• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

MP3: 128kbit to WAV then to 192kbit

B

Biggs

Diamond Member
Let's say I have a 128kbit MP3 file, transform it to a WAV file then encode it to a higher bit rate 192kbit MP3 file. Will I be getting 192kbit quality afterwards?

Another way of putting it is, when the 128kbit MP3 is "reverted" back to WAV format, that does necessarily mean it automatically returned the original bits that were lost?
 
no, you'll end up with a 192kbs mp3 that sounds worse then 128kbs because its been recompressed.

128kbs mp3 is compressed music with data thrown out. decompressing it to wav does nothing but make a decompressed wav with exact quality of 128kbs..so you basically have a perfect copy of garbage. wav is lossless. recompressing the garbage at a higher bitrate makes for reprocessed garbage.

once something is lost, it can never be regained. you can only make it sh*ttier. which is why purchasing mp3s is so retarded. id rather buy a high quality source which i can do what i want with😛
 
Or read the Anandtech FAQ's!

I have a feeling that lots of people are thinking along the lines of Biggs. It seems more and more often high-bitrate files downloaded from the internet sound like reprocessed 128kbps crap.
 
Thanks for the tips. I've read Workins' FAQ and I followed his/her advise like a gospel. My MP3's are now EAC/LAME-encoded and 256kbits Stereo! 🙂

One question though, is there a way to detect if the MP3 was originally 128 kbit encoded then "magically" transformed to a higher bit rate? This is because, unfortunately, my sound card/speakers combo a'int that good 'nuff to detect the subtle differences.
 


<< One question though, is there a way to detect if the MP3 was originally 128 kbit encoded then "magically" transformed to a higher bit rate? >>

No, but if you like a DL'd mp3 enough to keep it, why not buy the CD and re-rip it yourself?
 
<<is there a way to detect if the MP3 was originally 128 kbit encoded then "magically" transformed to a higher bit rate?>>

Not directly, but you can look at the file in Nero's Sound Editor. When you play the MP3, it will show the frequency response of the file. If there is a huge drop-off at about 16,000 Hz then don't expect anything special from the MP3. A 320 Kbps MP3 should not drop-off until about 20,000 Hz. Lemme rip a song quick here and I'll see where a 256 and 192 MP3 file drops off.

OK, here we are:

320 kbps: Drop-off at 20,000Hz
256 kbps: Drop-off at 20,000Hz (just barely distinguishable from 320 kbps)
192 kbps: Drop-off at about 19,000Hz (definite difference from 320 kbps, less definite but still distinct difference from 256 kbps)

ZV

EDIT: I should say that I completely agree with what was said above my post. MP3s tend to spur Cassette buying for me. (Very rarely buy CD's, cassette deck in car.)
 
grumble, sometimes i download an 192kbs mp3 that sounds like radio.. probably because it was radio. the worst ones make it garringly obvious🙂 snippet of commercials or whatever at the end hehe.
 


<< Not directly, but you can look at the file in Nero's Sound Editor. When you play the MP3, it will show the frequency response of the file. If there is a huge drop-off at about 16,000 Hz then don't expect anything special from the MP3. >>

Excellent point. I'd never looked at the Nero editor, but when I look at MP3s I've ripped at 192kbs, they go out to near 20KHz, but the Gas Giants track I'm playing now that I got from Atomic Pop (came with Siren) shows the frequency drop off like a cliff!

This is why I don't get the music business' insane obsession with stopping MP3s. All they have to do is say, "MP3s sound like BUTT and while they may be "free", you get what you pay for." They should drop prices (to ~$7-$14) and publicise the crummy quality of many MP3s. Just because YOU rip with lame, doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of idiots ripping at 96kbs with MusicMatch.
 
This is why I don't get the music business' insane obsession with stopping MP3s. All they have to do is say, "MP3s sound like BUTT and while they may be "free", you get what you pay for." They should drop prices (to ~$7-$14) and publicise the crummy quality of many MP3s. Just because YOU rip with lame, doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of idiots ripping at 96kbs with MusicMatch.


precisely. i want dvd audio, i want SACD minus sony bullsh*t license. i want more quality for my sources of music that will help justify me shelling out for music. if i want to crap it down to mp3 so i can listen while jogging or wahtever after that, well thats my business. give the consumer more bang for his buck and he'll be happy. silly bastards and their infighting over dvd-a screwed it up big. dvd video players should have debuted with dvd-a capability from the very beginning. now imagine the installed base of dvd-a they would have now if they had done this? talk about stupid eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top