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? - Page 2

post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneekyPete View Post

It's called generation loss isn't it?


sure. use FLAC just because is good for your ego. and i just read lot of comments like mine, saying in portable players a good 320kps and FLAC will sound 99% same but 1/4 of space.

post #17 of 24

Depends on your set-up and if you know what to look for in comparing FLAC and high quality AAC/MP3.

 

A below average set-up can't really tell the difference between FLAC and high quality AAC/MP3. 

 

 

post #18 of 24

A 320kbps MP3 may be perceivably lossless, but it still has a large amount of information removed compared to the original. The less information an encoder has to work with, the worse the result.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by s0lar View Post

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.



 

post #19 of 24

You also have to remember, the brain can make up for a lot of the information that's lost.  If something is missing, the brain will try to smoothen it out with what it thinks should be there.  So yes, more information does allow the music to be perfect, but if you lose some information, the brain can fill it in sometimes (reason why some people have trouble telling it apart at times), other times it'll fill it in wrong though.  Just another thought to keep in mind.   So less information could (doesn't have to be) a worse result (sometimes it'll be the same result).

post #20 of 24

Of course, but that's just a statement on how lossy encoding in general can be valuable. [Flac -> 320kbps mp3 -> 192kbps mp3] will still always yield an inferior product to [Flac -> 192kbps mp3].
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

You also have to remember, the brain can make up for a lot of the information that's lost.  If something is missing, the brain will try to smoothen it out with what it thinks should be there.  So yes, more information does allow the music to be perfect, but if you lose some information, the brain can fill it in sometimes (reason why some people have trouble telling it apart at times), other times it'll fill it in wrong though.  Just another thought to keep in mind.   So less information could (doesn't have to be) a worse result (sometimes it'll be the same result).



 

post #21 of 24

You guys are going off topic. This is not a "HUR DUR FLAC IS DUMB" thread. This also isn't a "HUR DUR YOU CAN'T HEAR THE DIFFERENCE DUR" thread either. OP asked if it were ok to convert from 320 kbps to 192 kbps. Doing that is double compression and should be avoided.

post #22 of 24

There hasn't been an off-topic post in the entire thread, especially not one with such polarized viewpoints as the ones you imagined, and most certainly not close enough to the end of the thread to where a reply without a quote, attempting to address all participants of the thread, would be warranted. I'm not really sure what the hostile post is for. You're not even using terminology correctly in your attempts to chastise; Flac to MP3 is "double compression" and there's no reason to avoid that.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobSaysHi View Post

You guys are going off topic. This is not a "HUR DUR FLAC IS DUMB" thread. This also isn't a "HUR DUR YOU CAN'T HEAR THE DIFFERENCE DUR" thread either. OP asked if it were ok to convert from 320 kbps to 192 kbps. Doing that is double compression and should be avoided.



 


Edited by soundstige - 8/7/11 at 11:20pm
post #23 of 24

if you have headphones that are good enough to detect the artifacts that come with downconverting then yes.

post #24 of 24

erm...till now i thought the max kbps was 1411......i just downloaded a few albums (game scores), (electronic music) and.....well yeh.....1870 kbps was the max, the files are all from 1600 - 1870kbps. 

The music sounds so clear the instruments came out my headphones and smacked me across the face!

 

 

...1 song is 1901 kbps!!!! **** ME


Edited by OPrwtos - 10/9/11 at 5:02pm
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?