im trying to encode a mp3 thats at 14 kbs to a mp3 with 128 kbs, ive heard LAME does this but i cant seem to get lame to instal or setup right or sumthing, how can i get my mp3 to the higher quality? is this even possible? oppps typo in title line, mps=mp3
it's possible but the mp3 will be all disorted. You can try to make an cd-audio image of the mp3 then use musicmatch to rip at 128kps but will be disorted
u might also wanna try dbc poweramp with powerpack. excellent proggy with super results..does it thru lame...simplest of them all.. dont know about ur 14kb files .qlty might be bad..but iv had good results..with converting fm 56 to 192
Example how you can do it: "lame3903 --alt-preset cbr 128 "f:\12 A Evaristo Carriego - Osvaldo Pugliese.mp3" "f:\12 A Evaristo Carriego - Osvaldo Pugliese_128.mp3" (Win2k here, lame.exe (version 3.90.3) copied to c:\winnt\system32\lame3903.exe) !!! BUT ... This will DEGRADE quality and increase file size. The 128kbps file will sound worse than the 14kbps one (OK - compared to the mess added by encoding to 14kbps transcoding to 128kbps won't degrade the sound much further). The only reason to do this is a hardware player that isn't capable of playing back the 14kbps file.
May I ask for what reason you transcoded 56kpbs to 192kbps - and in what way were the results of this good?
okay, well i guess i wont mess with it if its gonna be worse, the thing was i had used virtual dub to get the audio off a music video i dled and it came out in 14kbs, and didnt sound very good, i did this cause i dled the song and it was in 128 but sounded muffled and the video i had of this song sounded better then the mp3 so i tryed to get that off there, but it didnt work out quite right, lol, thanks anyway
hi!meant that results with 56 will be defintly better than 14.. anyway these were quite nice sounding mp3 s.and i needed to clip off some portions thru db p.amp..and it normally takes it up to 192 ..else i wudnt have bothered.. and all the tracks got a nice normalised kinda effect..certainly sounded slightly btter..havnt tested but..my pals who i did it for..was quite thrilled .he cudnt manage the clipping..
There is no way to get a higher quality audio file by converting it to a higher size file. Once it is low and distorted, you will have to rip that track or get it a higher bitrate from another source. Also, after converting audio several times, it loses that sharp quality like bass. The first few times it is not too noticable but it will be if you always re-encode it.
Once MP3 is encoded that's it you've lost the quality and there's no getting it back (unless you re-encode the original source at a higher bitrate). It's a shame there are even utilities that suggest you can do this as it creates the problem of flooding the p2p's with 192kbps at low quality... Audiophiles go for 256kbps or above as a minimum through a high quality hi-fi system. 192 is very acceptable for most mere mortals lol 160 and 128 aren't worth bothering with IMO Steve
yea, thats so annoying how people will put out a 138 kbps mp3!!! maybe a 80kbps wma would work though, because wma version 9.0 uses mpeg-4 aac. but i despise windows media.
1. What does "work" mean here? For transcoding? 2. I doubt that WMA 9 uses AAC. Where did you get that information from?_X_X_X_X_X_[small]AFTERDAWN FORUM RULES: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487[/small]
i got it from www.microsoft.com a few months ago, i think it may have been Mindows Media 7 or 8, I'm not sure, i may be mistaken.
I beleive you have mistaken. WMA is an in-house developement of Microsoft and does not comply to any 2nd party standards.
