[keiith]

Hi, I was wondering if someone could shed some light on this situation. I'm not sure if this question has already been answered...

Just say I have a compressed MP3 file of 128kbps.

If I re-encode the mp3 into 192kbps is there any point? Or is that extra sound already 'lost' because it has already been compressed to 128kbps and upping to 192kbps only results in a higher file size not higher quality audio.

I'm asking because I'd like all my music files to be of one type... I saw a thread recently which outlined people's favourite formats. (seemed like something like LAME V3, 192kbps was popular or something) I was wondering what people used to convert there music, are the programs user friendly?

Thanks for any help, much appreciated.

 

[Coltrane]

Once the sound is lost, it is lost for good. Transcoding from 128 to 192 will actually result in a file quality WORSE that 128, because it will again compress the file.

Exact Audio Copy is the program you want (its free)

Then go here for more info:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME

Round these parts V 0 is the standard recommendation for quality (about 245 kps)

None of this is terribly user friendly, but it is well worth spending the time to set up, and if you have any questions at all people will be more than willing to help.

 

[keiith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif Once the sound is lost, it is lost for good. Transcoding from 128 to 192 will actually result in a file quality WORSE that 128, because it will again compress the file. Exact Audio Copy is the program you want (its free) Then go here for more info: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME Round these parts V 0 is the standard recommendation for quality (about 245 kps) None of this is terribly user friendly, but it is well worth spending the time to set up, and if you have any questions at all people will be more than willing to help.

Ah thanks for all this information, I'll take the time in reading through the wikipedia and check out that program.

So when downloading music, do some people generally only download music that is 192kbps+ ?

 

[asmox]

Compression artifacts are cumulative... so, like Coltrane said, transcoding to a different bitrate and/or another lossy format will actually result in further quality loss.

Downloading music is a toss up in regards to quality. I never stray below 192kbps when downloading... but even if a file is tagged with a certain bitrate, you can never really know how that bitrate was achieved. You can end up with high kbps rips that sound like crap, or low kbps rips that sound comparatively great. Or you can join some preppy music sharing golf club like Ubernet and not have to worry about any of that stuff.

 

[Febs]

I started a thread once with the results of an experiment that I did proving that successive transcoding, even to higher bitrates, significantly degrades the sound. I'll see if I can find a link for you.

Edit: Here you go: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=172742

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by keiith /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah thanks for all this information, I'll take the time in reading through the wikipedia and check out that program. So when downloading music, do some people generally only download music that is 192kbps+ ?

Depends where you download your music. Most legal places arent 192, with itunes being only 128. Emusic.com is 192 and up, and its a FANTASTIC service. As far as less then legal services go, I know some dont even offer below 192 mp3s, and go as high as FLAC (lossless.) So you can get what you want.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Back when I was on IRC more often, I noticed that all of the music-releasing groups switched to 192 Kbps CBR. That was around seven years ago. So yes, I consider 192 Kbps to be the minimum acceptable quality.