding the ORIGINAL signal, not an uncompressed encoded signal. All the encoders use psychoacoustic assumptions to perform their lossy encoding: "If the original signal looks like this, I can approximate it like this..." These assumptions are based on what the original waveform should look like. If the waveform is mangled, as it will be if it was derived from a previously lossy encoded file, then the assumptions are less than ideal, and can be quite wrong. The lower the bit rate, the more serere the assumptions, and the more likely you will hear artifacts due to fact that you are encoding a mangled waveform, not a virgin one.

You can also add to this the fact that a 128kbps wma encoded track does not correspond identically in quality to a 128kbps mp3 encoded track. If you believe Microsoft, the difference can be as large as 128kbps wma =~ 192kbps mp3. Of course, that's a subjective claim, and there are those who counterclaim that their tests with the best mp3 encoders put a 128kbps wma track much closer to the same bitrate in the mp3 domain. In any case, there is no 1-to-1 correspondence, which further blurs the answer to the question of what bitrate to re-encode to.

But even if you are re-encoding to another .wma file there is a question. Why? Because, as noted before, the encoder assumes a non-mangled waveform (which you are not using) and artifacts due to this assumption decrease as the bitrate of the re-encoded file increases (i.e. as fewer severe assumptions need to be made). This means that if you are re-encoding the 128kbps wma file to another wma file, you probably should consider a higher bitrate, e.g. 160kbps or higher, for the re-encoded file. No, the re-encoded file will NEVER sound better than the original 128kbps wma file. But by using a higher bitrate, you decrease the chance of introducing audible artifacts in the re-encoding process.

Of course, the same thing applies to a re-encoded mp3 file. Even if you dismiss all of Microsoft's claims about the superiority of wma, you will want to re-encode at a higher bitrate than the original file. Again, something like 160kbps (averaged for a variable bit rate) is probably the lowest safe re-encoding rate.

bw8755 · 24-04-2005

Thank you quadcrap1 for that very well put explanation. I have been converting the 128kbps wma's to 192kbps mp3 using the LAME encoder and seems to work well, definitely sounds better than anything i've done prior to switching to the LAME encoder. The reason I had been using 192kbps was basically the same reason you cited above, that if it's converted to something with more room, there's less a likelihood of any loss fromt he 128kbps wma (obviously it's still not ideal as in from teh original .wav file, but it seems to keep it sounding very good and indistinguishable fromthe 128kbps wma file, which is what I was aiming for). You just provided an excellent explanation for this. I hope this helped out others. good job

gardenwebmike19 · 24-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by quadcrap1

Actually, the answer is not so common knowledge. No matter what you do, converting a 128kbps wma file to ANY other file, no matter if the destination is anothe wma file or a mp3 file (or another format) will require first converting that wma file to a .wav file. Now, wma is a lossy format, so that resulting .wav file will NOT be the same as the original track. Specifically, information will be missing and/or changed reflecting the 128kbps wma encoding.

What you have to understand is that the encoders all assume they are encoding the ORIGINAL signal, not an uncompressed encoded signal. All the encoders use psychoacoustic assumptions to perform their lossy encoding: "If the original signal looks like this, I can approximate it like this..." These assumptions are based on what the original waveform should look like. If the waveform is mangled, as it will be if it was derived from a previously lossy encoded file, then the assumptions are less than ideal, and can be quite wrong. The lower the bit rate, the more serere the assumptions, and the more likely you will hear artifacts due to fact that you are encoding a mangled waveform, not a virgin one.

You can also add to this the fact that a 128kbps wma encoded track does not correspond identically in quality to a 128kbps mp3 encoded track. If you believe Microsoft, the difference can be as large as 128kbps wma =~ 192kbps mp3. Of course, that's a subjective claim, and there are those who counterclaim that their tests with the best mp3 encoders put a 128kbps wma track much closer to the same bitrate in the mp3 domain. In any case, there is no 1-to-1 correspondence, which further blurs the answer to the question of what bitrate to re-encode to.

But even if you are re-encoding to another .wma file there is a question. Why? Because, as noted before, the encoder assumes a non-mangled waveform (which you are not using) and artifacts due to this assumption decrease as the bitrate of the re-encoded file increases (i.e. as fewer severe assumptions need to be made). This means that if you are re-encoding the 128kbps wma file to another wma file, you probably should consider a higher bitrate, e.g. 160kbps or higher, for the re-encoded file. No, the re-encoded file will NEVER sound better than the original 128kbps wma file. But by using a higher bitrate, you decrease the chance of introducing audible artifacts in the re-encoding process.

Of course, the same thing applies to a re-encoded mp3 file. Even if you dismiss all of Microsoft's claims about the superiority of wma, you will want to re-encode at a higher bitrate than the original file. Again, something like 160kbps (averaged for a variable bit rate) is probably the lowest safe re-encoding rate.

so any way what bitrate do you use to encode?

capted · 24-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by quadcrap1

Actually, the answer is not so common knowledge. No matter what you do, converting a 128kbps wma file to ANY other file, no matter if the destination is anothe wma file or a mp3 file (or another format) will require first converting that wma file to a .wav file. Now, wma is a lossy format, so that resulting .wav file will NOT be the same as the original track. Specifically, information will be missing and/or changed reflecting the 128kbps wma encoding.

What you have to understand is that the encoders all assume they are encoding the ORIGINAL signal, not an uncompressed encoded signal. All the encoders use psychoacoustic assumptions to perform their lossy encoding: "If the original signal looks like this, I can approximate it like this..." These assumptions are based on what the original waveform should look like. If the waveform is mangled, as it will be if it was derived from a previously lossy encoded file, then the assumptions are less than ideal, and can be quite wrong. The lower the bit rate, the more serere the assumptions, and the more likely you will hear artifacts due to fact that you are encoding a mangled waveform, not a virgin one.

You can also add to this the fact that a 128kbps wma encoded track does not correspond identically in quality to a 128kbps mp3 encoded track. If you believe Microsoft, the difference can be as large as 128kbps wma =~ 192kbps mp3. Of course, that's a subjective claim, and there are those who counterclaim that their tests with the best mp3 encoders put a 128kbps wma track much closer to the same bitrate in the mp3 domain. In any case, there is no 1-to-1 correspondence, which further blurs the answer to the question of what bitrate to re-encode to.

But even if you are re-encoding to another .wma file there is a question. Why? Because, as noted before, the encoder assumes a non-mangled waveform (which you are not using) and artifacts due to this assumption decrease as the bitrate of the re-encoded file increases (i.e. as fewer severe assumptions need to be made). This means that if you are re-encoding the 128kbps wma file to another wma file, you probably should consider a higher bitrate, e.g. 160kbps or higher, for the re-encoded file. No, the re-encoded file will NEVER sound better than the original 128kbps wma file. But by using a higher bitrate, you decrease the chance of introducing audible artifacts in the re-encoding process.

Of course, the same thing applies to a re-encoded mp3 file. Even if you dismiss all of Microsoft's claims about the superiority of wma, you will want to re-encode at a higher bitrate than the original file. Again, something like 160kbps (averaged for a variable bit rate) is probably the lowest safe re-encoding rate.

Now you tell me!

Your theory has a lot of merit. I agree with you that "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".
You get what you pay for and no one should expect CD quality with what we are downloading and converting. I am going from wma 128kbbs protected to wma 128kbbs unprotected to AAC 128kbbs.
I had wondered about the wma protected to wma unprotected and you have confirmed my doubts as to whether it would be the "same" file only stripped of protection.

Let's face it. Most of the modern "music" is crap, especially RAP.
If one want's audiophile quality, then buy the recording.
For example, I have Herbert von Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic's Beethoven 5th and 9th on both vinyl and CD. Do I really need another recording by some obscure Eastern European orchestra?
I must admit the thought of jamming it to Micro$oft has more to do with my "download conversion fever" than anything else. I am also trying to fill a 40gig ipod after I have ripped over 400 of my bought and paid for CDs.
I am downloading Broadway shows and Movie soundtracks mostly and yes, even some of those obscure Eastern European orchestras.

Believe it or not, I have in the past few years started listening to Country Music. It has lyrics one can understand, tells a story and also Faith Hill and Shania Twain.

I am also into anything Politcally Incorrect except RAP.
There were some very risque David Allen Coe on the old Napster but is apparently too hot to handle for Napster and VD.

