How much quality is lost when encoding to 320? If I grab a 320 and then
encode to say 160vbr will it be "noticeably" different from a 160vbr encoded
from the original CD?

Norm

"Aaron Lawrence" <aaronlNOT@HEREconsultant.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a884da08d130f80989b76@news.xtra.co.nz...
It's just an academic question for me. I can't tell the difference between
a CD and 192. And I was just a bit too lazy to search for the answer :-)
This is the absolute best NG I routinely monitor and thought someone would
know off the top of their head what the relationship between 320 and CD is.

Norm

Norm <pocobuenoguy@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:

It's preferable to never transcode if at all possible. You're compressing
something that's already compressed - asking for trouble in more ways than
one. Best thing is to take the original wave file, and compress/encode that to
your 192kbps for better results. Nex

(I'm no expert, but I've done a lot of encoding over the last few years and
have made many mistakes, transcoding being one of them. Never again, unless
the original was lost)

Suddenly, Norm sprang forth and uttered these pithy words:
Only you can say whether it will be noticeable to you.

Many people would find 320 identical to CD, but then many people would
not notice the difference with 256 either, maybe even 128.


--
aaronl at consultant dot com
For every expert, there is an equal and
opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke

"Alan Pollock" <nex@nopanix.com> wrote in message
news:bvk42r$450$2@reader2.panix.com...
Thanks for the sage advice. Most of the 320 files I have are downloads and
I don't have the original. For those I don't have much choice.

Norm

Norm wrote:
Not IMO it won't. YMMV, why not just do it and see?

--
dadiOH
_____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
____________________________

The best thing to do, if you want to archive the music is to ...
use FLAC or APE (which are lossless codecs)
or use OGG at q10 (about 500 VBR lossy codec)

Good luck
Ken




"dadiOH" <dadiOH@xmail.com> wrote in message
news:bvkaas$ql7q2$1@ID-89522.news.uni-berlin.de...

"dadiOH" <dadiOH@xmail.com> wrote in message
news:bvkaas$ql7q2$1@ID-89522.news.uni-berlin.de...
I did it but don't have my box connected to a quality sound system. On my
computer with it's Altec system I couldn't tell the diff between 128 and
320! I just wanted to see if anyone had a definitive answer. I don't want
to go to all the trouble of re-encoding 400-500 mp3s that I have downloaded
only to find out that when played on a quality system they sound like me
singing in the shower.

Norm

Norm wrote:

Roughly 1:4

--
dadiOH
_____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
____________________________

"dadiOH" <dadiOH@xmail.com> wrote in message
news:bvkbni$sv26o$1@ID-89522.news.uni-berlin.de...
Thanks.

dadiOH said...

Yeah, but you're deef.

;-)

--
CQ

CQ wrote:
And your point is...?

--
dadiOH
_____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
____________________________

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the lossless FLAC encoding doesn't compress the
filesize all that much - right? If I remember right, it was like only 2:1.
Is that correct? If so, that's not very much at all!

Ken wrote:

I have used APE for lossless compression simply to keep the file consistant
with the uncompressed wave. And yes, it runs about 2:1.
Ogg would be close to 3:1 at 500 (or q10)
-Ken


"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tzjTb.8160$F23.1171@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

dadiOH said...

Tugging on the leg of knowledge a bit ;-)

--
CQ

Norm <pocobuenoguy@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:


Isn't your real problem storage space? You're essentially wanting to halve the
space it takes to keep your collection. Or is it that you're trying to cram as
much as possible into a hard drive mp3 portable?

If it's the first, I'd suggest getting a dvd burner (they go for around a
hundred bucks these days) and archive your entire collection. Twice. 500 mp3s
is really not very much. Piddly actually even if they're all ALBWs - some
folks (cough) have several hundred gig of mp3s.

If it's the second then you have a point, but I'd *still* keep your 320s at
320 and transcode some just for the portable if you must have that much more
on it.

With some HD players like the older Archos Studios and Recorders for instance,
you can upgrade your 20 gig hd to a 40 or even bigger as your solution. If
you're using a compact flash player then you merely get a few more cards;
they're plunging in price almost weekly, especially the 512MB cards.

Either way, hard drives and flash cards are getting cheaper by the minute.
It's not worth the time and trouble to gain space, when just a few buckaroos
will do the same thing and you maintain top quality mp3s). After all, if you
ever trade mp3s, you can't go wrong with 320s unless they were badly encoded.


Moreover, transcoding is not ideal; they're already encoded and transcoding
them in some cases may emphasize flaws. Were you deciding whether to encode
into 192 or 320 from the originals, I'd say go for the 192 with the proper
encoder at the proper (psychoacoustical) settings, sure. As it stands
(personal opinion) I don't think altering your 320s is the way to go for you.
Nex

"Alan Pollock" <nex@nopanix.com> wrote in message
news:bvk42r$450$2@reader2.panix.com...

