|
Need to Replace 128 kbps with 192 kbps ...please help
|
View this Thread in Original format
| rockster77 |
when i started downloading mp3 for the first time (about 2 years ago) i thought that 128 kbps was CD quality...but now i know it is not. i just recently started redownloading my favourite trance classics but there are many that i am unable to find @ 192 kbps. if you have any of the following @ 192 kbps please let me know.
- gouryella - gouryalla (original mix) [10:42]
- transa - enervate (original) [7:49]
- vincent de moor - darwin's voyage [7:06]
- red light district - did you hear me (phase ii mix) [8:45]
- energy 52 - cafe del mar (three in one mix)
- dj tiesto - close to you (magik muzik remix)
if you can get any of these tracks to me somehow, please let me know...thanks.
p.s. - as i go through my collection i'll probably be adding to this list...thanks again in advance ! |
|
|
| LÖKI-{420} |
| Hey bud..why dont u just use something like audiograbber or some other kinda program and encode the mp3's that u need into 192 kbps..u can take your 128 ones and just convert them..much easier than scouting aroudn for them..just my 2 cents |
|
|
| fantom |
What's the point of converting the MP3s into 192 kbps when they lost too much quality when they were converted to 128 originaly...?
You can't get a better quality MP3 from 128 anymore, no matter which bitrate you re-encode it into... |
|
|
| rockster77 |
| quote: | Originally posted by fantom
What's the point of converting the MP3s into 192 kbps when they lost too much quality when they were converted to 128 originaly...?
You can't get a better quality MP3 from 128 anymore, no matter which bitrate you re-encode it into... |
i started a thread a few days ago asking this very question. i didn't think that you could up-convert the files and get better quality. it just didn't make sense. so now, i'm re-downloading eveything. |
|
|
| flystyler |
| Yep you cant get something from nothing, so you cant increase bitrate. If you want the dj tiesto one, it should b on any good album site, i think the remix is on the album |
|
|
| Paul Wilson |
| Here's my opinion. There's no difference between 96 kps, 128 kps and 192 kps MP3's. I rip all my MP3's to 96 kps. You lose no quality and get a smaller file size. 192 kps MP3's are just a waste of space on your hard drive. I try to avoid them! |
|
|
| Transa |
| I try to go for 320kbs mp3s if possible.(Mind you,i do have about 150 gig of hard drive space to mess around with!) Hee hee. |
|
|
| TurboGS-R |
you guys are taking this the wrong way. read his post. he wants people to rip those tracks from vinyl and convert to 192kbit. he hasn't asked anything about re-encoding anything.
btw if you ever get your hands on a 192kbit gouryella, please let me know. i'm dying to have it too. |
|
|
| dig2k |
Where the hell are people getting all these stupid ideas from!?
You can't increase the quality of an mp3 file by simply re-encoding it from 128kbps --> 192kbps! If you could do that then a 128kbps file would be the same quality as a 192kbps file!! It makes no sense at all!
Secondly 128 is near-cd quality, and there is not that much difference between 128kbps and 192kbps coded files for the average listener, especially when its recorded of fm radio. You can however tell the difference between 96kbps and 128kbps files. 320kbps is just over the top, if you've got the hard disc space you might as well though. You'll have to have pretty good ears to notice a big difference between 192kbps and 320kbps! Mind you my ears aren't so good, can tell the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps still tho : Its the law of diminishing returns!
:-) |
|
|
| Paul Wilson |
| quote: | Originally posted by dig2k
You can however tell the difference between 96kbps and 128kbps files. 320kbps is just over the top,
:-) |
Certainally not true. There is practically no difference in quality between a 96 kps MP3 and anything up from that. If I ripped an MP3 from CD to 96 kps and then then I changed the 96 kps MP3 to 192 kps, I don't think anybody would be able to tell the difference. I don't see any point in people ripping MP3's to above 96 kps, anybody else feel the same way? |
|
|
| fantom |
| quote: | Originally posted by Paul Wilson
Certainally not true. There is practically no difference in quality between a 96 kps MP3 and anything up from that. If I ripped an MP3 from CD to 96 kps and then then I changed the 96 kps MP3 to 192 kps, I don't think anybody would be able to tell the difference. I don't see any point in people ripping MP3's to above 96 kps, anybody else feel the same way? |
Oh darn... not this discussion again...
First of all bro, you wouldn't notice any difference if you encoded your 96kbps MP3 into 192kbps MP3 because you lost so much CD quality ripping it into 96kbps in the first place that you just can't recover that no matter what bitrate you encoded that MP3 into later on.
However, if you took the WAV file and made two MP3s - one encoded at 96 and the other one at 192, you would notice a difference!
If you don't notice any difference between those 2, then you either have some crappy audio system or you're just plain deaf... I gave up on 128kbps and lower bitrate MP3s long time ago (ever since I heard the good quality 160 and 192kbps rips on my $800 audio system)!!!
If you need some facts on this, I will sure try to dig up some links from my bookmarks, since I really don't feel like starting that debate on encoding MP3s at anything lower than 128kbps...
And if 96 was good enough, why in the heck do all these MP3 release groups and rippers encode their releases at a minimum of 192kbps? Certainly not because they just have too much hard drive space and too much time on their hands...
...it's all about the quality... |
|
|
|
|
