Reducing MP3 size

[JJ72]

This will seem a stupid and common question, but what can I use to reduce the size of my MP3s?

Cheers.

[WE_DELIVER]

you can reencode them to a smaller bitrate via a sound editing program such as Adobe Audition or even WinAmp.
A sound editing app is my favorite and probably easiest way of doing things....so it's up to you.
For winamp, use the diskwriter output plug-in and then just play your mp3....although this is a bootleg way of doing things.

[rebirth]

don't! For the love! Keep the bitrate as high as possible, plz! Low bitrates make your RIAA shit sound worse!

[jabba|xtra]

NEVER reencode any audio format, especially mp3. If you insist on this, DO NOT share it on any p2p network, keep it for yourself. Reencoded audio sounds horrible. If you're trying to save some space, why not just buy another hard drive? they're dirt cheap right now.

[rebirth]

wait, isn't that exactly what I just said? Oh, yup.

[wonderboy2005]

wait, isn't that exactly what I just said? Oh, yup.
Often, the only way to get through to those with less-than-adequate intellect is via repitition. Besides, its obvious to everyone that you were the first to give that advice, so if you're that worried about credit, you got what's coming to you.

and for the sake of repitition...

DONT REENCODE YOUR MUSIC!

[Sk8er Boi]

I'm going to do a bit of what was that called again? Oh ya...threadhijacking : )

2 questions:

A) Is it acceptable to convert a WAV file to an mp3?

B) Is an mp3 at 320 virtually the same audio quality as a WAV?

[rebirth]

A) That's what most MP3s on P2P are.

B) Yes, virtually.

[Sk8er Boi]

I mean if the WAV were to come from a p2p network, would it be fine to convert that?

[wonderboy2005]

I mean if the WAV were to come from a p2p network, would it be fine to convert that?
I don't know why you'd do that, but yes. That would be acceptable. So long as the original file is a lossless format (eg. WAV, FLAC, etc.) then it is fine to reencode - assuming you are OK with the quality loss of the new format.

A 320K/s MP3 isn't quite CD quality, but it takes an insanely good ear and insanely good equipment to notice the difference. Essentially, its fine, if not overkill for just about everyone. However, since ALL MP3s are lossy, you still shouldn't reencode - even if the source is 320 or higher.

[Sk8er Boi]

I don't know why you'd do that, but yes. That would be acceptable. So long as the original file is a lossless format (eg. WAV, FLAC, etc.) then it is fine to reencode - assuming you are OK with the quality loss of the new format.

A 320K/s MP3 isn't quite CD quality, but it takes an insanely good ear and insanely good equipment to notice the difference. Essentially, its fine, if not overkill for just about everyone. However, since ALL MP3s are lossy, you still shouldn't reencode - even if the source is 320 or higher.

I was just wondering because frequently I can't find a good mp3 file so I'll download a WAV of the song and then just convert it to VBR with Lame.

[sitech]

Well you have to make sure that the WAV file is not made FROM an MP3 file or similar. If its directly from the CD (which most are), then it is fine.

[bda]

Whenever I hear that one should NEVER reencode, it really annoys me. It all really depends on the type of hardware you're listening to the files on. I re-encoded all my higher bitrate (ie 192kbps) MP3 files to AAC, and I am very happy with the results. Do I notice a difference? Yeah, maybe a little on my 60 dollar pair of headphones, but the small amount of quality loss is worth the extra number of songs I can fit on my computer/iPod.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

It is not a good idea to re-encode an mp3 file as it harms the sound quality.

[bda]

Well of course the quality is going to go down somewhat, your removing more data from the file. The real question is, HOW much "harm" or quality loss do you really get?

[rebirth]

Whenever I hear that one should NEVER reencode, it really annoys me. It all really depends on the type of hardware you're listening to the files on. I re-encoded all my higher bitrate (ie 192kbps) MP3 files to AAC, and I am very happy with the results. Do I notice a difference? Yeah, maybe a little on my 60 dollar pair of headphones, but the small amount of quality loss is worth the extra number of songs I can fit on my computer/iPod.

Ooh...big spender...60 dollar headphones.







Meet lower-upper end headphones. http://www.shure.com/earphones/eseries_e5c.asp That's where the bragging rights begin. Not at 60 dollars, kid.

[bda]

lol. I've heard all about the Shures. I'm not bragging. And I think it's sort of dumb to spend 300-400 dollars on a pair of headphones. But that's just me.

[black_magiic]

those headphones are for the person with more money than brains

[bda]

Yeah, no kidding.

[wonderboy2005]

Whenever I hear that one should NEVER reencode, it really annoys me. It all really depends on the type of hardware you're listening to the files on. I re-encoded all my higher bitrate (ie 192kbps) MP3 files to AAC, and I am very happy with the results. Do I notice a difference? Yeah, maybe a little on my 60 dollar pair of headphones, but the small amount of quality loss is worth the extra number of songs I can fit on my computer/iPod.
Well no one is actually FORCING you to not reencode. If you want to, go right ahead. The reason people say it so much is that the average user doesn't understand that going from a lossy format to another lossy format compounds the reduction in quality exponentially (used as a math term - not just to add emphasis).

