Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: re-encoding mp3 to mp3 (Read 35778 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

hi, i have a mp3 file at 192 kbps that i need to re-encode, if i do it at 320 kbps will i loose any significant audio quality? or will it be negligent?
 

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #1 –
Why does the answer matter if you need to re-encode?

Why is it necessary in the first place? Maybe there's a better alternative.

What keeps you from listening to the result and evaluating its quality on your own?

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #2 –
Quote from: navarre on
hi, i have a mp3 file at 192 kbps that i need to re-encode, if i do it at 320 kbps will i loose any significant audio quality? or will it be negligent?


Yes you will lose quality.

What could be the advantage of this? A larger file that sounds worse..............

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #3 –
Quote from: navarre on
hi, i have a mp3 file at 192 kbps that i need to re-encode, if i do it at 320 kbps will i loose any significant audio quality? or will it be negligent?


Yes you will lose something. The new 320 k file will be worse than the original 192 k.

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Frank Bicking on
Why does the answer matter if you need to re-encode?

Why is it necessary in the first place? Maybe there's a better alternative.

What keeps you from listening to the result and evaluating its quality on your own?




   
It matters because i have a will to learn. Ever heard of it? If i don't know something i try to find out about that something. That's the whole point of forums like these. And in this case i'm curious if re-encoding from 192 to 320 kbps means there will be a significant loss of quality. From what i listen, no.

I need to re-encode because a wav or even a flac file would be huge.

It's called "second opinion". Again, i'm curious to find out if someone can give their views on this subject.

Happy? geez...

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #5 –
You should have read FAQ before ask.

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #6 –
The stock answer is 'quality deteriorates'. While this may be true in regard to some measures, it is not necessarily the case that the difference will be audible. I've re-encode quite a bit of mp3 to a lower bitrate without being able to ABX the difference. I'm sure there are cases where the result will not be so benign, but there is no reason to just assume it.

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #7 –
Quote from: AndyH-ha on
The stock answer is 'quality deteriorates'. While this may be true in regard to some measures, it is not necessarily the case that the difference will be audible. I've re-encode quite a bit of mp3 to a lower bitrate without being able to ABX the difference. I'm sure there are cases where the result will not be so benign, but there is no reason to just assume it.


The point is that if you take a 192bps mp3 and reencode it to 320, you will have a file that is (1) larger than the original, and (2) incapable of sounding any better.  To get from the original uncompressed audio to the original 192 mp3, certain data was permanently discarded.  Encoding that file a second time will not bring back what was discarded.  The OP was talking about re-encoding to a larger file, not to a smaller file as you  discuss.

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Danimal on
Encoding that file a second time will not bring back what was discarded.
It's perfectly clear that the OP understands this:
Quote from: navarre on
hi, i have a mp3 file at 192 kbps that i need to re-encode, if i do it at 320 kbps will i loose any significant audio quality? or will it be negligent?

Quote from: Danimal on
The OP was talking about re-encoding to a larger file, not to a smaller file as you  discuss.
If transcoding something to a smaller file isn't ABX-able do you honestly think that you'll be able to ABX it when it gets transcoded to a larger file?

The guy is asking for information, he isn't asking to be arrested by the transcoding police.

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #9 –
Quote from: navarre on
 
It matters because i have a will to learn. Ever heard of it? If i don't know something i try to find out about that something. That's the whole point of forums like these. And in this case i'm curious if re-encoding from 192 to 320 kbps means there will be a significant loss of quality. From what i listen, no.

I need to re-encode because a wav or even a flac file would be huge.

It's called "second opinion". Again, i'm curious to find out if someone can give their views on this subject.

Happy? geez...
Firstly, please lose the attitude.  You say you have a will to learn; Frank was posing questions to get you to think about your requirements.

 
Quote from: navarre on
I need to re-encode because a wav or even a flac file would be huge.
Think about what you have written here.  It's like saying that I have to chop my finger off because cutting my arm or leg off would just be crazy.

If you pick through the responses above I think you have your answer.  However, we are still none the wiser as to what possible benefit there is  to re-encoding to a higher bitrate.  If this is a requirement for a piece of software you may want to take a look at mp3packer (and setting the minimum bitrate to 320)..
I'm on a horse.

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #10 –
Quote from: navarre on
And in this case i'm curious if re-encoding from 192 to 320 kbps means there will be a significant loss of quality.

You will not hear significant loss unless you encode to a lower bitrate than your source mp3.

Quote from: navarre on
From what i listen, no.

