Digital Audio Questions

[margin]

<p>So I ripped a cd on my computer as a wma 128 kbps 16 bit 44 khz.&nbsp; Then I used Windows Audio Converter to convert&nbsp;one of the&nbsp;wmas to an mp3 and it gives you the option to change the quality from anywhere from 128&nbsp;to 320kbps.&nbsp; I select 320kbps and it converts the file.</p><p>So my question:</p><p>Why would it allow me to change the quality to 320?&nbsp; </p><p>It makes sense that you would be able to compress the file and decrease the quality, but&nbsp;it doesn't seem to make sense to me how it can&nbsp;increase the quality of a file that you've already ripped onto the computer.&nbsp; </p>

[Mike Teacher]

<p>Once you step down the audio to a low bitrate, the sound quality of that bitrate will remain consistent no matter how you save it afterwards, you can save a 16kbps MP3 as a Wav or Wma file; but it will still have the sound quality of the low bitrate MP3, you dont 'get back' any quality; the logic is backwards, many programs let you save MP3s at all sorts of bitrates, as well as other file formats.</p><p>The mpeg algorithm is a 'lossey' one; it takes away stuff, and once gone, its gone.</p>

[TheRealEddie]

<p>Yup, both you and Mike are correct.</p><p>Bitrates/quality have been debated here before. Given my hearing and where and how I listen to music, 160 bps is pretty much the point of diminishing returns for me. That is, higher bitrates dont add a noticible improvement in quality. Of course, that is based on my hearing capacity. Some people think ALL compressed audio sounds like crap..</p><p> </p><p>In general, you want to minimize the number of conversions of any file.Do you have to convert the file to an mp3? There are plenty of newer formats that are just as small in filesize yet have less &quot;loss&quot; in sound quality. But, &quot;loss&quot; in sound quality is very subjective <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/smile.gif" /> .<br /></p><p> </p><p> </p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by TheRealEddie on 3-1-06 @ 7:53 AM</span>

[mendyweiss]

<img height="320" src="http://www.bris.ac.uk/cas/firstyears/inc_guides/w5/huh.jpg" width="369" border="0" />

[HBox]

<p>I'll try and simplify: If you take a song and rip it from a CD to a 128K WMA file, it's akin to making a copy on a copy machine at a medium setting. If you then take the copy you just made and then make a very high quality copy of it (i.e. taking the 128K WMA file and converting it to a 320K MP3) it will not look (or sound) any better than the copy. In fact, it will actually sound a little worse since it did lose a little bit of definition, though not all that much since it is a high quality copy.</p><p>This goes for any audio codec other than lossless formats (FLAC, Apple Lossless). For lossless, consider it a perfect copy of whatever you are converting. So, if you rip a file directly from the CD to a lossless file, it will sound exactly the same, yet if you convert 128K WMA to a lossless file, it will sound exactly like the WMA file, not the original source.&nbsp;</p>

[SatCam]

In addition to everything said above, I would definately suggest you re-convert those wmas to 128kbps mp3s. 320kbps is almost 2x the bitrate that you need so the mp3 encoder ends up encoding the frequencies where sound was removed by the original (wma) encoding (basically "dead air" taking up space). Even if you have a lot of hd space, you could always use more... it'll also save you memory when you go to cue up the song.

Also, in the future you should, if possible, forget about encoding to wma first. It's like recording to a cassette and copying that cassette to another one, and so on, until the last cassette sounds like garbage. As said above, wma and mp3 are lossy, so an encoding of an encoding is always going to be worse.

[Doctor Manhattan]

<img src="http://img495.imageshack.us/img495/755/250pxlprecordalbum2uh.jpg" border="0" />

[badorties]

<p><font color="#000080"><font size="2">I'll try and simplify: If you take a song and rip it from a CD to a 128K WMA file, it's akin to making a copy on a copy machine at a medium setting. If you then take the copy you just made and then make a very high quality copy of it (i.e. taking the 128K WMA file and converting it to a 320K MP3) it will not look (or sound) any better than the copy. In fact, it will actually sound a little worse since it did lose a little bit of definition, though not all that much since it is a high quality copy.</font></font></p><p></p><p>if cds are the source, the analogy begins with a photo of a page and then making a copy of a copy -- you're making a digital&nbsp;file of a digitally captured&nbsp;source ... </p><p>i've ripped 10,000 plus songs at 112k and was able to fit 6,100 songs on a 20 gig player ... i wish now, i had ripped them all at 96k to get even more song on my mp3 player</p>

[margin]

why would you want such a low bit rate, badortie?

[badorties]

<p>i don't really hear the difference ... and i'm really not much of a purist</p><p>and smaller the bitrate,&nbsp;smaller the fileand more&nbsp;songs on the mp3 player</p><p>but i'll keep things at 112 just to be fussy</p>

[margin]

<p>So how can i rip my cds as FLAC files?&nbsp; What software should i use?</p>

[suggums]

<p>320 kbps is a safe bet for ripping, noticably better than 128 but any more just takes up too much space</p><p>p.s. i know nothing of flac but i offer this in return</p><p><img width="325" height="476" border="0" src="http://www.propstore.com/images/products/59/face-flack1.jpg" /> </p>



<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by suggums on 4-16-06 @ 3:04 AM</span>

[SatCam]

<strong>margin</strong> wrote:<br><p>So how can i rip my cds as FLAC files? What software should i use?</p><p></p>

Don't ask Mikey D. He never cut Fezzie any FLAC

[SatCam]

To answer your question, <a href="http://flac.sourceforge.net/links.html#software" title="Never cut Fezzy any FLAC">here is a list of encoders/decoders, rippers, etc</a>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by SatCam on 4-16-06 @ 12:23 PM</span>