If you start sharing those reencoded file though, I will personally come over to your house and kick your ass.

[matt merch]

reminds me of the guy on soulseek who told me proudly when he couldnt get a hi bitrate file would d/l a 128kbps rate file and reencode to 320kbps dread to think how many ppl do that then share that stuff

[begoodbebad]

Well of course the quality is going to go down somewhat, your removing more data from the file. The real question is, HOW much "harm" or quality loss do you really get?

One day they'll all be sharing white noise on Kazaa and no-one will have noticed

[Psilaxs]

reminds me of the guy on soulseek who told me proudly when he couldnt get a hi bitrate file would d/l a 128kbps rate file and reencode to 320kbps dread to think how many ppl do that then share that stuff


Maybe that was the same dumbass who posted on the forums a long time ago stating it makes it sound better and clearer. Just about everyone who posted in this thread was trying to explain to him, but to no avail.

[muffenme]

:fire

One rule of thumb is that uncompress audio can be compress but remember if you do compress the file you would lose something. How much is loss you hadle that depends on you. Some people need the quility to be uncompress and would tell the deference between the two while someone like me who can get away with 40 kbps compressing whouldn't care to wase that much hard drive space for any song and still enjoy the song.

My advice is to take a uncompress audio and compress that file in multi file at difference bit rate and listen to each to find out how much compressing is aceptable.

:hole

[sitech]

Be careful of using the word 'compressed'. There are many compression methods that DO NOT result in a loss of quality.

Also a file that started its life as a 192 kbps file and then was reencoded to 128 kbps file will be of significantly lower quality than a file that was encoded from a raw form straight into 128 kbps.

[ducttapeBigSexy]

Why not just dl a lower quality version of the file?

[ZeroScruples]

For best results, if you absolutely have no choice (and not having enough hard drive space is no excuse), avoid transcoding from/to the same format if you can (for example MP3 to MP3). If the source file is high enough quality to begin with, then the results shouldn't be too too bad. But for heaven's sake, please don't share transcoded stuff on the networks. Might as well help the RIAA seed the network with fake files for all the good your doing. You may not be able to hear a difference, but that doesn't mean squat as far as the transcode quality is concerned. If you want to really know how damaging transcoding is, Google the term ABX and learn how to do it. Transcoding from a lossless format (WAV, FLAC, APE, etc) is perfectly alright, as long as they didn't originally come from a lossy format (AAC, MP3, WMA, etc). One way to check is to load the lossless file into a program, such as Adobe Audition, and do a frequency analysis. If the file has ever been through a lossy process, it will show in the high frequency range. Usually around 16 kHz (and up) the frequency drops off sharply, though not always (like with WavPack, Optimfrog, and MPC at certain presets for example, which preserve the full frequency range).

Edit: Nice coincidence, lol. Check out this interesting article that was just posted today on News.com. Worth reading if you care about the quality of your encodes.

http://news.com.com/Chasing+digital+musics+codec+killers/2100-1027-5414121.html?part=dtx&tag=ntop&tag=nl.e703

[Psilaxs]

For best results, if you absolutely have no choice (and not having enough hard drive space is no excuse), avoid transcoding from/to the same format if you can (for example MP3 to MP3). If the source file is high enough quality to begin with, then the results shouldn't be too too bad. But for heaven's sake, please don't share transcoded stuff on the networks. Might as well help the RIAA seed the network with fake files for all the good your doing. You may not be able to hear a difference, but that doesn't mean squat as far as the transcode quality is concerned. If you want to really know how damaging transcoding is, Google the term ABX and learn how to do it. Transcoding from a lossless format (WAV, FLAC, APE, etc) is perfectly alright, as long as they didn't originally come from a lossy format (AAC, MP3, WMA, etc). One way to check is to load the lossless file into a program, such as Adobe Audition, and do a frequency analysis. If the file has ever been through a lossy process, it will show in the high frequency range. Usually around 16 kHz (and up) the frequency drops off sharply, though not always (like with WavPack, Optimfrog, and MPC at certain presets for example, which preserve the full frequency range).

Edit: Nice coincidence, lol. Check out this interesting article that was just posted today on News.com. Worth reading if you care about the quality of your encodes.

http://news.com.com/Chasing+digital+musics+codec+killers/2100-1027-5414121.html?part=dtx&tag=ntop&tag=nl.e703


Great information/post. Welcome to Zeropaid.

[Stownplayer]

I don't believe it's so much a matter of loss of quality to someone who wants to fit more songs on a portable mp3 player. I reencode mp3's to fit more on my portable mp3 player. Hell, i don't need a freaking wav file to jog to...

[skankito]

I don't believe it's so much a matter of loss of quality to someone who wants to fit more songs on a portable mp3 player. I reencode mp3's to fit more on my portable mp3 player. Hell, i don't need a freaking wav file to jog to...

Thats fine, if you do it for yourself, and DON'T share it on ANY networks. Hell, reencode your whole drive for all we care. Just DON'T share it!

One of the worst things is when theres a song released on ITunes before its released on cd. Some asshat always has to download it and then reencode it to mp3. So of course all the noobs on winmx snatch it up, and then thats the only version you can find for months.