Mp3 Bitrate

  • Thread starter Thread starter poo
  • Start date Start date
P

poo

New member
Question...
Lets say i encode an wav to mp3 at 128 Kbps..
I then decode it to .WAV..is the original quality BEFORE i encoded it at 128 regained? or is there loss of detail?

thanks
 
I believe you will lose the quality of the original .wav file if you do this.

Mark
 
The resulting wave will be identical in sound to the MP3. MP3 is a lossy compression scheme, and there is no way to regain the lost fidelity.

Slackmaster 2000
 
To add to what my colleagues already mentioned...

There will be a progressive loss each time you encode and decode. The compression techniques used in the MP3 format are a form of lossy compression which essentially throw away a portion of the signal the algorithm deems extraneous, each time it gets encoded. Decoding the signal, by definition then, loses some level of detail compared to the original - eventually, given enough encodes/decodes the original signal will be complete mush....

Check this site out for more detailed spec of MP3 -
http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/M/MP3.html

Hope this helps...

Bruce Valeriani
Blue Bear Sound
 
Thanks Guys!! I just wasn't sure on that one. Cause alot of my mp3's sufffer before they go on mp3.com! I WISH we could upload them at 192.

peace
 
Then you probably are using a crappy encoder.
What are you using?
 
Xing audiocatalyst...Have any good suggestions towards a better one?!

thanks
 
Haven't tested that one much, but it's supposed to be OK.
Try things that use the Fraunhofer encoder, it seems to be the best. AudioActive production studio seems good.

But before you do that, upload a Wav file that suffers when encodeing at 128 somewhere on the net, I want it!! If it produces crappy results in 128K, I need it to test encoders with! :)

What are "crappy" results btw?
 
ahh

The xing engine is abuot the worst out there, please try to stay away from it. a tale tale sign of a bad encoder..listen to your cymbals after the encode..what do they sound like? listen closer and you'll see. As regebro pointed out APS is a really good encoder, but expensive. There are free ones out there that are decent.

regebro: it's not the 'wave' that produces crappy results, it's the encoder..just to clarify.


ametth
 
Ametth, how crappy the results are will in large depend on the material. Some material are easy to encode, some are hard...

If the Xing really is a crappy encoder, then thats OK. I haven't tested it since the free demo doesn't want to encode Wav-files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top