Comments on: MP3 Recompression http://wongablog.co.uk/2005/05/31/mp3-recompression/ like balloons, only with dancing Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:52:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Andrew http://wongablog.co.uk/2005/05/31/mp3-recompression/#comment-1741 Andrew Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:40:14 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=881#comment-1741 Looks interesting...thanks for the link! Looks interesting…thanks for the link!

]]> By: CapJack http://wongablog.co.uk/2005/05/31/mp3-recompression/#comment-1740 CapJack Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:03:26 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=881#comment-1740 Use my WinMP3Shrink + Lame Download on my site (click on "t Use my WinMP3Shrink + Lame

Download on my site (click on “t

]]> By: Andrew http://wongablog.co.uk/2005/05/31/mp3-recompression/#comment-1739 Andrew Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:44:53 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=881#comment-1739 Funky - may give it a go at some point. I have 5gb free on my iPod, which is plenty(!), but at some point I may want a little more so shall bear this in mind. Thanks! Funky - may give it a go at some point. I have 5gb free on my iPod, which is plenty(!), but at some point I may want a little more so shall bear this in mind. Thanks!

]]> By: Bedsit Bomber http://wongablog.co.uk/2005/05/31/mp3-recompression/#comment-1738 Bedsit Bomber Tue, 31 May 2005 20:12:29 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=881#comment-1738 I wouldn't take them down to 128kbps, as the thing is that you'll have run the original file through two 'lossy' processes, and so the sound should be inferior to one that was done at 128 originally. 192 would be better. I don't know whether some codecs/convertors are better than others - I just trust iTunes. I wouldn’t take them down to 128kbps, as the thing is that you’ll have run the original file through two ‘lossy’ processes, and so the sound should be inferior to one that was done at 128 originally. 192 would be better. I don’t know whether some codecs/convertors are better than others - I just trust iTunes.

]]> By: Ben http://wongablog.co.uk/2005/05/31/mp3-recompression/#comment-1737 Ben Tue, 31 May 2005 20:01:40 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=881#comment-1737 I think you'll probably get away with it okay. Re-encoding to 128kbps - as I do for my mp3 player - does produce some artifacts though. For ripping CDs, I find the r3mix presets (I think there's an archive one?) that lame comes with encode nicely. It's VBR too, so most things end up at ~200kbps, and it's still very hard to hear a difference between that and the source CD. (That's not to say it isn't there, but it's only a small difference.) For actually getting a perfect copy of a CD with lossless compression, I found that Flac worked well (giving about 40% compression I /think/). I know you don't want to do that, but I thought I'd just mention it ;) I think you’ll probably get away with it okay. Re-encoding to 128kbps - as I do for my mp3 player - does produce some artifacts though.

For ripping CDs, I find the r3mix presets (I think there’s an archive one?) that lame comes with encode nicely. It’s VBR too, so most things end up at ~200kbps, and it’s still very hard to hear a difference between that and the source CD.
(That’s not to say it isn’t there, but it’s only a small difference.)

For actually getting a perfect copy of a CD with lossless compression, I found that Flac worked well (giving about 40% compression I /think/). I know you don’t want to do that, but I thought I’d just mention it ;)

]]>