Mp3 down convert 320k to 256k/192k good idea?

[TJCS]

I have a library of classic 320k bitrate mp3 files and I wanted to down convert them to maybe 256k VBR or even 192k. My goal is to save space without sacrificing too much loss in quality.


1. Any reason this a bad idea? Will i expect distortions or notable loss in quality under some foreseen conditions?

2. Will this give me similar results compared to ripping from source to 256K VBR?


I have down convereted some 320k mp3s and i can't really tell a difference on my Klipsch 2.1.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003SX0ORU/

 

[Soundmanred]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003SX0ORU/

Seriously, get a bigger drive.
It's not worth the time to convert them all to save minimal space.

 

[Emulex]

yeah i can hear the difference between flac and 320kbps so the lossy->lossy will cause more distortions from non-lossy to lossy?

 

[The-Noid]

Hard drive cost/gigabyte is decreasing at such a quick rate why not just by a new drive?

I agree with everyone else here. You are going to go lossy - wav - lossy again. There in theory should be loss. If that is discernible is up to the equipment and your own hearing.

 

[velillen]

Totally personal preference. Some people can tell differences in 320 vs 256 vs 128. others can't.

just remember though once you go down you cant really go back up. Unless its a massive collection you might just do better getting a bigger hard drive (as others have said)

 

[TJCS]

Thanks for the input guys. I cleaned out a lot of videos and picture files last week and i guess i just got carried away. The idea originated from reading people debating over 320k sounds identical to the source and such, and so i had the idea of lowering them.

I guess from looking at the consensus it doesn't sounds like it will cause more trouble than good. Thanks again!

 

[TJCS]

I actually also agree with the audio quality being a personal preference thing... and i m not going to listen to couple hundred songs to ensure the rips are fine... haha

 

[thomsbrain]

If you re-encode audio that has already been compressed, it is going to sound worse than if you had done a single encode at your target rate. No different than re-encoding video. It gets worse every time you mess with it.

 

[sdifox]

hdd is cheap...

 

[bobdole369]

Don't mess with it. BUy more space. Its like $80/2TB now.

 

[Phynaz]

yeah i can hear the difference between flac and 320kbps so the lossy->lossy will cause more distortions from non-lossy to lossy?

Ever think about getting a job as a professional listener? The above ability literally makes you one in about 10 million.

 

[Chapbass]

Ever think about getting a job as a professional listener? The above ability literally makes you one in about 10 million.

You sure thats accurate? I would disagree, but a ton of it depends on what type of hardware you're using to listen.

You aren't going to tell the difference on a boombox that can't even reproduce the frequencies outside of 1khz-1.1hz (im exaggerating, obviously).

 

[Duder1no]

Don't mess with it. BUy more space. Its like $80/2TB now.

this

audio enthusiasts think very poorly of MP3 as it is a lossy form, look up lossless audio

 

[Emulex]

this is why i love lcd's. no flyback noise. thank god most tv's are gone from existence. yes flac is better. if you have good audio gear in the house/headphones/car you can tell. maybe i listen to music loud - thus its far more obvious when re-encodes clip.

 

[Phynaz]

You sure thats accurate? I would disagree, but a ton of it depends on what type of hardware you're using to listen.

You aren't going to tell the difference on a boombox that can't even reproduce the frequencies outside of 1khz-1.1hz (im exaggerating, obviously).

Yep.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Hydrogenaudio_Listening_Tests

 

[MagickMan]

Ever think about getting a job as a professional listener? The above ability literally makes you one in about 10 million.

Really depends on your gear, I think. I gave back my friend's Infinity Prelude MTS mains when I jumped on a local deal for some used B&W N802's, my girlfriend calls the R2-D2 clones. Paired with my aging Integra DTR-7.4 and Outlaw 7125, I can now tell a difference on the same material. It's not massive, but it's there. Not that it matters, both sound great as long as I'm not critically comparing.

 

[MustangSVT]

i dunno. many people "think" they can tell the difference but in audio tests, they can't

but many people also bought into the monster cable thing.

 

[Matt1970]

It all depends on the encoder. I have heard some crappy 320K MP3's that sound worse than 64K. Most people are also playing them out of crappy PC speakers.

 

[Viper GTS]

I think the biggest limitation for most people is the quality of the equipment they have available. PC speakers simply aren't going to reveal the differences. Now if you are running good headphones off a decent sound card then maybe you stand a chance. Dedicated external dac, amp, and good headphones? Now we're talking.

While the op has already seen the light I would still point out that the real investment of archiving music is the time you spend doing it. Even if storage werent socheap most people are only ripping a single disc at a time and it is days of work to rip a collection. Even with four drives running at once I can only do 60 discs an hour. Archive lossless, its the only way to avoid kicking yourself later.

I maintain side by side libraries of lossless and mp3, and I can re encode the entire library in a day or two to target some new use. 320 vbr lame on a usb stick for my car. Something smaller to pack an entire artists work on one CD for a car trip in someone else's car. Flac for use at home.

Viper GTS

 

[Tango]

Ever think about getting a job as a professional listener? The above ability literally makes you one in about 10 million.

That depends on both the quality of the equipment and the music you are listening to.

I cannot hear the difference between 256 and lossless on my iPod used with standard 10$ headphones, but I can easily tell flac from any mp3 on my home system, and on quality classical music recordings any mp3 below 320 is frankly disturbing.

Especially the source component is often overlooked in the blind tests I read about on the internet. Obviously some pop music that was horribly compressed during recording and mastering is a very different scenario from high quality recordings with a very wide sound front (i.e. classical music recorded in a major opera theater).

I have by no means particularly refined ears, yet I think many people have got so used to horrific sound that they just can't hear major differences anymore. For example I have a hard time understanding how can people listen to jazz or classical through entry level car systems.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

i dunno. many people "think" they can tell the difference but in audio tests, they can't

but many people also bought into the monster cable thing.

Listening to music in a good room with good equipment is like heaven. No, it's not like heaven, it is heaven. I went to a 30-year-old recording studio with relatively shitty equipment, and the sound was like absolutely nothing I ever heard before. It was like I was literally standing right in the middle of a 120-piece symphony orchestra. It was mind-blowing. Whereas with my iPod or shitty onboard sound plus $100 speakers, even at the same audio quality (from the identical CD), the sound is nowhere near close. It is incredibly tinny, distorted, and fuzzy in comparison.