Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Is it OK to Convert twice as in from Flac to 320 kbps to 192 kbps?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is it OK to Convert twice as in from Flac to 320 kbps to 192 kbps?

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 

I did a search and tried to find an answer but couldn't. Is this good? Will a rip to 192 kbps sound better than a conversion of 192 kbps and by how much?

 

As in from flac to 320kbps to 192 kbps?

in that order

 

all my music is in 320 kbps and want to convert to 192 kbps

 

and the file is mp3 lame

 

am i wasting my time by doing this?

 

BTW i have Brainwavz M2 and an ipod Touch 4g

 

One more question the ipod does play higher than 128 kbps when listening on eaphones right? sorry for Noob questions :(

 

 

THanks

 

 


Edited by camoton - 8/5/11 at 8:05pm
post #2 of 24

While a straight conversion from 320 CBR MP3 to 192 kbps MP3 is not going to sound horrible, you're better off directly converting from the original lossless source (FLAC, WAV, etc.) to 192. There will be low level noise, loss of detail resolution, and appearance of additional artifacts if you convert a 192 kbps from an already lossy 320 kbps source. Second, why do you want to convert to 192 kbps anyway? Do you need to store so much music on your iPod such that you need to store your music in 192? If so, you're better off encoding to LAME V2 VBR, where you won't get as much of a quality hit for the file size.

 

BTW, this thread should probably be in the computer audio section, not in portables.


Edited by tomscy2000 - 8/5/11 at 8:27pm
post #3 of 24
Thread Starter 

ok thanks

 

 

so a direct 320 kbps to 192 kbps in not bad i might do that since i do not want to download everything in flac

my bad how do u move the thread

post #4 of 24

Buy the CDs. Then you can recode anything any time from the flacs you ripped.

 

FLAC -> 320 -> 192 will sound more like FLAC -> 160 than FLAC -> 192. If you like 160 then don't worry about it I guess.

 

An iPod, and any MP3 player, will play a song at whatever bitrate the file is encoded. I don't know what you're asking about "play higher than 128kbps" unless it's that.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by camoton View Post

ok thanks

 

 

so a direct 320 kbps to 192 kbps in not bad i might do that since i do not want to download everything in flac

my bad how do u move the thread



 


Edited by soundstige - 8/5/11 at 8:55pm
post #5 of 24

DO NOT CONVERT FROM LOSSY TO LOSSY

 

I repeat

 

DO NOT CONVERT FROM LOSSY TO LOSSY

post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobSaysHi View Post

DO NOT CONVERT FROM LOSSY TO LOSSY

 

I repeat

 

DO NOT CONVERT FROM LOSSY TO LOSSY



x100000000000000

post #7 of 24
Thread Starter 

alright thanks guys i guess ill buy cds or get flacs

 

thanks

post #8 of 24

1000x500px-LL-b9d51e4f_flamesuit.jpg

post #9 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by anadin View Post

1000x500px-LL-b9d51e4f_flamesuit.jpg


lol'd

 

converting between lossy formats is different from using lossy formats in general.

 

post #10 of 24

Transcoding is blasphemy of the highest degree. Everyone should know that.

 

So no. Don't do it. It isn't okay. Lossless to Lossy and Lossless to Lossless are the only encoding methods that should be allowed.

post #11 of 24
"allowed" lol
post #12 of 24

Watch the movie Multiplicity where they make a clone of a clone of Michael Keaton with fairly bizarre results. As one of the original clones explains: "You know how a photocopy of a photocopy is never as good as the original..."

 

(It's quite a funny Harold Ramis flick BTW - not as good as Groundhog Day but much better than Day One.)


Edited by cooperpwc - 8/6/11 at 9:48am
post #13 of 24

maybe ist only me but in my setup: sansa clip plus + vsonic GR07 listen on FLAC or in 320kps cbr is the same. on expensive amps and expensive headphones i believe you can esealy listen diferences on mp3 320kps and FLAC but in portable devices,  FLAC will just drain battery quicker and will play a bitter loud compared to a 320 kbps.  

post #14 of 24
It's called generation loss isn't it?
post #15 of 24

I don't believe it's that bad. A 320 MP3 is almost transparant so the audible difference between a 320 to 192 compared to a lossless to 192 MP3 will be neglectible.

But going further down with the 192 MP3 should be avoided, since it's a 2nd generation lossy.

I sometimes convert from MP2 128 (digital radio antenna) or extract audio from a video (transcoded to AAC) to ogg 112 after cutting tracks. If no other source is available, at least you have the format you prefer.

In your case it's MP3 to MP3, so it is just a bitrate/size thing. Then I would rather select fewer songs instead of transcoding.

Ogg should provide (now or in the future) the feature called bit-peeling. Although it kinda misses it's point knowing that ogg is not made for high bitrates. So why peel off from let's say 225 to 192? Only in special cases I go lower than 160.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Is it OK to Convert twice as in from Flac to 320 kbps to 192 kbps?