If you don't hear a difference, then great  You can do a ABX test that helps you distinguish small differences in files. foobar2000 has this tool.
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Synthetic Soul on
Quote from: navarre on
   
It matters because i have a will to learn. Ever heard of it? If i don't know something i try to find out about that something. That's the whole point of forums like these. And in this case i'm curious if re-encoding from 192 to 320 kbps means there will be a significant loss of quality. From what i listen, no.

I need to re-encode because a wav or even a flac file would be huge.

It's called "second opinion". Again, i'm curious to find out if someone can give their views on this subject.

Happy? geez...
Firstly, please lose the attitude.  You say you have a will to learn; Frank was posing questions to get you to think about your requirements.


 
Quote from: navarre on
I need to re-encode because a wav or even a flac file would be huge.
Think about what you have written here.  It's like saying that I have to chop my finger off because cutting my arm or leg off would just be crazy.

If you pick through the responses above I think you have your answer.  However, we are still none the wiser as to what possible benefit there is  to re-encoding to a higher bitrate.  If this is a requirement for a piece of software you may want to take a look at mp3packer (and setting the minimum bitrate to 320)..




I loose the atitude? ME? I think this is becoming surreal... Well excuse me for replying to the inquisition. You're gonna burn me at the stake?
What Frank did was implying that a) i was just stupid, plain and simple; and b) he said it in an offensive and disrespectful way.
If some of you don't want to answer fine. Don't do it. Just don't expect me to come here, pose a very simple question (i was asking if that particular re-encoding would represent a SIGNIFICANT loss of quality. Aparently very few people actually read the post. I wasn't asking if the 320 file would be worse than the original 192 file. I may not know much about these things but i know that much. Technically speaking, the 320 file would be much worse than the 192? That's what i was asking.


Yes i do have my answers, a couple of people actually tried to help in a polite and respectful way and i thank them for it.
As to why i need to do it, is there any law in the world or rule in this forum that says that i have to say why the hell i want to re-encode?
I said i need to re-encode and wasn't lying, but what if i say that i want to re-encode? Or that i'm considering re-encoding? What the hell does that have to do with anything? What do my personal motivations have to do with anything? Does anyone now have to explain the reasons here why they want to re-encode?

For f*cks sake... that's the last time i pose any questions around here, that's for sure

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #12 –
Quote from: navarre on
And in this case i'm curious if re-encoding from 192 to 320 kbps means there will be a significant loss of quality. From what i listen, no.

I need to re-encode because a wav or even a flac file would be huge.

normally people would re-encode from big to smaller ... never from smaller to bigger ... what is the point on doing it?


Quote from: navarre on
What Frank did was implying that a) i was just stupid, plain and simple; and b) he said it in an offensive and disrespectful way.

It doesn't "feels" like that, even after re-reading the reply twice.

Quote from: navarre on
Aparently very few people actually read the post. I wasn't asking if the 320 file would be worse than the original 192 file. I may not know much about these things but i know that much. Technically speaking, the 320 file would be much worse than the 192? That's what i was asking.

The point is that it makes no sense what you asked. People always want to transcode because they want a smaller file, but what is the point of getting a worst sounding-bigger file?

Quote from: navarre on
As to why i need to do it, is there any law in the world or rule in this forum that says that i have to say why the hell i want to re-encode? I said i need to re-encode and wasn't lying, but what if i say that i want to re-encode? Or that i'm considering re-encoding? What the hell does that have to do with anything? What do my personal motivations have to do with anything? Does anyone now have to explain the reasons here why they want to re-encode?

They where asking trying to understand something that makes no sense. Maybe from your reply we can better advise you. But it looks like you are not interested.

Quote from: navarre on
For f*cks sake... that's the last time i pose any questions around here, that's for sure

Won't miss you for sure.

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #13 –
Quote from: kwanbis on
They where asking trying to understand something that makes no sense. Maybe from your reply we can better advise you. But it looks like you are not interested.
...but he isn't asking for advice.

I do think navarre's responses are a bit too defensive and over the top, but people on this forum do tend to be condescending.

Just because you don't know why someone would want to transcode to a higher bitrate doesn't mean there is no reason for it.  I have to agree with the OP; it's a simple question that can be answered without the need for any of you to judge him.

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #14 –
Quote from: greynol on
...but he isn't asking for advice.

I do think navarre's responses are a bit too defensive and over the top, but people on this forum do tend to be condescending.

