Changing codec
 

Is it possble to improve file quality by uncompressing then reencoding into another codec. I want to reencode some of my older downloads to a better codec. I don't care for the - Blade - Xing - codecs and want to reencode them into Lame *R3mix* or ogg vorbis. Or will this actually hurt the quality? Help please!

From what I understand decompressing the mp3 and re-encoding it will RUIN your sound quality. (we are talking music, right?)

In my view, it would be best to just download a higher bitrate file, 192 is pretty good, and I try not to dl at less than that. If you want to record music onto your comp, I like to use the lame based encoders, using a Variable bit-rate.

Go to
http://www.arstechnica.com/wankerdes...mp3/mp3-1.html
For some good reading.

Edit:
Try http://www.cdex.n3.net/ for the CDex program, it uses the Lame encoder, and is the same prog I use, without any trouble so far.

VWguy is right, recompressing an MP3 in a different codec or even a different MP3 bitrate will reduce quality. MP3 compression actually deletes certain inaudiable sounds to save space, but different codecs delete different sounds. Recompressing one lossy file that already has some information removed to an other lossy file will remove even more data. Recompressing a low bitrate file to a high bitrate file won't improve the quality at all because it can't recover the lost data, and it will in fact remove a little bit more.

I remember finding a user on Napster with nothing but 320 mp3's right after I got the cable modem. I was in hog heaven till I played a few of them. GOD, talk about clipped sounds. I IM'd the user and found out she had redone all 1400 of her downloads to 320 from whatever. She then told me it must be Winamp, because Winamp was causing her the same problem. Being a neophyte I down loaded player after player before it dawned on me it must be the files and someone on the old naspter forums clued me in to what had happened.:dir: :TY: :rofl:

Thanks for the replys. I was just wondering if it would ruin the sound or not.
I have no problem encoding my own I use CDEX for ogg vorbis and 256cbr lame to get the best stereo sound. But if I want file size and quality I use the Win32lame encoding method for VBR. Win32lame uses the R3mix presets in the Razorlame program http://r3mix.net/ Makes the best damn VBR files with the Lame codec you will ever find IMHO.
Problem being when I first started to use Napster about a year ago I didn't know squat about MP3 sound codecs or programs. But after doing some rather extensive research and testing I have found I dislike the older files I have compared to the new ones I make. As a matter of fact I redid all of my CD's to the newer codecs.
Only reason I ask is I was looking for some other options and was just curious. As for the redownload well 56k here makes it a bit hard. Other problems are alot of the files are still in the older codecs so I would gain nothing. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a program that reported what codec was used before you downloaded it??
Anyway thanks for the input everyone. I found this forum about a month or 2 ago just before the closing of the Nap boards. Good to see some of the community still survives.

Like I said, 192-256 is the best to DL, regardless of the engine used to record them(unless it was a crappy copy in the first place). I can't hear an audible difference between a 256 and a vbr encoded song, and 192 is almost as good, audio wise, for most uses.

I think. ;)

ps. Yes there are still some audiophiles around, just ask. I am still a neophite, however.

Well VWguy I agree and disagree. For CBr I agree there is no need to go above 256. But the problem is some codecs like Xing for example sound horrible at higher bitrates. Blade just sounds horrible period. Otherwise yes you are right! But again dialup is a barrier here 256 files sometimes get huge and VBR is what I like to look for or 192cbr.
But what to download wasn't really what I was looking for. I know that now was just wondering if I could correct past mistakes.

Re: Changing codec
 

transcoding (or 're-encoding') will affect quality significantly because ur dealing with lossy compression formats

i highly doubt you want to get close to blade or xing; blade doesn't use short blocks correctly and xing doesn't use them at all. you'll end up with loads of artifacts. but this is not to say that lame or fhg will deliver any better results regardless of what settings you select

think of it this way: when you encode the original, mp3 removes information. by transcoding this mp3 again in lossy format, you need to take it into consideration that you already have a "stripped" audiosignal. so while in the first instance the encoder may remove only redundent information, in the second hit it will remove audible information

obviously this tandem effect of re-encoding goes beyond the sound quality issue; if you re-encode to a higher bitrate (i.e. the original mp3 was 128kbits and you're transcoding that to 256kbits), then not only you end up with even worse sound quality but the re-encoded mp3 will be twice as big than the original mp3.. shtoza all the way :D

theories are important tools in thier own right and help expain how things work and go together but they can't fully substitute for experimentation. as we say in radio, "the best thing to get a weatherman is...a window".

my advice? grab a couple of files and reconvert. see what happens. they may sound awfull - they may not, but along the way you'll surely learn more than you knew before. might even be fun. :)

- js.