Loss Of Quality When Converting (Question)

[DisinfectedDuck]

Question - If you convert an MP3 file to a WMA file, and then convert it back to MP3, will you lose sound quality?

I have a massive number of MP3 files on my comp that I wanna backup on a CD, so I wanna save some space and convert it.

BTW - maybe there's a smaller format than WMA that I can convert the files to?

Thanks!

[Dazzla Veteran]

To be honest, converting MP3 to WMA wont save much space on the grand scheme of things. I'd estimate around 10-20 mb for a CD's worth of MP3's.

As for quality loss, I don't forsee any problems if you keep the same bitrate or higher. Up to you though, I'd simply leave them as MP3, save the hassle of converting and reconverting.

[DisinfectedDuck]

You're right, I didn't think about the hassle of converting.

Thanks!

[hurting101]

Also, if you use WMA in winamp seeking is slower than MP3. For me it is. It goes: seek, pause, play. MP3 is: seek, play.

[Glowstick]

Each MP3 encoder has different psycho-acoustic settings. WMA also has diff ones, very diff ones since it uses some other methods to encode the audio. If you convert back and forth, due the differing psycho-acoustics, you screw the quality definitely. No matter if you set the bitrate higher or lower.

[MxxCon]

even if you transcode even with same codec you will degrade quality.

mp3 and wma and bunch of other formats are lossy. each time you transcode you lose quality that's impossible to get back.

if you want same quality with less space you can't go wrong with Ogg Vorbis

[CaPeRKiNG77]

Although I haven't tried Ogg Vorbis, there is another lesser known format you can convert the MP3's to, .vqf, or TwinVQ/SoundVQ. There hasn't been a lot of development on this format lately afaik, but the .vqf format is roughly 33% smaller than your average MP3, using a smaller bitrate, but has a better sound quality. If Joe Koeniger still works on the site, you can visit VQF.com, or you could also check MPEGX.com's SoundVQ info/download page. There's a WinAMP plugin also available for this format. PM if anyone wants it. Hope this helps.

PiMPiN

[DrunkenMaster]

I'd agree with Servo on this one too. The different codecs might share the same bitrate settings but you have to consider that MP3 will take different acoutic properties into account when making a file than will other codecs. If you have too many songs to fit on one CD, consider deleting songs you don't like or using an extra CD(s) instead of converting. Besides, converting the codecs wastes too much time.

[neowin_hipster]

I agree with tom servo, he's pretty smart about lots you know, If you dl all, then keep at current settings, but If you have original cd, then use .ogg, or Lame @ 192.

[Roger H. Veteran]

i'd rather WMA for some reason of it's not no 10-20MB per CD, more like 100MB. I ripped a song off a Linkin Park CD with both codecs.

Artist: Linkin Park

Album: Hybrid Theory

Track: 1

Name: Papercut

Bitrate: 256Kbps (MP3) 128Kbps (WMA)

Length: 3:04 (mins:secs)

Results,

MP3 = 5.63MB

WMA = 2.49MB

I'd say that's about half! and they sound exactly alike so you can fit twice as much info (well maybe) on a CD when compare to MP3. I love MP3s but if my Sony D-CJ01 could play WMA i'd convert the whole thing! No Prob tho, i'm getting my Ipaq soo (3650) :)

[neowin_hipster]

lame mp3 at 192 sounds better than anything, other than .ogg

[frod]

musepack at 192 will beat any other lossy codec at 192 so i suggest using that (the file size is the same). that way you can encode everything you have at 128 or so musepack and have the same sound quality as a 256kbps mp3 or so at 128kbps mp3 file size. but yes taking any sound source whether it be compressed or not and using a lossy codec on it will reduce the sound quality of the source. whether or not you are able to hear the difference is up to your sound equipment and your hearing abilities.

personally i don't understand how people can say 192kbps mp3 sounds identical to cd, to me 192kbps mp3 is horrible quality. but i guess that's just me. the only mp3s i keep now are 320kbps and even then i rather have a 256kbps musepack file.

and if you say 192kbps mp3 is better than any other lossy 192kbps encoding you obviously haven't tried musepack. but musepack isn't very widely known :/. oh well.

have fun.

[Glowstick]

IMO the best quality I get from MPC and WMA8 when you encode > 96kbit, then again, it's all subjective when it comes to psycho-acoustics. I can't await WMA9 tho, beta is supposed to come out soon. When it comes to smaller bitrates < 96kbit, go with OGG.

[Keldyn]

moved to media