[Robard Loadgiver]

Hi
If I have an MP3 which has been recorded at 128kb and I load it into
an audio editor and then export that MP3 at 320kb, does the sound
quality improve? or am I just creating a bigger file whose sound
quality is the same as the 128kb file?
Thanks for any answers. This has been bugging me for ages.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:10:42 +0100, Robard Loadgiver
wrote:

Hi
If I have an MP3 which has been recorded at 128kb and I load it into
an audio editor and then export that MP3 at 320kb, does the sound
quality improve? or am I just creating a bigger file whose sound
quality is the same as the 128kb file?
Thanks for any answers. This has been bugging me for ages.


Think about it. Where would the extra information come from?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Robard Loadgiver wrote:
Hi
If I have an MP3 which has been recorded at 128kb and I load it into
an audio editor and then export that MP3 at 320kb, does the sound
quality improve? or am I just creating a bigger file whose sound
quality is the same as the 128kb file?
Thanks for any answers. This has been bugging me for ages.

No, in fact because you're re-encoding it with an additional cycle
of decoding and re-encoding, the sound quality will be degraded in
the process.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Robard Loadgiver]

On 21 Jun 2009 20:08:28 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article ,
Robard Loadgiver wrote:
Hi
If I have an MP3 which has been recorded at 128kb and I load it into
an audio editor and then export that MP3 at 320kb, does the sound
quality improve? or am I just creating a bigger file whose sound
quality is the same as the 128kb file?
Thanks for any answers. This has been bugging me for ages.

No, in fact because you're re-encoding it with an additional cycle
of decoding and re-encoding, the sound quality will be degraded in
the process.
--scott

Thanks for your replies.
I suspected that perhaps the "re-encoding" might do nothing re the
sound quality but I didn't realise it could actually makes things
worse!! No more re encoding for me.
Thanks.

[Scott Dorsey]

Robard Loadgiver wrote:

Thanks for your replies.
I suspected that perhaps the "re-encoding" might do nothing re the
sound quality but I didn't realise it could actually makes things
worse!! No more re encoding for me.

Every time you re-encode, you're throwing away information, and the thing
is that you throw away slightly different information each time. It's
really interesting to take an uncompressed file and put it through five
or six passes of the encode/decode process, because it dramatically
exaggerates the compression effects.

This is why lossy compression is a really bad idea for anything having
to do with production... it should be the last step in the chain before
release.

The problem, of course, is that when you send out an mp3 file to a
radio station, they're apt to re-encode it in a different lossy format
to put it on their workstation... then send it out over a compressed
studio-to-transmitter link with a still different lossy compression
scheme. The end result is often not good at all.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

Robard Loadgiver wrote:
Hi
If I have an MP3 which has been recorded at 128kb and I load it into
an audio editor and then export that MP3 at 320kb, does the sound
quality improve?

No, but it will, if you listen carefully enough, sound different. The
process
of MPEG data reduction involves throwing away data that the algorithm
believes you won't notice. You can't replace it once it's gone.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)