Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsMP3 vs 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsOGG

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Beans
    489

    320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsMP3 vs 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsOGG

    Which better?

    Converting 320kbps MP3 into 192kbps MP3 VBR or
    Converting 320kbps MP3 into 192kbps OGG-Vorbis VBR?

    Thank you.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    West Hills CA
    Beans
    7,939
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal

    Re: 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsMP3 vs 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsOGG

    You would probably convert 320kbps MP3 into WAV and then compress to whatever format you like. Which you choose depends on the style of music (classical versus rock) and how you listen to music (ipod/headphones vs 1000-watt stereo system).

    Try both compression methods on a single file and listen to them. OGG gives better performance (smaller size and better acoustic quality) for certain types of music, but few players support it. If you can't tell the difference (and they will be subtle) then choose based on file size and compatibility with your playback devices.
    Last edited by tgalati4; December 9th, 2013 at 12:36 AM.
    -------------------------------------
    Oooh Shiny: PopularPages

    Unumquodque potest reparantur. Patientia sit virtus.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Beans
    35

    Re: 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsMP3 vs 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsOGG

    You shouldn't ever convert from lossy to lossy. MP3 to anything is always going to result is worse quality, no matter what settings/bitrates you choose for the target format. If you want to convert to a lower bitrate or different format then you should only do it from a lossless source, like .wav or .flac.

    At 192kbps OGG-vorbis would be better probably but I'm not sure what you mean by 192kbps VBR (VBR uses presets, there is no fixed bitrate, it changes throughout the file). At higher bitrates, like V0 (vbr) you probably wouldn't tell much difference between that and any ogg-vorbis encoding.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    U.K.
    Beans
    782
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsMP3 vs 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsOGG

    Bear in mind that some audio players can get really confused with VBR mp3 files showing very odd track durations and making tracks un-seekable. I have this problem with Rhythmbox for one.

    As bachtobach says downsampling mp3 to mp3 will give pretty horrible results. I've done it before and the result is a really muddy sounding mess - high frequency sounds like cymbals became all swishy whilst the lower frequencies lost any real definition at all. But that is a purely subjective thing, a lot of people don't seem to notice the difference. Try doing a few tracks both ways and listen to all three versions back to back and go with what works for you.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    CyberspacEastEngland
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 13.10 Saucy Salamander

    Re: 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsMP3 vs 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsOGG

    320 k mp3 is ok for an mp3 player
    why make the file smaller? to save space ... surely these days players are big enough to handle many 320

    if you are using these on a computer please do yourself a favour and store them in lossless probably flac


    my samsung which is only one gig and old now
    will play mp3 ogg and wave .... i have tried all of those and wave is overkill apart from being so big of course

    out of ogg and mp3 there is little to say ogg goes to 499k if you want it too and mp3 to 320k but really on those types of devices it matters little

    i agree with the other guys one more conversion will not help quality

    i suggest you remain with 320 it is fine for portable players... but for computers to me at least anathema ps many players can handle flac these days too ; that sounds like a good plan to me
    Last edited by shantiq; December 8th, 2013 at 11:44 AM.
    Linux is Latin for off-the-beaten-track [◄►] ● Is there Voodoo in the machine?
    ShanArt ● Mark as SolvedXmms

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Beans
    10,984

    Re: 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsMP3 vs 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsOGG

    Quote Originally Posted by tgalati4 View Post
    You would probably convert 320kbps MP3 into WAV and then compress to whatever format you like.
    I don't think converting to WAV first will help. The .wav won't have any extra audio information than the original mp3 does. You can't magically gain audio quality going from lossy -> lossless

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Beans
    3,476

    Re: 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsMP3 vs 320kbpsMP3=>192kbpsOGG

    Quote Originally Posted by czgirb View Post
    Which better?

    Converting 320kbps MP3 into 192kbps MP3 VBR or
    Converting 320kbps MP3 into 192kbps OGG-Vorbis VBR?
    Why re-encode in the first place?

    If you must re-encode, then see:


    They are both decent encoders. You can perform an ABX test to see which one sounds better to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Temüjin View Post
    I don't think converting to WAV first will help. The .wav won't have any extra audio information than the original mp3 does. You can't magically gain audio quality going from lossy -> lossless
    +1

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •