Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JaredH]

Ok, I know I should already know this by now, but I'll ask anyway.

If I rip a song to WMA9 at 320...
Then later convert that song to WMA9 at 192...
Will I get the same quality file as if I had ripped straight to WMA9 at 192...
Or would there be a difference between a ripped file 192 and a converted file 192?

Now, keep in mind, im not crossing formats. I'm staying within the WMA format. Now my thinking is that there are no quality differences when going from a higher bitrate to a lower bitrate within the same format than as if you had ripped directly to whatever lower bitrate you are converting to. I also know that you should never convert across formats.

So, please correct me if I am wrong. However, keep in mind that correcting me involves possibly adding another 3 days of work to my schedule as I would have to go back and rerip everything if I am wrong. And with the internet, its fairly easy to find out exactly where someone lives these days...  

...boy, I talk too much...

[Omni]

Mathematically (and theoretically), it will be of inferior quality.  In reality, it depends both on the song and your ears.  

[modelmaker]

As Omni said, mathematically you will end up with a somewhat inferior product because you are starting with an inferior product compared to the original wave file. There is less information to convert.

In the real world (your ears) the differences may or may not be audible in your listening environment. Test with your ears.

[sub-24]

MC doesnt actually covert from WMA320 to WMA192

What it actually does is covert WMA320 to wav and then convert the wav to WMA192

To be honest why dont you try it with a few tracks to see.

Convert some directly to 192 and do some the above way.

Then compare the two. If they sound the same then they are.

[GHammer]

Now, keep in mind, im not crossing formats. I also know that you should never convert across formats.

Lossy to lossy, including same format, is "bad".
If I had the source I'd re-rip. If not, it would sound good enough!

[JaredH]

Something I just did. I should have done this a few years ago, but I guess I'm just lazy.
I ripped a track to 192.
I converted a track to 192.
I ripped the .cda of the same track.
Fed all three into Adobe Audition in a multi-track session.

I then proceeded to play the files and switch between solo mode on all of them on the fly. Now, for the benefit of the doubt, I am using a set of Philips open air studio headphones, so perhaps it isnt a "perfect" reproduction of the sound quality. Here's what I discovered:

If I would have had my back turned and had someone else switch between the tracks while I was listening, I wouldn't have had the slightest clue where they switched and where they didn't. All three tracks sounded exactly the same. There were a couple of times I even had to mute them all just to make sure that I was actually clicking the button.

So, that's my discovery.

[GHammer]

If I would have had my back turned and had someone else switch between the tracks while I was listening, I wouldn't have had the slightest clue where they switched and where they didn't. All three tracks sounded exactly the same.

Ha! To me, that's the point. I like it, therefore its good enough.

But never, ever tell this story over at HydrogenAudio forums.

Of course my Donnie & Marie CDs might be lower quality to begin with...