If the original sources for the m4a files is unavailable, then I would recommend that Kada try converting a few m4a files at 192 kbs to mp3 at 192 kbs, at around 220 kbs and around 240 kbs, and maybe at 160 kbs. and I would be in agreement with Christina. If that is the case, there is no particular reason for Kada to convert to mp3 higher than 192 kbs. If Kada were to take m4a files ripped at 192 kbs with mp3 files ripped from the same sources at 192 kbs, Kada might find no significant difference between the two. The other idea is that not every theoretical difference is an important difference. But assuming this estimate is correct, my suggestion would be to convert the 192 kbs m4a file to around 220 to 240 kbs mp3. This is an estimate on my part because I have not done the listening comparison to confirm this. My guess is that mp3 will start sounding roughly equal to 192 kbs m4a when the mp3 is encoded around 220-240 kbs. ![]() and to also mp3 at different bitrate setting, you might find the m4a superior to 192 kbs mp3 but that as you increase the quality of the mp3 encoding there will be a point where the encoded mp3 file is roughly equal to the m4a file at 192 kbs and that by the time you get the mp3 encoding to 320 kbs the mp3 file will sound better. Likewise, my hunch is that if you ripped audio to m4a at 192 kbs. If I started out with the wma file at 64 kbs and I wanted to convert it to mp3, my feeling is that I would want to convert the 64 kbs wma file to mp3 at 96 kbs. So if I wanted this degree of quality when encoding, but I want to use mp3, I would be advised to encode the audio directly to mp3 at 96 kbs. It is accepted that wma files encoded at a (especially) low bitrate (say 64 kbs.) is equivalent in quality to the same audio encoded to mp3 at 96 kbs. The first relies on a certain amount of experience and theory. Here I have two ideas to offer for this type of situation. The question raised by Kada20 is whether there is indeed an advantage to this and if so, what would be the optimal bitrate. ![]() So there might be some advantage to converting the m4a file to a higher quality mp3 file. The other drawback of the 320 kbs mp3 file will be again that it is much larger than the m4a file (although not as large as a lossless copy would be). It will not be a better file than the original 192 kbs m4a file. Likewise, if you convert the m4a file to mp3 at 320 kbs, you should expect to find a better copy of the m4a file than the two other mp3 files (at 64 kbs and at 160 kbs). ![]() You should expect to find a difference and you will. Say you convert the m4a file to mp3 at 64 kbs and at 160 kbs. This being said, it should be obvious that mp3 copies of the m4a made at different bitrates will themselves vary in quality. The mp3 file will never be as good as the 192 kbs m4a file. Or you can convert it to a different lossy format, in this case mp3. You can make a lossless copy (which will be much largeer in size). In thhis case the m4a file cannot be improved. I think that Neil's opinion is valid-sometimes.Īny audio file is always its own best copy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |