I have some large (~720 MB) .mp3 files that I would like to split into equal-sized smaller pieces that will still be playable in my iPod Shuffle.

I'm not looking for the complication of a full-blown editor. I just want something to do the reverse of

copy /b File1+File2+File3,Outputfile

where I can specify either the number of files to create, or the duration of the created files. The original files are 128 kbps constant bit rate. The transition from one file to the next during playback does not have to be seamless. These are audiobook files, and if the split happens in the middle of a word or something, well, so be it.

I can deal with the file naming and tagging of the created files, but don't know what to do in order to create them.

Is there some (preferably free, of course) utility out there that will do what I want?

tanstaafl.

This looks like it would do what you want ?

https://www.nch.com.au/splitter/index.html

Though it does re-encode rather than just splitting the MP3 frames up.

I guess it would have to do that, because each .mp3 file will require its own header, otherwise the audio player wouldn't be able to decipher it.

This looks like exactly what I was looking for. I'll try it and let you know how it works.

Thank you!

tanstaafl.

One could also use ffmpeg to do the split, and I believe it might do it without re-encoding.

https://windowsloop.com/split-mp3-files-with-ffmpeg/

It works very well!

Despite my concern that it is, indeed, a full-fledged audio editor, the user interface is so compartmentalized that the experience of doing any one single type of job is not overwhelming. I was able to split my file into 30-minute segments without any reference to help files or instructions.

The necessity to re-encode turned out to be a bonus. I was able to convert the file from 128 kbps fixed bitrate to a 64--320 kbps VBR file, and audio quality appears to be considerably improved. I say "appears" because I don't know if it was the re-encoding to higher bitrate VBR, or a different encoding engine, or the big improvements to my computer since listening to the original encoding that is responsible. Filesize is 5.4% larger in VBR, and I chose a high quality setting for the re-encoding. But, even with the little earbuds on the iPod Shuffle, I hear more bass and less sibilance.

It doesn't seem reasonable that just re-encoding the original 128 kbps file into higher bitrate VBR would improve the quality-- that 128 kbps is all there is to begin with. But bass response is considerably enhanced, and sibilance is reduced. Different default parameters on the VBR engine?

The other variable is my computer itself. A few months ago my motherboard was dying: first the PS2 port went away, then the USB-3 ports died, so it was likely that fatal problems would soon emerge. The computer store here in Mexico is accustomed to customers trying to save every peso, so they put in an inexpensive board that was compatible with my CPU and my existing RAM. As it turned out, it was unable to access more than 8GB of RAM.

So, he took back that board and the sound card that went with it (no on-board audio) and I convinced him that I was NOT trying to save money on this upgrade, and he put in a gaming motherboard, a new processor: Wikipedia: The Ryzen 5 3400G is touted as having the world's most powerful integrated graphics on a processor. The chip is equipped with four cores, eight threads and 6MB of cache. It runs with a 3.7 GHz base clock and 4.2 GHz boost clock.,16 GB of whatever the newest type of RAM is, and the results are amazing. I have played a few songs that I am really, really familiar with and I hear nuances of enunciation and breath intakes that I had never heard before.

The graphics are staggering. Even DOOM II now "pops" with richer, deeper color and improved definition.

And speed? MS-Word loads, ready to type, in one-half second. Excel takes a lot longer -- about 3/4 of a second. Not bad for an eight-year old computer, but of course it's like grandfather's axe. Is it the same axe after two new handles and a new blade? I guess the tower case, the power supply and the had drives are all that's left of the original.

Oh, and it is essentially silent in operation. With the previous motherboard it whined and howled every time I made the unreasonable request of it to play DOOM or Quake. (I am such a serious gamer that those are the only games I have in my computer.)

The massive cost of this upgrade: $6,600 pesos. That's about $366 USD. And if/when he sells the returned motherboard and sound card, and possibly my old processor and RAM, I'll get some of that back as well.

Life is good.

tanstaafl.

Splitter is very good, I've used it in the past

I have one small quibble with the program. It is trivial, but it just about doubles the amount of time it takes me to process one file.

By default, the program writes the split files using the original filename, incrementing the track number by one for each successive file. This is all good, except that the unchangeable default starting track number is 00.

This means that I have to manually change each filename, renumbering all the tracks so they have track numbers 01-28 rather than 00--27, so that I can turn MP3 Tag Studio loose on the new files to create tags from the filenames.

It's not too terrible an imposition, my programmable keyboard simplifies the process. Once I set up the macro for the first of the split files, the subsequent ones can be changed with just three keystrokes each.

All in all, it is a really good program.

tanstaafl.

After a recent use of the program (probably eight months ago) I emailed their support site about this, not expecting anything to come of it because after all I was using the free version and had not signed up for their priority support or anything.

Last night I used the program again -- and the annoyance (I wouldn't go so far as to call it a bug, just a programming oversight) had been fixed. I sent them an email thanking them, they responded within a few hours. Call me impressed!

tanstaafl.