mp3 upgrade / downgrade

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnZing
  • Start date Start date
J

JohnZing

Hi,
i have a lots of mp3 with 16kbs quality. I need to convert them to 50kbs
(or something) so they can be read in my cheap DVD.
Sometimes i also need the oposite (downgrade).

Is there any freeware i can use? Fast if possible :)

thank you
 
Hi,
i have a lots of mp3 with 16kbs quality. I need to convert them to
50kbs (or something) so they can be read in my cheap DVD.
Sometimes i also need the oposite (downgrade).

Is there any freeware i can use? Fast if possible :)
Click to expand...

CDEX, Keep in mind the quality doesn't go up with bitrate increases, but
does goes down with bitrate reduction....
 
CDEX, Keep in mind the quality doesn't go up with bitrate increases, but
does goes down with bitrate reduction....
Click to expand...

thank you.
cdex requires two steps to downgrade/upgrade, convert mp3 to wav and then
wav to mp3, but does what i need.
 
JohnZing said:
thank you.
cdex requires two steps to downgrade/upgrade, convert mp3 to wav
and then wav to mp3, but does what i need.
Click to expand...

No, just one...
Convert
Re-encode Compressed Audio File(s)

It is still going MP3>WAVE>MP3 - has to, so do all - but it is one step as
far as you are concerned.

--
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
____________________________
 
Chaos happened and JohnZing said:
Hi,
i have a lots of mp3 with 16kbs quality. I need to convert them to 50kbs
(or something) so they can be read in my cheap DVD.
Sometimes i also need the oposite (downgrade).

Is there any freeware i can use? Fast if possible :)
Click to expand...

dbPowerAmp can, but changing bitrate to a higher one will not help.
I have been reducing MP3 files from 192k to 128k and/or VBR, so the MP3's take
less space, the audio quality don't change.



[]s
 
I have been reducing MP3 files from 192k to 128k and/or VBR, so the
MP3's take less space, the audio quality don't change.
Click to expand...

Audio snobs disapprove of transcoding MP3s (a lossy codec) from high
bitrates to lower formats or different formats because of reduced quality,
but it makes no difference to my ears/equipment.
 
Iain said:
Audio snobs disapprove of transcoding MP3s (a lossy codec) from high
bitrates to lower formats or different formats because of reduced quality,
but it makes no difference to my ears/equipment.
Click to expand...

I can hear the difference between 192k and 128k so never use 128k. I
rip to 200 and something to be safe; not that I've done it for a
while...
 
I can hear the difference between 192k and 128k so never use 128k. I
rip to 200 and something to be safe; not that I've done it for a
while...
Click to expand...

Congratulations. Can you hear a difference between 192k and the higher rate
you rip to? I suspect most people rip to too-high bitrates, "just to be
safe". It's a pity that's a pain to download.
 
Iain said:
Congratulations. Can you hear a difference between 192k and the higher rate
you rip to? I suspect most people rip to too-high bitrates, "just to be
safe". It's a pity that's a pain to download.
Click to expand...

I forget now :-)

IIRC I used to rip to 256, whether or not I could hear the difference
from 192.
And if given the option I would always download at 256. I think any
higher than 256 is silly.
I started with 128 for the smaller file size but really don't like
it... it is OK for background or loud rock or pop. I would think most
people could hear a lack of 'richness' in a sensitive classical piece.
 
I forget now :-)

IIRC I used to rip to 256, whether or not I could hear the difference
from 192.
And if given the option I would always download at 256. I think any
higher than 256 is silly.
I started with 128 for the smaller file size but really don't like
it... it is OK for background or loud rock or pop. I would think most
people could hear a lack of 'richness' in a sensitive classical piece.
Click to expand...

I have never been able to tell the difference, but my ears have never been
great and I have never had good enough equipment to tell the difference.
Therefore I refuse to download anything above 192kbs, unless I _really_
want to hear it.

Most of the audio snobs at Hydrogenaudio think 192kbs MP3s that have been
encoded with LAME are "transparent".

Foobar (my favourite mp3 player at the moment) lets you do serious ABX
testing very easily. I'd encourage you to try to see the difference between
identical tracks encoded at different bitrates. I'd do it myself, but my
laptop gives off an annoying intermittent hiss that makes it pointless.
 
Iain said:
Most of the audio snobs at Hydrogenaudio think 192kbs MP3s that have been
encoded with LAME are "transparent".
Click to expand...

LOL. What a nice expression. It can be wonderful listening to the
absolute obsessive purists. You think you are going to listen to a
piece of music but they only really want you to listen to how their
equipment plays it..
Foobar (my favourite mp3 player at the moment) lets you do serious ABX
testing very easily. I'd encourage you to try to see the difference between
identical tracks encoded at different bitrates. I'd do it myself, but my
laptop gives off an annoying intermittent hiss that makes it pointless.
Click to expand...

I'll put it on my to do list; I'm quite obstinately non musical atm,
it's a bit of a nuisance.
 
LOL. What a nice expression. It can be wonderful listening to the
absolute obsessive purists. You think you are going to listen to a
piece of music but they only really want you to listen to how their
equipment plays it..
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of it that way, but now you come to mention it, that's got
to be a large part of it.
 
Back
Top