Mp3 Quality

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by XxKrNxStyLeZxX@6 November 2003 - 22:19
Is there a program to change the quality of the mp3's ive already downloaded?? i dont wanna re download the songs....for example if i have a song that is 128 kbps quality thing...can i somehow change it to 320 kbps or something?? please help...thx!

Mp3 is a "lossy" compression. Once you've got a 128 bitrate mp3, you've lost data from it that you can never get back even if you try to reencode at 320. (Don't EVER do this by the way, it's annoying&#33

192 I think is optimum; 160 is acceptable; 128 isn't good, and with a half-decent stereo you can tell the difference.

Anything above 192 is pointless unless it's your dogs favourite tune (or you want a "perfect" digital backup&#33

[muchspl2]

finally someone else who like the enhancer, I have been spamming that for awhile
put it on general improvements and it doesn't get any better

[fr600]

Originally posted by XxKrNxStyLeZxX@7 November 2003 - 04:19
Is there a program to change the quality of the mp3's ive already downloaded?? i dont wanna re download the songs....for example if i have a song that is 128 kbps quality thing...can i somehow change it to 320 kbps or something?? please help...thx!

If you change from 128 kpps to 320 kbps the quality will remain the same. In fact its just gonna take more hdd space...

[fkdup74]

i call that fake ass bitrate, ive gotten 128k songs that sounded better than 190 or up bitrates, wtf? probably some of those "increased bitrate" mp3's...
i've gone thruogh some of my 128's and tried to replace em eith 160 and up, dont always work, and like it was said before, it just takes up more space
of course the type of bitrate has to be considered (constant, average, variable)

[LTJBukem]

Originally posted by fr600@ 7 November 2003 - 13:42
If you change from 128 kpps to 320 kbps the quality will remain the same. In fact its just gonna take more hdd space...

You're priceless man.

[bob_the_alien]

Originally posted by LTJBukem+7 November 2003 - 14:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LTJBukem @ 7 November 2003 - 14:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-fr600@ 7 November 2003 - 13:42
If you change from 128 kpps to 320 kbps the quality will remain the same. In fact its just gonna take more hdd space...

You&#39;re priceless man. [/b][/quote]
It’s true though, what the average 128 br song i about 3 Megs,
And at 320 br are usually average about 10 megs. That&#39;s quite a difference in hard drive space, especially for something that worthless to do anyway.

[LTJBukem]

Originally posted by bob_the_alien+7 November 2003 - 18:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bob_the_alien @ 7 November 2003 - 18:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by LTJBukem@7 November 2003 - 14:30
<!--QuoteBegin-fr600

@ 7 November 2003 - 13:42
If you change from 128 kpps to 320 kbps the quality will remain the same. In fact its just gonna take more hdd space...

You&#39;re priceless man.

It’s true though, what the average 128 br song i about 3 Megs,
And at 320 br are usually average about 10 megs. That&#39;s quite a difference in hard drive space, especially for something that worthless to do anyway. [/b][/quote]
How did i not see that coming.

Yes mate, i know. You&#39;ll see that i posted the first reply to the original poster. What i find funny is.... Actually, i&#39;m not going to explain.

[Marius24]

Originally posted by LTJBukem+7 November 2003 - 17:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LTJBukem @ 7 November 2003 - 17:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by bob_the_alien@7 November 2003 - 18:39

Originally posted by LTJBukem@7 November 2003 - 14:30
<!--QuoteBegin-fr600

@ 7 November 2003 - 13:42
If you change from 128 kpps to 320 kbps the quality will remain the same. In fact its just gonna take more hdd space...

You&#39;re priceless man.

It’s true though, what the average 128 br song i about 3 Megs,
And at 320 br are usually average about 10 megs. That&#39;s quite a difference in hard drive space, especially for something that worthless to do anyway.

How did i not see that coming.

Yes mate, i know. You&#39;ll see that i posted the first reply to the original poster. What i find funny is.... Actually, i&#39;m not going to explain.

[/b][/quote]
u dont need 2

[Johnny_B]

The sound will not look the same.
Reencoding 128 bitrate to 192, 256 or 320 will degrade the sound even more because mp3 encoders will remove even more psychoacoustics (the high and low frequencies we humans can&#39;t hear) from the already lossy 128.
This is how the encoder works and you can&#39;t change the fact that it will always remove data from an audio file, even if you&#39;re encoding from a lower to a higher bitrate.

128 is still a sh*tty bitrate unless it&#39;s properly ripped (using EAC or CDex with the LAME encoder), although it still falls short when compared to other bitrates.

192 kbps should be the standard because it&#39;s a no brainer. Even if people don&#39;t know jack sh*t about encoding they will still produce a high quality rip if they go for 192.

Unfortunately, most people are still living in the dark when it comes to mp3 encoding and that&#39;s why Kazaa is full of 128 bitrate songs.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

lame.exe --alt-preset standard

...is all you need for a good encode.