Recoding to lower bitrates?

[scoobz]

Just a quick one,

I'm planning on getting a potable music player, so currently I'm archiving and encoding my CD's as WMA @ 96kbps/44100Hz VBR 2-Pass.

My question is: If later, space becomes a problem and I decide on lowering the bitrate to 64kbps, would it make an audible difference if I just recode the existing 96kbps? - Or should I do it again from the CD?

[LtData]

Re: Recoding to lower bitrates?

You should never re-encode already compressed files. Re-ripping the CDs, or encoding from lossless files, give you the best results.

[GSV3MiaC]

Re: Recoding to lower bitrates?

Is true what LtData said, however you can often get away with encoding from something 'close to lossless' to something 'nearly rubbish, so minor problems will get lost' .. I regularly encode from OGG Q7 down to 48kbps WMA 2 pass VBR, or to OGG Q=-1 .. and the result sounds fine (i.e. no worse than those low bitrates sound anyway).

Trouble is the 96kbps isn't really good enough for archive/library to start with .. with disc space being nearly free now, I'd suggest 160kbps or more is sort of the minimum worth spending time ripping and saving. Some folks wouldn't even =listen= to 96kbps (not me I hasten to add!), much less use it for an archive.

[ChristinaS]

Re: Recoding to lower bitrates?

Yeah, but wma VBR is usually quite a bit better audio-wise than mp3 at the same bitrate. At low bitrate it's about equivelent to mp3 at doubl the bitrate.

So wma at 96kbps may well be as good as mp3 at 160bps.

128kbps for mp3's is touted to be near cd quality. So probably wma at 96kbps must be at least close to that.

Best thing is to test them and listen in any case.