Enjoy while it lasts.

BTW, thank you for a very informative post.

capted · 24-04-2005

BTW, I believe most of these download music stores have the same source material. I had a very bad conversion of a track and went back and played the source direct from both Napster and VD and they both had the same flaw.
Don't blame everything on your conversion technique.
Another quote from an old codger I'll never forget is: "Son, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken $hit".
I think that covers a lot of the questions here about quality.

gardenwebmike19 · 25-04-2005

yeah but you arent trying to make chicken salad from chicken $hit, you are only trying to remove some extra mayo from your chicken salad. the only. the only reason to use a higher number is to try to eliminate the possibility of turning your chicken salad into chicken $hit.

*justcallmebob* · 25-04-2005

This thread took an unexpected turn . . .

schnikies79 · 25-04-2005

yes it has. Anyway, before my roommate signs up for the Napster trail, can anyone confirm mmjb 6.1 is still working? it was as of wed last week.

capted · 26-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by schnikies79

yes it has. Anyway, before my roommate signs up for the Napster trail, can anyone confirm mmjb 6.1 is still working? it was as of wed last week.

It is with VD.

Friends don't let friends put Napster on their computer.

bw8755 · 26-04-2005

as of this afternoon, mmjb6.1 still works with Napster. I dont think napster was the cause of any of the issues, as it hasnt hampered me. That said, i did cancel my napster subscription after the trial and 1 month additional. I didnt like it for various reasons, including the fact the "updating track database" would take about 5 minutes and VD is cheaper. I am continuing my VD subscription instead.

smksignals · 26-04-2005

hey wanna fu@k around
mess with this string in google see what ya get

-inurl:htm -inurl:html intitle:"index of" file extension "title or band"

so you would want to do something like
-inurl:htm -inurl:html intitle:"index of" mp3 "me first and the gimme gimmes"

switch it up for different media

for educational purposes only

smksignals · 26-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by quadcrap1

Actually, the answer is not so common knowledge. No matter what you do, converting a 128kbps wma file to ANY other file, no matter if the destination is anothe wma file or a mp3 file (or another format) will require first converting that wma file to a .wav file. Now, wma is a lossy format, so that resulting .wav file will NOT be the same as the original track. Specifically, information will be missing and/or changed reflecting the 128kbps wma encoding.

What you have to understand is that the encoders all assume they are encoding the ORIGINAL signal, not an uncompressed encoded signal. All the encoders use psychoacoustic assumptions to perform their lossy encoding: "If the original signal looks like this, I can approximate it like this..." These assumptions are based on what the original waveform should look like. If the waveform is mangled, as it will be if it was derived from a previously lossy encoded file, then the assumptions are less than ideal, and can be quite wrong. The lower the bit rate, the more serere the assumptions, and the more likely you will hear artifacts due to fact that you are encoding a mangled waveform, not a virgin one.

You can also add to this the fact that a 128kbps wma encoded track does not correspond identically in quality to a 128kbps mp3 encoded track. If you believe Microsoft, the difference can be as large as 128kbps wma =~ 192kbps mp3. Of course, that's a subjective claim, and there are those who counterclaim that their tests with the best mp3 encoders put a 128kbps wma track much closer to the same bitrate in the mp3 domain. In any case, there is no 1-to-1 correspondence, which further blurs the answer to the question of what bitrate to re-encode to.

But even if you are re-encoding to another .wma file there is a question. Why? Because, as noted before, the encoder assumes a non-mangled waveform (which you are not using) and artifacts due to this assumption decrease as the bitrate of the re-encoded file increases (i.e. as fewer severe assumptions need to be made). This means that if you are re-encoding the 128kbps wma file to another wma file, you probably should consider a higher bitrate, e.g. 160kbps or higher, for the re-encoded file. No, the re-encoded file will NEVER sound better than the original 128kbps wma file. But by using a higher bitrate, you decrease the chance of introducing audible artifacts in the re-encoding process.

Of course, the same thing applies to a re-encoded mp3 file. Even if you dismiss all of Microsoft's claims about the superiority of wma, you will want to re-encode at a higher bitrate than the original file. Again, something like 160kbps (averaged for a variable bit rate) is probably the lowest safe re-encoding rate.

