Is it really necessary to re-encode everything to the latest LAME vers |
Is it really necessary to re-encode everything to the latest LAME vers |
 Apr 8 2012, 00:22
Post
#1
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 118 Joined: 16-February 11 Member No.: 88210  |
The title says it all. I have tons of FLACs and every one of them has a copy in MP3 encoded in LAME 3.98.4 and some are in 3.99.3. 3.99.5 is the new latest version now, should this mean I have to re-encode those FLACs to 3.99.5? I would gladly want to hear opinions of others.
-------------------- sin(α) = v sound/v object = Mach No.
|
 |
 
|
 |
|
Apr 8 2012, 13:12
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 2019 Joined: 8-April 05 From: Cincinnati, OH Member No.: 21277 |
Furthermore, the use of a higher bitrate setting may allow you to not have to re-encode with every new release. For example, I have a few 256kbps-320kbps FhG mp3 files from back in the day that sill produce transparent results for me. They are 8 years old now but I have absolutely no reason to re-encode the source material again (I can't find the CDs anyway) because they are still transparent. Don't take that to mean that encoding at such high settings will automatically allow you to just scuff things off or that the high bitrate settings produce better results. I also have a bunch of older (5 years) 160kbps VBR AAC files encoded with iTunes that I am not going to bother replacing despite Apple releasing a few updates to their AAC encoder between then and now. I will encode new material with the updated encoder but I don't see a point in going back when what I have is already transparent to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 8 2012, 16:46
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 379 Joined: 16-December 10 From: Palermo Member No.: 86562 |
If your goal is to reach the same sound quality with smaller files, a way to have a practical answer to your question is to take a relevant part of your collection, say a tenth, and re-encode it with the same quality target settings as the first time. If the space gain satisfy you then go on, else don't...
And it would be very kind of you to let us know the results. 
-------------------- ... I live by long distance.
|
|
|
|
SonicBooom! Is it really necessary to re-encode everything to the latest LAME vers Apr 8 2012, 00:22
saratoga No. Apr 8 2012, 00:43
indybrett QUOTE (saratoga @ Apr 7 2012, 18:43) No.
... Apr 8 2012, 07:29 SonicBooom! May I ask WHY? Apr 8 2012, 01:02 IgorC QUOTE (SonicBooom! @ Apr 7 2012, 21:0... Apr 8 2012, 01:50 Remedial Sound The goal of lossy compression like mp3 is to achie... Apr 8 2012, 02:08 Porcus QUOTE (SonicBooom! @ Apr 8 2012, 01:2... Apr 8 2012, 02:22 odious malefactor QUOTE (Porcus @ Apr 7 2012, 17:22) From 3... Apr 8 2012, 06:09 db1989 QUOTE (odious malefactor @ Apr 8 2012, 06... Apr 8 2012, 19:44 skamp QUOTE (db1989 @ Apr 8 2012, 20:44) …and…?... Apr 8 2012, 19:57 db1989 Oh, great point! My bad.
Yeah, they’re just r... Apr 8 2012, 20:02 greynol QUOTE (Porcus @ Apr 7 2012, 18:22) (Also,... Apr 8 2012, 16:41 JJZolx There could be few reasons why it would, literally... Apr 8 2012, 23:48 greynol Personally I find such usage of electricity wastef... Apr 8 2012, 23:57 splice QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 8 2012, 15:57) Perso... Apr 9 2012, 01:03 JJZolx QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 8 2012, 15:57) Regar... Apr 9 2012, 01:11 damoresh I have several old mp3 with lame3.90 -lame 3.97 cb... May 18 2012, 07:21 Apesbrain @damoresh, see "Lossy-to-lossy transcoding... May 18 2012, 12:44 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th May 2013 - 20:48 |
