question about encoding

[-73H_64M3R- 0]

hi everybody. just a question. if i encode a music file, am i encoding an already encoded music file or will the software decode the file first before encoding? i'm not sure if i'm asking the correct question but i hope you will understand what i'm asking about.

Edited June 22, 2008 by -73H_64M3R-

[radioactive28 0]

Not too sure what you're asking...

How about you tell us exactly what you want to do? For example, converting MP3 to WMA, or CD to MP3 et cetera.

 

 

In terms of data processing,

If you're encoding directly from an audio CD, it's raw data (i.e., not encoded).

If you're converting from MP3, AAC, WMA etc, they're already encoded, and will most likely be decoded before being re-encoded again.

 

If you're asking about the actual process, most programmes should be able to directly encode what you have (source) to what you want (destination), without creating a 3rd temporary file.

[-73H_64M3R- 0]

i'm just asking if the software will decode the music file first (MP3 format) before encoding it into a new format. if not, the software would be encoding an already encoded music file. i'm asking this because i'm actually thinking of encoding all my music files into higher quality ones.

Edited June 23, 2008 by -73H_64M3R-

[radioactive28 0]

Oh, okay, I see what you're trying to do.

 

Many programmes will internally decode the MP3 file before re-encoding it to whatever new format you want.

 

Pardon me if you already know this, or if I assumed wrongly, but there's a catch.

For example, if you've got an MP3 file @ 192kbps, there's no point re-encoding it to a higher bitrate or quality (e.g., 320kbps AAC) because there won't be any real increase in quality.

Edited June 23, 2008 by radioactive28

[mimi 0]

Any re-encoding should be done using your original CDs/tape/LPs. If you have the hard disc space, go for the loseless formats.

[comacer 0]

For example, if you've got an MP3 file @ 192kbps, there's no point re-encoding it to a higher bitrate or quality (e.g., 320kbps AAC) because there won't be any real increase in quality.

 

In other words, you cannot add more resolution to a file that already has low resolution.

You can only compress that resolution (with lossy formats such as mp3) or preserve the resolution (with lossless formats like flac).

 

[kongee 0]

Anyway has any innovative solutions to carry your lossless music files with you on any portable players?

[tassardar_ 0]

Well apple Ipods supports apple lossless format. I think its Iriver they support Flac I think. Not very sure but pretty sure there are players that does it. Anyway from my experience, lossless music out of a mp3 player via a headphone out is pretty pointless. Cant really hear any difference compared to say 320kbs MP3. Through lineout + amp that will probably make some difference but in modern Ipods where space is huge, loseless really do not hurt anyway lol.

[kongee 0]

Yes, agree. I tried testing 160 and 320 straight from an iPod (nano) and couldn't hear the difference.

 

I then tested 160 and Apple Lossless with an amp. To be honest, I couldn't hear the difference at first. (and I pride myself with having good ears). Maybe my amp and cans are not run-in yet. But as I took a longer while to hear the 2, I started to realize that the difference can be described only in abstract but important terms. Terms like; "sweeter", more "musical", more "interesting". Some classical pieces that I would have normally skipped I find myself lingering all the way to the end. (Can be as long as 10mins per piece).

 

Then I next compared WAV and Apple Lossless. Again, the differences were there, but subtle. And the same superlatives. Yes, agree that WAV is ideal. But with my gig, I can't say the difference is great.

 

Decided that I will leave my best listening at the home hifi and next best on my portables.

[yakman 0]

Yes, agree. I tried testing 160 and 320 straight from an iPod (nano) and couldn't hear the difference.

 

I then tested 160 and Apple Lossless with an amp. To be honest, I couldn't hear the difference at first. (and I pride myself with having good ears). Maybe my amp and cans are not run-in yet. But as I took a longer while to hear the 2, I started to realize that the difference can be described only in abstract but important terms. Terms like; "sweeter", more "musical", more "interesting". Some classical pieces that I would have normally skipped I find myself lingering all the way to the end. (Can be as long as 10mins per piece).

 

Then I next compared WAV and Apple Lossless. Again, the differences were there, but subtle. And the same superlatives. Yes, agree that WAV is ideal. But with my gig, I can't say the difference is great.

 

Decided that I will leave my best listening at the home hifi and next best on my portables.

 

I'm surprised you can hear the difference between WAV and Apple Lossless? On same setup?

[HerbalTurtle 0]

I think the question is not quite appropriate. Should make up some knowledge on sound recording and processing, like the bitrates and sample rates~

[viscy 0]

actually apple lossless and wav should be identical since they're both lossless.