"so any way what bitrate do you use to encode?" gardenwebmike19

you're the shit that was funny

quadcrap1
i don't know how you're doing anything but
there is no reason to go to wave unless you're burning a cd
if you just want an mp3 why go to wave
too many conversions makes for lower quality
as for 128kbps to 160kbps or 190kbps
i agree
can't hurt
but not proven
too many variables

i'm not talking shit

well i guess i am

smksignals · 26-04-2005

toasters

oh

i meant quadcrap1

what ever you wanna-be known as

i tried to help

what did you do

you shit in my wheaties

i'll never be the same

i'm jaded

smk -out

SkidMark · 26-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by smksignals

hey wanna fu@k around
mess with this string in google see what ya get

-inurl:htm -inurl:html intitle:"index of" file extension "title or band"

so you would want to do something like
-inurl:htm -inurl:html intitle:"index of" mp3 "me first and the gimme gimmes"

switch it up for different media

for educational purposes only

Hah. Now this is funny. I used what you mentioned above and came up with the following directory contents: "http://www.romavera.com/lf_serv/" now it looks normal but if you click on any mp3s it sends a referral over to Napster. Very slick.

sakic19 · 26-04-2005

There were a few posts about mmjb freezing with VD. I did a fresh install of w2k and VD and sometimes it makes it through 8 tracks and freezes and sometimes it doesn't make it through any. Any ideas?

gardenwebmike19 · 26-04-2005

i counted last night i have 96gb of music. or if 1 mb = 1minute i have 96,000 minutes of music or 1600 hours of music. if i put all of the songs in one playlist and hit play now, the music wouldnt stop until july 2nd. if i hit pause when i went to bed at night and restarted when i got up, the music would play until august 2. think about it. lol

smksignals · 26-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkidMark

Hah. Now this is funny. I used what you mentioned above and came up with the following directory contents: "http://www.romavera.com/lf_serv/" now it looks normal but if you click on any mp3s it sends a referral over to Napster. Very slick.

just mess with it

there are some good links in heaven

hint hint

taz1469 · 26-04-2005

I could not get MMJB 6.1 to work but am using 6.0 it has craploads of pop and clicks in the converted song…… any suggestions?

smksignals · 27-04-2005

ever seen "The Maker" has some cool heads and some music in it
i'm watching it now

oh

anybody want a work around that's not real time?

let me know

if i get more + than - i'll post

i want the heads that are helping all the time to answer

cause everything gets shutdown after it's posted

i don't care

i don't like most of the music on the rent for a month sites

and if i do like it i buy the cd
not the shitty download they charge .99cents for each song or ten bucks 4 a album

some day

"Dinosaurs Will Die"
nofx song about the bullshit

let me know what you want me to do

i'm gonna grub

-late

smksignals · 27-04-2005

nofx song about the bullshit
off the album Pump Up the Valuum
wish i could stream it
check it out on virgin or napster
if you play it they get .ooo1cent lol ha lol ha

"Dinosaurs Will Die"

"This is not a test of the emergency broadcast system, this is a real thing!"

Kick back watch it crumble
See the drowning, watch the fall
I feel just terrible about it
That's sarcasm, let it burn

I'm gonna make a toast when it falls apart
I'm gonna raise my glass above my heart
Then someone shouts "That's what they get!"

For all the years of hit and run
For all the piss broke bands on VH1
Where did all, their money go?
Don't we all know

Parasitic music industry
As it destroys itself
We'll show them how it's supposed to be

Music written from devotion
Not ambition, not for fame
Zero people are exploited
There are no tricks, up our sleeve

Gonna fight against the mass appeal
We're gonna kill the 7 record deal
Make records that have more than one good song
The dinosaurs will slowly die
And I do believe no one will cry
I'm just fucking glad I'm gonna be
There to watch the fall

Prehistoric music industry
Three feet in la brea tar
Extinction never felt so good

If you think anyone would feel badly
You are sadly, mistaken
The time has come for evolution
Fuck collusion, kill the five

Whatever happened to the handshake?
Whatever happened to deals no-one would break?
What happened to integrity?
It's still there it always was
For playing music just because
A million reason why
All dinosaurs will die
All dinosaurs will die
All dinosaurs will die

ranzi · 27-04-2005

Napster songs, M4P, protected WMA files could be "copied" with Tunebite. I use Tunebite over night to play the protected music with iTunes or for instance with a Windows Media Player and Tunebite records the music to a new MP-3 file without DRM protection. Works full automaticly and is legal while rerecording. There is a free test version available at http://www.tunebite.com

JamieManUTD · 27-04-2005

tunebite as already discussed is real time and clips seconds from beginning of song. please read the whole thread.