Just because you don't know why someone would want to transcode to a higher bitrate doesn't mean there is no reason for it.  I have to agree with the OP; it's a simple question that can be answered without the need for any of you to judge him.


I agree with you entirely. It's seems like when the words re-encoding or transcoding appear all rational thought goes by the board and a red mist descends!!

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #15 –
Personally, I can't see how my response was offensive or defensive in the least.  I also believe that I provided a superb suggestion with mp3packer - I see he didn't bother to even consider that.  Too busy getting arsey.

People often ask poster's motivations, as the poster may not realise that what they are asking can be achieved in alternative or better ways.  It's difficult to provide the best answer if you don't understand the reason behind the question.

Frankly I couldn't give a flying f*** if idiots like that don't post again; he's obviously got a serious attitude problem.

And please note that I never tried to convince him out of re-encoding (although I did provide a lot better solution to it).

I'm on a horse.

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #16 –
Quote from: navarre on
As to why i need to do it, is there any law in the world or rule in this forum that says that i have to say why the hell i want to re-encode?
I said i need to re-encode and wasn't lying, but what if i say that i want to re-encode? Or that i'm considering re-encoding? What the hell does that have to do with anything? What do my personal motivations have to do with anything? Does anyone now have to explain the reasons here why they want to re-encode?
No, and there is no law to say that members cannot ask you questions in return, especially as it is you asking for help.

You say you need to re-encode.  I say you don't; read up on mp3packer.  Perhaps this enlightens you as to why we may ask questions in order to help you better.

You are giving me a symptom, not an ailment.  If you saw fit to start at the beginning you may find it beneficial... to you - not Frank or I.
I'm on a horse.

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Synthetic Soul on
People often ask poster's motivations, as the poster may not realise that what they are asking can be achieved in alternative or better ways.  It's difficult to provide the best answer if you don't understand the reason behind the question.

exactly what i meant.

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #18 –
Seems like many people have had a bad day...

PS: I'm curious, too. Why would one badly need a 320kbit file? when you can play a 320kbit mp3 you can also play a 192kbit mp3. If not then the application you use is flawed. This is just curiosity, btw. I'm curious, just like you. So don't get mad, ok? I'm just curious.

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #19 –
Maybe there's a flaw in the file that the guy wants to edit which can't be done without decoding it first.  Maybe the guy plans on listening to the edited file on an mp3 player and doesn't want to sacrifice any more quality than necessary so has chosen the most paranoid bitrate.

Seems like a situation that would make "sense", no?

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #20 –
Maybe he wants to do a listening test using all 320 kbit mp3s, but reencoded from lower bit rates. Making them all 320 kbits would prevent the subject from just looking at the file length to determine which is which. If this is the case then he should be advised to provide lossless files instead.

As already pointed out though, unless he tells us what he is doing, we can't provide him with the optimal solution.

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #21 –
Quote from: pdq on
As already pointed out though, unless he tells us what he is doing, we can't provide him with the optimal solution.

The optimal solution for him would be the answere: "No, there is no significant loss of quality if you transcode with 320kBit/s. We do not know why you want to do this kind of thing and most of us think that tanscoding to a higher bitrate is useless, but that's the answere".

A similar question where transcoding to a higher bitrate makes sense:
I want to use AAC encoeded music (DRM, 128kBit) from iTunes on my mobile phone. Well, this is not possible in the first place because the music is DRM protected, so I first burn a CD from the music and then re-import it into iTunes again. What bitrate are you using to re-encode the music, using iTunes AAC?

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #22 –
I'm to lazy to read everything!
So I will just give you a simple answer, don't convert!
192 to 320 means transcoding to bigger file and worse quality than on the original 192kbps.
This means, waste of space!

The opposite (320 to 192) is more acceptable but still not recommended!

Never convert mp3 lower quality to 320kbps!

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #23 –
Quote from: Vietwoojagig on
The optimal solution for him would be the answere: "No, there is no significant loss of quality if you transcode with 320kBit/s. We do not know why you want to do this kind of thing and most of us think that tanscoding to a higher bitrate is useless, but that's the answere".

NO. The optimal solution for him would be to answer: "do it and abx".

re-encoding mp3 to mp3

Reply #24 –
Quote from: kwanbis on
NO.

That would be the "optimal" answer to his first question:
Quote from: navarre on
will i loose any significant audio quality?

Quote from: kwanbis on
"do it and abx".

...and that's the "optimal" answer to his second question:
Quote from: navarre on
will it be negligent?

All this without needing to know why. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?