 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (4)Hyperflake recycle dariusgriffin DADONCK ...and 139 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614353 Today 74 Topics 127559 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Say I have an album at 192kbs that I want at 128 kbs... is there a way to knock the 192 down to 128? Any programs? Without killing the sound quality, of course. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, i just use sound forge open the file 'save as..' a lower bitrate, simple! maybe timing consuming, i dunno |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It can't be done without further reducing the quality. But at 128 Kbps, you're probably not too worried about it. The LAME encoder can do this, since you're running Windows you will probably want a front-end like RazorLame or WinLame. If you try to share those transcoded files, though, may the Creator strike you down where you stand. They are evil and should be for personal use only. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The only way to change the bitrate is to decode to wav and re-encode the file. This will always reduce the quality, even if you re-encode at a higher bitrate. You might be able to fool mp3 players into thinking it's a different bitrate by altering every frame or something but it will still actually be the original bitrate, and probably won't play anymore anyway. You'll lose more quality if you re-encode at 128 than you would re-encoding at 320 though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I second what whaley said. Anyone who shares re-encoded files deserves to die a horrible and slow death spit-roasting over a large fire with an apple in their gob. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Not always the case. It depends what codec you are using to actually encrypt the file. For example many are optimised for 128 and if you use that codec to encode at 320 you can actually end up with a worse sounding copy than if you had just stuck to 128. I know it sounds wierd but it is true. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hehe, I think I'm going to give up on this then... it obviously wasn't a big deal to begin since I was willing to have shit 128kbs files. I don't like albums that I only like a tiny bit at 192 and greater. And most of the 128kbs files I have are ripped right from my CDs, tough to get them on p2p now. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Doesn't sound weird. I know it's a fact. but what I was saying was that you'll lose quality in a re-encode whatever you do, whether the encoder is optimised for a particular bitrate or not. Eg: you rip Second Bad Vilbel at 192k. You lose quality due to the compression. Then you convert it back to a wav at no further loss. Then if you convert it to 128k, fair enough, the previous compression has rid the original sound of whatever properties a 192k encode does, but then you will be removing further properties for a lower compression bitrate irrespective of the encoder, and probably also if using a higher bitrate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
agreed...using 192 mp3 for the source for a 128 encode is gonna sound awful... Persaonlly, I never worry about bitrates...VBR (variable Bit Rate) MP3s takes care of all that... check out r3mix.net for the full info on MP3 encoding.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there's a converter in MusicMatch Jukebox...just set it to Mp3-Mp3 and set the output-bitrate on what you desire...simple, and in good quality |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I used that to change the 320Kbps rip of HAB 1+2...sounds great :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i recomend musicmatch also... i use it for all my file coverting.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