24-04-2005	#1053 (permalink)
Raider Man New on Forum Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? For those you having trouble with musicmatch 6.1: If have installed any other version of Musicmatch before installing 6.1, uninstall all musicmatch programs. Do a regedit and search for MMJ and then musicmatch and delete all references to it. Reboot and then install 6.1 again and it should work. I am one of 3 people that I know did this and it worked after.

24-04-2005	#1055 (permalink)
bw8755 New on Forum Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 4	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? Thank you quadcrap1 for that very well put explanation. I have been converting the 128kbps wma's to 192kbps mp3 using the LAME encoder and seems to work well, definitely sounds better than anything i've done prior to switching to the LAME encoder. The reason I had been using 192kbps was basically the same reason you cited above, that if it's converted to something with more room, there's less a likelihood of any loss fromt he 128kbps wma (obviously it's still not ideal as in from teh original .wav file, but it seems to keep it sounding very good and indistinguishable fromthe 128kbps wma file, which is what I was aiming for). You just provided an excellent explanation for this. I hope this helped out others. good job

24-04-2005	#1058 (permalink)
capted CD Freaks Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Spaceport, USA Posts: 162	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? BTW, I believe most of these download music stores have the same source material. I had a very bad conversion of a track and went back and played the source direct from both Napster and VD and they both had the same flaw. Don't blame everything on your conversion technique. Another quote from an old codger I'll never forget is: "Son, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken $hit". I think that covers a lot of the questions here about quality.

25-04-2005	#1059 (permalink)
gardenwebmike19 CD Freaks Rookie Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 39	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? yeah but you arent trying to make chicken salad from chicken $hit, you are only trying to remove some extra mayo from your chicken salad. the only. the only reason to use a higher number is to try to eliminate the possibility of turning your chicken salad into chicken $hit.

25-04-2005	#1060 (permalink)
justcallmebob CDFreaks Resident Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 513	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? This thread took an unexpected turn . . .

Commercial message
<a href='http://adstats.cdfreaks.com/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a5c5554b&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE' target='_blank'><img src='http://adstats.cdfreaks.com/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=29&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&n=a5c5554b' border='0' alt='' /></a>

25-04-2005	#1061 (permalink)
schnikies79 CD Freaks Junior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Indiana Posts: 79	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? yes it has. Anyway, before my roommate signs up for the Napster trail, can anyone confirm mmjb 6.1 is still working? it was as of wed last week. __________________ Being popular is lame.. FIF My system: - AMD Athlon XP 2800+ Barton cooled with a Zalman copper flower - Soyo SY-KT400 Dragon Ultra - 1GB (2x512) Corsair PC3200 - 2x120gb Segate HDD's in a Raid-0 - Lite-on 16x DVD-ROM, Lite-on 52x32x52x CD-RW, NEC 2500a DVD+-RW in a Bytec USB 2.0 case - 30GB Maxtor HDD in a Bytec USB 2.0 case - ATI Radeon 7500 All-in-Wonder - Coolermaster Praetorian black anodized aluminum case - Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2

26-04-2005	#1063 (permalink)
bw8755 New on Forum Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 4	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? as of this afternoon, mmjb6.1 still works with Napster. I dont think napster was the cause of any of the issues, as it hasnt hampered me. That said, i did cancel my napster subscription after the trial and 1 month additional. I didnt like it for various reasons, including the fact the "updating track database" would take about 5 minutes and VD is cheaper. I am continuing my VD subscription instead.

