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?