Converting in is not the same with convert back

andrei31 · 1st March 2007, 22:34

I tried to convert an AMR. file to an mp3... worked... didn't sound that good but worked... and then i tried converting an 192-bitrate mp3 to an 32-bitrate mp3. This was working too, and done his job. But why when i tried it to convert it back to 192, it didn't sound so great, bad quality bass, and it sounded really bad. Why you cand convert with no problem, and convert back to it's original form...

DrO · 1st March 2007, 22:37

because you're losing information with every conversion. it's known as transcoding and doing it multiple times is definitely not recommended for the reason that you've experienced. if you have to transcode, do it straight to the target format that you need and not do multiple steps inbetween or you will end up with really bad sounding files.

-daz

andrei31 · 1st March 2007, 22:39

Thx dro, you really help...

DrO · 1st March 2007, 22:41

and the bill for my help is...
only joking

-daz

andrei31 · 1st March 2007, 23:00

H3h3h3 very funny.. 10000 $???? Yes but why the 32 kbit file is called an MP3?? It doesn't even sound like one... i think that 64 or higher, at least then the bass is feeled by the user...

DrO · 1st March 2007, 23:14

add a few more zeros or i'd just prefer it in straight pounds sterling.

as for the other question, dunno since it all depends on what you're doing in the transcoding process (with whatever tool/app that you're using) but really that's down to you to check what settings you've set/enabled as to how the files are generated by the process. (not something i ever do since i just copy my mp3's straight to my mp3 player and nothing else - transcoding is evil)

-daz

1st March 2007, 22:34	#1
andrei31 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: TG-Jiu Posts: 42	Converting in is not the same with convert back I tried to convert an AMR. file to an mp3... worked... didn't sound that good but worked... and then i tried converting an 192-bitrate mp3 to an 32-bitrate mp3. This was working too, and done his job. But why when i tried it to convert it back to 192, it didn't sound so great, bad quality bass, and it sounded really bad. Why you cand convert with no problem, and convert back to it's original form...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

1st March 2007, 22:37	#2
DrO - Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: UK Posts: 22,278	because you're losing information with every conversion. it's known as transcoding and doing it multiple times is definitely not recommended for the reason that you've experienced. if you have to transcode, do it straight to the target format that you need and not do multiple steps inbetween or you will end up with really bad sounding files. -daz

1st March 2007, 22:39	#3
andrei31 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: TG-Jiu Posts: 42	Thx dro, you really help...

1st March 2007, 22:41	#4
DrO - Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: UK Posts: 22,278	and the bill for my help is... only joking -daz

1st March 2007, 23:00	#5
andrei31 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: TG-Jiu Posts: 42	H3h3h3 very funny.. 10000 $???? Yes but why the 32 kbit file is called an MP3?? It doesn't even sound like one... i think that 64 or higher, at least then the bass is feeled by the user...

1st March 2007, 23:14	#6
DrO - Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: UK Posts: 22,278	add a few more zeros or i'd just prefer it in straight pounds sterling. as for the other question, dunno since it all depends on what you're doing in the transcoding process (with whatever tool/app that you're using) but really that's down to you to check what settings you've set/enabled as to how the files are generated by the process. (not something i ever do since i just copy my mp3's straight to my mp3 player and nothing else - transcoding is evil) -daz