I have some WMA 192 VBR files I want to transcode to MP3. I've been used the LAME Preset Standard which is pretty high quality. I fully realize there's a slight degradation transcoding lossy to lossy but I doubt anyone in a blind listening test could tell as WMA 192 is pretty high quality is is LAME Standard. The interesting thing though is the resulting MP3 files are a little smaller and the VBR is usually lower than 192, around 140-150. The fact the filesize is smaller on the MP3 than the WMA seems to tell me I should probably be using the next higher LAME preset. It seems to me the optimal transcoding setting is going to be one that results in a file about the same size or larger. Does this make sense. Should I go to the EXTREME preset when transacoding WMA 192 VBR to MP3?

One may ask why am I doing this? Well 1) MP3 is more widely compatible with a larger number of players and devices and 2) My MP3Gain program (actually embedded in Media Monkey) doesn't level volume on WMA files.

setting up to extreme is useless in transcoding. Stay on Preset Standard or go even lower (maybe -V 3 would be also enough).

preset (fast) standard delivers "good enough" transparency, when you use higher settings, you won't gain really better transcoded files.

Ya I suppose when you consider it is re-compressing, the file size SHOULD be smaller because it's like comparing apples to oranges. The original source for the WMA file was lossless, and the source for the MPe is lossy, so naturally the MP3 transcode filesize should be smaller. Thanks.

The result should not be smaller. In fact you'd have to use 24-bit lossless format to preserve all data there is in the source lossy file. It's just not reasonable to use more than avg 192 kBit/s for a crappy source.

Now you got me going back and forth. That was my original thought was that the higher bitrate the less additional artifacts I'll add to the transcoded version because as you point out, if I wanted to preserve the audio quality of the 192 WMA file, I'd need to transcode it to a lossless format which would be a lot larger file.

I was just thinking if the source already has compression, then when it is uncompressed you are going to have a more compressible version of the source material than the original uncompressed source because you'll have more sequence of compressible data?

I'm a pseudo audiophile. Unfortunately the source of all my music is WMA 192. But WMA 192 is VBR, so 192 VBR is actually not that bad, actually better than most everyone I know's MP3 quality. Heck I think Rhapsody was less quality than that (WMA 128?), or maybe it is that Yahoo used to be 256 WMA and went down to 192. Anyway 192 VBR is very good for your average listener. Just not good if you are an audiophile.

If you are a closet audiophile, you need to go back to the original source and don't introduce any generational loss.

Anyway, ignoring that... Use your ears. Heck, ABX it. Use a setting that works for you. Our opinion is fairly pointless.

Well WMA 192 sounds very good in my 10-speaker Harmon Kardon car audio system. And there is no discernable difference between the original WMA and the transcoded MP3. Although of course I wish I had losseless version of everything and THEN had lossy versions created using Preset EXTREME or even better had them in high bitrate AAC (since both are compatible with my mobile players). I actually did compress everything I had on CD years ago using preset EXTREME. It's just all my new music is downloaded as WMA 192.

You should really be buying content in a format that works for your end point device, so you don't mess with lossy conversion. Amazon, Napster, Wal-Mart, Rhapsody, etc. sell MP3... most even use LAME.

Yes, but at the time I signed up, Yahoo Music Unlimited had the largest selection of music and a higher bitrate of WMA that Rhapsody. Plus their service is outstanding from a feature standpoint where it intelligently builds playlists of songs you haven't heard and some you haven't based on your ratings of other songs. I use it for streaming audio (like a radio) all day and as a way to pick up no stuff I discover. And for what like $9 a month I can list to as much music as on want on my PC or any PC I login into my account from.

I know these service have some of these features too. But does anyone of them REALLY beat Yahoo ALL things considered?

consultant, if you are using a subscription service, you do not have rights to "keep" (burn, convert, etc.) the content. (At best, subscription services allow you to place it on 3 DRM capable portables... and that would require no conversion.)

So, if you do choose to buy content... why buy it in protected format from Yahoo? Use the more flexible unprotected alternatives when available.