[Blasto_Brandino]

I encoded my music (CD's) In 384kbps WMA 96/24, I then converted it (for dap use) to 192 MP3 CBR 48-44.1/16, but now my portable reference rig is coming together (HD800 w/ adrenaline cables, Lisa III XP, Walkman X1061 w/ ebay LOD) and I want to reconvert my music to MP3 320 VBR 48-44.1/16 (and WAV direct from CD (duh) for the stuff I really like) Should I re-encode the cd's, or just convert the 384 WMA's? Audio quality is my goal.
I can use Eufony, but it doesn't transfer coverart, or Creative Mediasource 5 audio converter, and it transfers everything, and would make converting the WMA's much faster.
Or I can use Accord CD Ripper (look it up, download it and try it before suggesting alternatives) to reencode.

 

[WaveRider69]

The more you re-encode lossy to lossy the more audio information you lose, even if it's the same format. 
 
You'll want to redo it from the CD's.  I recommend ripping to FLAC because it comes out half the size of wav yet it still a lossless format, and it stores all the media info and tags.  Then from there you can always do your converting directly from those and you're good to go.
 
dBpoweramp reference will all of this for you easily, fast, and accurately.
 

 

[Blasto_Brandino]

*sighs* digging my cd box out... I've gotta do FLAC anyway. While I'm at it I should buy a new external HDD....
 
I already understood that converting from 384 WMA 96/24 CBR to 320 MP3 VBR 44.1-48/16 would result in loss of audio information, would a 320 VBR MP3 track converted from a 384 WMA track be inferior to a 320 VBR MP3 track encoded directly from a CD?

 

[johan851]

 
Quote:

I already understood that converting from 384 WMA 96/24 CBR to 320 MP3 VBR 44.1-48/16 would result in loss of audio information, would a 320 VBR MP3 track converted from a 384 WMA track be inferior to a 320 VBR MP3 track encoded directly from a CD?

Yup.  It would probably be hard to tell, but the more you re-encode from a lossy format the worse it's going to get. 

 

[Blasto_Brandino]

OK, look's like I'm encoding from cd's. Thanks to all!
Brandon

 

[WaveRider69]

No worries there comes a time when many have had to do it more than once.  I know I have lol.  It can be extremely timely.  But it's incredibly worth it.  It feels great once you get everything secure ripped and stored lossless. 

 

[Blasto_Brandino]

I do have a Bluray burner, wonder if I can hardcopy my music when I'm all done....
Any way, thanks again, I'm busy looking for a 1tb drive and then I'll pick up that program.

 

[TheChoster]

Hi
 
Wanted to point out that you don't need to encode in 96/24 unless you are ripping from vinyl or DVDA. Most (and by this I mean all) CDs are encoded in 44.1/16 due to space limitations. And instead of encoding it in 96/24, why don't you increase the bit rate to something higher than 384.
 
Just suggestions

 

[johan851]

Encoding at 96kHz doesn't make any sense.  The data's not there to begin with, and if it was, the only benefit over 44.1kHz is preservation of frequencies between 22kHz and 48kHz.  Good luck hearing those (though your dog may enjoy it). 
 
Encoding at 24 bits is worthwhile if that information is present in the source, but only SACDs and such encode at 24 bits.  CD format is at 16 bits, and there's no point in padding it out to 24.
 
Encoding at 96/24 in a lossy format?  That's just ridiculous.  You're taking up a ton of space for something that isn't the original...you might as well just take up space with something that IS.  And WMA is not so great to begin with.
 
Summary:  Delete all that WMA 384 96/24 nonsense and replace it with some 44.1/16 FLACs. 

 

[shimm]

Encoding 44/16 in 96/24 you not only lose space but even lose quality cause 96 is not multiplay of 44.1 and resampling just can not be ideal.

 

[Blasto_Brandino]

I transcribed some vinyl in WAV 24 bit so that's why the wma 384 96/24