Question on (Re-)Conversion Strategy

[nate_dawg]

I've been trying to find this on Wikipedia and other places but can't seem to find a clear answer.

Scenario:
If you rip a .flac file to a lossy format such as .mp3 at 240 kbps and then convert that .mp3 to a new .mp3 at 190kbps, how will the 2nd .mp3 file be different than converting the .flac to a 190kbps .mp3 directly? Is there any difference? Are they identical (technically)... or at least nearly identical from a general listening viewpoint?

My situation is that I've converted all of my .flac files to ~240 kbps .mp3 to be used in my iPod. I have a friend who wants them but in a smaller format because he has a smaller iPod... and because of some home network limitations it would be much easier for me to just reconvert from the existing .mp3 to a lower bit rate .mp3.

Thanks.

[xoas]

Re: Question on (Re-)Conversion Strategy

Technically there is a difference in that the the 240 kbs .mp3 files have already lost some of the audio information that the .flac files had (which should be identical to the original source file).

From a general listening viewpoint, the great likelihood is that neither you nor your friend would notice any difference but you could always try out converting some files both directly from .flac to 190 kbs .mp3 and compare these to some of the same tracks from 240 kbs .mp3 to 190 kbs .mp3 to see whether you can discern a difference.

Best wishes,
Bill

[RonM]

Re: Question on (Re-)Conversion Strategy

Every conversion with a lossy format will have some incremental data loss. It's kind of like multiplying a fraction by a fraction. If the first file (the 240) is 98% "good" and the second conversion works at 95%, you might end up with a file that is (.95 x .98 =) 93% "good". I made those numbers up, but you get the idea. With reasonably high quality, though, you will be hard pressed to hear a difference, but it will be there and it will be audible.

R.