26-04-2005	#1064 (permalink)
smksignals CD Freaks Rookie Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 41	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? hey wanna fu@k around mess with this string in google see what ya get -inurl:htm -inurl:html intitle:"index of" file extension "title or band" so you would want to do something like -inurl:htm -inurl:html intitle:"index of" mp3 "me first and the gimme gimmes" switch it up for different media for educational purposes only

26-04-2005	#1066 (permalink)
smksignals CD Freaks Rookie Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 41	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? toasters oh i meant quadcrap1 what ever you wanna-be known as i tried to help what did you do you shit in my wheaties i'll never be the same i'm jaded smk -out

26-04-2005	#1068 (permalink)
sakic19 New on Forum Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? There were a few posts about mmjb freezing with VD. I did a fresh install of w2k and VD and sometimes it makes it through 8 tracks and freezes and sometimes it doesn't make it through any. Any ideas?

26-04-2005	#1069 (permalink)
gardenwebmike19 CD Freaks Rookie Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 39	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? i counted last night i have 96gb of music. or if 1 mb = 1minute i have 96,000 minutes of music or 1600 hours of music. if i put all of the songs in one playlist and hit play now, the music wouldnt stop until july 2nd. if i hit pause when i went to bed at night and restarted when i got up, the music would play until august 2. think about it. lol

26-04-2005	#1071 (permalink)
taz1469 New on Forum Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 2	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? I could not get MMJB 6.1 to work but am using 6.0 it has craploads of pop and clicks in the converted song…… any suggestions?

27-04-2005	#1072 (permalink)
smksignals CD Freaks Rookie Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 41	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? ever seen "The Maker" has some cool heads and some music in it i'm watching it now oh anybody want a work around that's not real time? let me know if i get more + than - i'll post i want the heads that are helping all the time to answer cause everything gets shutdown after it's posted i don't care i don't like most of the music on the rent for a month sites and if i do like it i buy the cd not the shitty download they charge .99cents for each song or ten bucks 4 a album some day "Dinosaurs Will Die" nofx song about the bullshit let me know what you want me to do i'm gonna grub -late

27-04-2005	#1073 (permalink)
smksignals CD Freaks Rookie Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 41	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? nofx song about the bullshit off the album Pump Up the Valuum wish i could stream it check it out on virgin or napster if you play it they get .ooo1cent lol ha lol ha "Dinosaurs Will Die" "This is not a test of the emergency broadcast system, this is a real thing!" Kick back watch it crumble See the drowning, watch the fall I feel just terrible about it That's sarcasm, let it burn I'm gonna make a toast when it falls apart I'm gonna raise my glass above my heart Then someone shouts "That's what they get!" For all the years of hit and run For all the piss broke bands on VH1 Where did all, their money go? Don't we all know Parasitic music industry As it destroys itself We'll show them how it's supposed to be Music written from devotion Not ambition, not for fame Zero people are exploited There are no tricks, up our sleeve Gonna fight against the mass appeal We're gonna kill the 7 record deal Make records that have more than one good song The dinosaurs will slowly die And I do believe no one will cry I'm just fucking glad I'm gonna be There to watch the fall Prehistoric music industry Three feet in la brea tar Extinction never felt so good If you think anyone would feel badly You are sadly, mistaken The time has come for evolution Fuck collusion, kill the five Whatever happened to the handshake? Whatever happened to deals no-one would break? What happened to integrity? It's still there it always was For playing music just because A million reason why All dinosaurs will die All dinosaurs will die All dinosaurs will die

27-04-2005	#1074 (permalink)
ranzi New on Forum Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 14	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? Napster songs, M4P, protected WMA files could be "copied" with Tunebite. I use Tunebite over night to play the protected music with iTunes or for instance with a Windows Media Player and Tunebite records the music to a new MP-3 file without DRM protection. Works full automaticly and is legal while rerecording. There is a free test version available at http://www.tunebite.com

27-04-2005	#1075 (permalink)
JamieManUTD New on Forum Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 14	Re: How to burn or crack protected WMA files? tunebite as already discussed is real time and clips seconds from beginning of song. please read the whole thread.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Conversion of protected WMA files to MP3	fredhammersmith	Copy Protection	5	02-07-2008 10:51
Play wma protected files	ricmorca	Audio	1	13-02-2006 17:59
Retrieving WMA protected files	swanadprasad	Audio	1	28-07-2005 20:26
How to burn protected .wma files to cd	norbon	Copy Protection	1	20-06-2005 03:19