[Skylab]

There is no question that running a lossy-encoded music file through a second lossy codec results in far worse sound than going straight from the original CD (or other lossless source) to the final desired bit rate (and while I am not a member of Hydrogen Audio, my company is a leading developer of video compression technology, and so I am pretty well versed in these topics

).

 

[shigzeo]

having slept the jinro off, i realise how stupid i look and 'sound'. sorry for the idiocy of last night. haha.

 

[craiglester]

Being a member of hydrogen audio has no real bearing on the answer here. there's as much bad info there as any forum I've seen. It's common sense an a rudimentary knowledge of compression technology. One factor being overlooked here is the complexity of the piece of music. With a very simple or frequency limited piece, less bits are required to encode the audio. With a full frequency range recording the additional information that would require to be encoded would actually mean less bits per complex waveform. This is of course assuming a fixed bitrate. Personally I always use vbr as I've found it's less wasteful than constant 320 Kbps and a lot better sounding on demanding or highly dynamic musi. Uncompressed live music especially.

 

[DocHamm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by craiglester /img/forum/go_quote.gif Higher source quality will generally give higher transcoded quality ... going back to the original source is preferable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnOYiN /img/forum/go_quote.gif Transcoding - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase I happen to be a member of HA as well. As are quite a few others from this forum. Edit: Either way. Transcoding is not recommended as it will further decrease the quality of the files. The best way is to transcode from lossless (the source) to lossy.

x4 ... Transcoding from a lossy source to lossy is generally avoided because sound quality is degraded. It's best to rip to final from source or at least a lossless format.

... I'm another HA member.