[Phil W]

2020-02-23 / 20:25 lid spammed once again:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 11:09:41 +1300, geoff
wrote:

On 23/02/2020 6:45 am, lid wrote:

I am looking for one or two more opinions as to whether the source WAV
file and destination MP3 file are similar to the ear. You might try
listening through earphones, for better clarity.

Sorry to keep harping on about this, but I am trying to obtain
re-assurance that the conversion to MP3 gives a file which is
effectively the same to the ear as the source WAV.

For **** sake ! The files are effectively the same.

Thank you for confirming my opinion, that the source WAV and target
MP3 sound exactly the same to my untrained ear.

Regarding the conversion parameters. When I use Total Recorder to open
the WAV file, and save to MP3, the parameters of the created MP3 file
are obtained from the parameters of the WAV file. So if the source WAV
has sample rate 48 KHz and bit rate 192 Kbps, the default for the
created MP3 file will also be sample rate 48 KHz and bit rate 192
Kbps.

A small amount of logical thinking might lead to the following:
if the SOURCE file was encoded with 192 kbps, then decoded and encoded a
second time, why shouldn´t you try to keep conversion artifacts to the
least possible minimum???
So, just like I suggested already several times and you still keep ignoring:
go for the highest possible MP3 bitrate (= 320 kbps CBR) for the least
amount of audio quality loss. Yes, it might be more than necessary, but
there is nood to worry, that it might have come out better. Yes, the
resulting MP3 file gets bigger with higher bitrate. BUT with such a tiny
source WAV, the resulting MP3 will still be tiny enough to embed it on a
webpage.

Can it be so complicated to understand this???