|
Bitrate Upgrade with Soundforge.*Have a question about that*
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Massive84 |
Am kinda confused, in soundforge, you can make something from 64kb to 192 for example..
As from mp3 to mp3..
is this the same quality as in from wav to 192kb mp3?
thats my question :). |
|
|
| alanzo |
| no.. the crappyness caused by the low bitrate is stuck with it in the waveform... changing something from 64 to 192 won't make a noticible difference in audio quality.. |
|
|
| Mossy |
| record something to 64k and you lose a lot of the sound frequencies and subtleties, which gives you smaller file size and lower quality audio. Mp3 is a lossy encoding format, in that it decides how much of the sound to sample per second from the sounds wave form based on the encoding level you specify. Allowing you to upsample a 64k mp3 is imo completely pointless. |
|
|
| Dj Thy |
mp3, Real audio, Wma (except the latest Windows media player 9) are all lossy compression schemes. Lossy, meaning, they throw away stuff they don't need.
The signal that has been thrown away, cannot be reconstructed. So converting from a lower bitrate won't gain you anything, only useless extra size (cuz unless you use the best variable rate scheme, the file doesn't care if there's silence or useful signal, ie a 10 minute wav file with nothing but silence will be as big as a 10 minute wav with music...).
So, in your example, let's say we use CBR (Constant bitrate). Your new file will be as big as any regular 192 kbps file, but with the same quality as the original 64 kbps file. |
|
|
| Massive84 |
ok tnx, i kinda noticed that when i tried it out a bit..
but here is an other question..
Making something from low to high, is same quality more space..
But if you make something from high to low? same quality lower space? or something like that can't happen? |
|
|
| alanzo |
| lower space = lower quality.. this isn't exactly rocket science :p |
|
|
| Dj Thy |
All depends how you code it.
Either a variable rate encoding can give a smaller size, for an almost identical sound quality (although, sometimes the inverse effect can be observed). It will code signals that need less information on a low bitrate, and signal that needs high resolution with a higher bitrate. On some occasions it can give a smaller filesize than a constant bitrate encoding.
And then of course you got lossless encoding. One kind of OGG can do lossless, Monkey Audio, Windows Media Player 9, DSD; MLP. They are lossless. They reduce filesize, but don't lose any information. If you have to compare it to one thing, compare it to ZIP or RAR files. Smaller filesize, but after decompression, you get the same signal...
Usually harder to implement. |
|
|
| Massive84 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Thy
All depends how you code it.
Either a variable rate encoding can give a smaller size, for an almost identical sound quality (although, sometimes the inverse effect can be observed). It will code signals that need less information on a low bitrate, and signal that needs high resolution with a higher bitrate. On some occasions it can give a smaller filesize than a constant bitrate encoding.
And then of course you got lossless encoding. One kind of OGG can do lossless, Monkey Audio, Windows Media Player 9, DSD; MLP. They are lossless. They reduce filesize, but don't lose any information. If you have to compare it to one thing, compare it to ZIP or RAR files. Smaller filesize, but after decompression, you get the same signal...
Usually harder to implement. |
ok cool tnx for the replies..
learned new things. |
|
|
|
|
