easy question. maybe. | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in
Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (2)
recycle
belb
...and 332 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614103
Today 16
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
easy question. maybe.
 

offline 1up from greater manchester (United Kingdom) on 2008-12-16 03:40 [#02259092]
Points: 2302 Status: Regular



i have just downloaded an ep and the person who's ripped it
has recorded the track twice on to the single mp3 file (no
doubt to get his ratio up)...

..anyways, this ep has been a ball-ache for me to get so i
just wanna edit them with something like soundforge or maybe
live. if i re-save them @ 192 kbps (the source files are
192kbps), will this reduce the quality any further or not??
if it does what's the best way to prevent this, but also
keeping the files at a decent size? (not wav or
whatever)......



 

offline 1up from greater manchester (United Kingdom) on 2008-12-16 03:41 [#02259093]
Points: 2302 Status: Regular



what a way to celebrate 2000 posts, with a fucking geek
question.


 

offline blaaard from Imatra (close to sky) (Finland) on 2008-12-16 03:47 [#02259094]
Points: 1207 Status: Addict



me i dunno, but if this happened to me i'd save it as either
320kbps or vbr v0....

but that'd be interesting to find out.... to save something
as 192kbps file, and then re-compress it a couple times more
and listen if it gets bad...?


 

offline Advocate on 2008-12-16 03:51 [#02259095]
Points: 3319 Status: Lurker



my advice is to compare the original file with the edit/copy
in adobe audition or someting.



 

offline hedphukkerr from mathbotton (United States) on 2008-12-16 03:52 [#02259096]
Points: 8833 Status: Regular



for personal use there's really nothing to worry about in
terms of loss of sound quality. re-encoding in a higher
bitrate than the source is completely useless.

but keep in mind if you edit the file you are seeding it
will fail the hash.

also sites like what or waffles would most probably consider
this a transcode (assuming you have to encode to wav then
back to mp3, even within the program), preferring to have
any edits in the original lossless format.


 

online belb from mmmmmmhhhhzzzz!!! on 2008-12-16 04:01 [#02259098]
Points: 6387 Status: Lurker



re-encode at 192 then open both files in a wave editor,
invert phase and paste the re-encoded one over the top of
the original, should be perfect silence if it hasn't
degraded


 

offline Brisk from selling smack at the orphanage on 2008-12-16 04:02 [#02259099]
Points: 4667 Status: Lurker



never, ever transcode mp3s.

i think you can actually crop the mp3 with some programs
which don't re-compress the file. i can't remember the name
of the program (mp3 cut or something?) but it definitely
exists.

again, every time you compress an mp3 further, you're
running the same algorithms but on a file which has already
been "damaged" the first time. it's just the same as VHS
generational damage used to be.


 

offline 1up from greater manchester (United Kingdom) on 2008-12-16 06:34 [#02259106]
Points: 2302 Status: Regular | Followup to Brisk: #02259099



thanks for everyone's suggestions.

managed to find
this thanks brisk.

 

Messageboard index