Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Wma to Mp3 conversion results?
Re: Wma to Mp3 conversion results?
From: Chris Holt <amiga2k_at_cox.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:57:17 -0400
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:29:08 -0700 (PDT), scott wrote:
>> Lame was mentioned as an excellent Wav to Mp3 converter. Is it better
>> than others? Also, what have others decided upon as the best file size
>> vs. audio quality b/s conversion guideline. Unless the conversion
>> software I've tried so far is worse than Lame for example, converting
>> 128 Wma to 128 Mp3 generates unacceptably-obvious quality losses.
>> 128 to 160 or 192 or even 256 will be required before the conversion
>> process is not obvious.
> it seems like it would be easiest to just trying re-encoding at 128 and
> 192, etc, and just listening to them. what you use to encode them with
> probably won't have a very dramatic difference, but there might be one.
I agree with your proposal with one exception. I do believe that
noticeable differences in quality will be realized by using different
encoders. On the vast majority of forums and mailing lists, LAME is
considered to be the best free codec and one of the very top codecs, free
I would definetly recommend using software that uses the LAME codec, and
for the sake of convenience with control, I would recommend dBpowerAMP as
the front end of choice for direct conversions. www.dbpoweramp.com
Received on 2003-10-25