I've been thinking about this a little bit more (usually dangerous for me
and anyone standing in the nearby vicinity). According to my typically
vague understanding of mp3s, the compression occurs when "sound bits"
usually beyond the human hearing range are cut out of a file. So, a 320BR
file has had about 75% of the bits removed (1:4 compression, right dadiOH?).
So, if I take a 320 and run it thru lame again, lame will remove, primarily,
the sounds which are least likely to be heard by my ear - but also a much
smaller quantity of sounds that are audible. Am I close here? If so then
would there be a big difference between the "lamed" original and a "lamed"
320BR? Wouldn't lameing the original just be removing the same bits that
would be removed in the 2-step process of lameing the original @ 320 and
then laming the 320? Alan, you said it has been your experience that this
don't work well. I just don't understand why it wouldn't be a close match,
but not identical.

Norm

Norm wrote:
I would think it would depend on the second bitrate. If it were 160, it has
to lose 50% somewhere. Where? Beats me but digital sound isn't
continuous...how non-continuous can it be before it is noticeable? Sort of
like light bulbs...on and off 60 times a second but they *look* continuous.
At 25 cycles - like Canada used to use - there is a disturbing flicker.

You mean take a 320 and encode it again at 320? I did that once - don't
remember the bitrate - and there was little change. Don't recall exactly
how much but in the 2-4% range. It certainly wasn't audible.

Additionally, I encoded the reencoded file again. Did it through 10
generations. Each file was exactly like the others except that they grew by
a couple of hundred bytes. Grew consistently, each new file the same
amount. The last sounded like the first.

I'm a heretic: I have no qualms about re-encoding a file. I always chop
down anything greater than 192 to 160. No, I'm not short of disc space but
I like to make MP3 CDs to listen to away from the house and I like a
quantity of songs on them.

From my point of view, all recorded music is representational and - as long
as it sounds good - it serves no purpose to try to make it exactly like the
source - which also is never totally faithful to the original sound

Will re-encoding mess it up? Not in my experience. But I don't sit around
trying to compare one to another either. And yes, my high frequency hearing
stops at around 13 MHz but anyone over 50 won't be much better. And I hear
the rest just fine.

--
dadiOH
_____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
____________________________

"dadiOH" <dadiOH@xmail.com> wrote in message
news:bvppiq$u0kqd$1@ID-89522.news.uni-berlin.de...
No, actually I had in mind encoding at 160vbr the 2nd time. That would be
fine for my portable or my Altec speakers.

Anyway, you're gonna take out enuf bits to get it to 160 whither you start
with the original or a 320 file. An analogy would be if you had a 5 gallon
bucket and a 55 gal drum, both full of water. Your goal was to decant enuf
water from each container to leave exactly 1 cup in each. The result would
be the same in each case even though they started out very different. Good
analogy??

I have re-encoded some and can't tell the diff on my Altecs. I just don't
want to do a lot of them that way and in 5 yrs find that they sound like
*carp* on a good system.

Well, well, well; finally being over 50 has an advantage, albeit a
disadvantage at the same time :-)


norm

Norm said...

No. All the water in the 55 gal drum is exactly the same and is the same
as all the water in the 5 gal bucket. All the parts of your music are
not.

Make it a 10 lb box of chocolates and a 2 lb box of chocolates, not drums
of water. Take away all the ones you don't like much and you are allowed
to only keep 6 ounces. Chances are, in the 10 lb box you will find more
of your favorites than in the 2 lb box and will end up with a far better
6 ounce package.

MP3 compresses the file. It doesn't just reduce it by removing bits. To
say that it simply removes what you can't hear is a huge simplification.
It is a simplification that is useful as a quick explanation but it would
be a mistake (I believe) to use it as a basis for doing double
compression on your music.

Whether you can tell the difference is certainly the only thing that is
important IF you don't plan on ever sharing these files online in any
way. As you suspect, though, moving them to a better listening
environment could very well reveal flaws, poor quality, artifacts, etc,
that you wouldn't hear on a computer system so you might want to consider
very carefully before you do it.

It is generally considered (yes, dad's disagrees, he likes to be contrary
though ;-)) a bad idea to re-encode files, particularly if you have the
source CDs to work with anyway and definitely if you are interested in
them as an archive. You could read some of the boards at hydrogen audio
and learn all you want (and possibly much more) about the technical
aspects of mp3 compression and the reasons why transcoding and re-
encoding are considered bad things.

Here's a thread specifically about this subject...there are many others
of interest there too.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.p...ST&f=15&t=6938
--
CQ