Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

anothermacguy · Feb 26, 2001, 10:09 AM

Does anyone know of a program which will re-encode your mp3's to a lower bitrate? I know I could just convert to wav/aiff, and then re-encode it at a lower rate, but I'm wondering if there is a program which will do this for me. Something with a drag and drop interface (and you just specify the final bitrate). I would prefer one that uses LAME as the engine.

I'm looking for an app to run on 9.1, I do not need an OSX solution. Thanks in advance.

CaseCom · Feb 26, 2001, 10:33 AM

Transferring this to the Multimedia forum...

marusin · Feb 28, 2001, 01:37 PM

I get the shivers just thinking about this...

Sorry, but other than expanding to an .AIFF or .WAV and then recompressing seems to be the only idea I can think of...

My question is why do you want to do this? I really can't bear the thought of mp3s being compressed lower than 128kbps...

-Mike

CyberDave · Mar 10, 2001, 01:44 PM

I think SoundJam can do this...Just drag your MP3 files to the Converter window and set the encoder to a lower bit rate. I haven't tried this myself, though I've been meaning to.

I'd personally like to do this when transfering MP3s to my Rio. I encoded my CDs @ 192 Kbps (I can spare the hard drive space) but then I can only fit about 24 songs onto the 128MB in my Rio 500. I'd love for SoundJam or iTune to automatically downsample MP3s to like 96 or 112 Kbps when transfering to portable MP3 players. Fit a lot more songs on the thing and the degredation in sound quality isn't much and is worth it. (Just my 2� on the subject.)

HTH

DaveC

anothermacguy · Mar 10, 2001, 11:25 PM

Thanks Cyber Dave, I'll try your suggestions out. I started my collection at 192, and now have gradually moved everything up to 320. I do a lot of streaming, and have been getting a lot of hits lately, whcih is why I need to bump it down. Moronsin obviously knows nothing about this, but likes to look intelligent on BBS', and offers useless advice...well not even advice, useless comments...

Marusin: did I say anything about compressing lower than 128? And even if I was, you honestly can't think of a reason huh? If you can't, explaining it to you would obviously be a waste of time. Bitrates lower than 128 do exist for a reason.

...Give's you shiver's huh? You're pathetic. I hope knowone else gets shivers from a question on a BBS.

[This message has been edited by anothermacguy (edited 03-11-2001).]

jwardell · Mar 11, 2001, 01:04 AM

SoundApp might be able to do that. ??

DocWest · Mar 11, 2001, 07:47 PM

CyberDave is right, you can do it in SoundJam. Just as he said how to do it.

Mar 12, 2001, 07:38 AM

the only problem i have with this is that the program would be interpolating sound frequencies for you. when the music is compressed into an mp3, certain frequencies are tossed, and computer mp3 players will interpolate those frequencies back in. if you "re-encode" the mp3 to a higher bit rate, you're not really going to be getting better quality, just more disk space used up. if you can, go back to the original source and encode from there. you'll certainly not regain quality. if you can figure out how to make higher bitrate, you'll have the perfect compression scheme. the general rule of thumb in multimedi productions is "GIGO," Garbage In, Garbage Out. whenever doing anything, make sure you original source is better than anything else.

marusin · Mar 12, 2001, 04:17 PM

I always thought I looked quite intelligent on Bulletin Boards... Thanks for noticing AnotherMacGuy...

Get a good pair of headphones (Sennheiser's, B&O's, etc) and then listen to an Mp3 at a quality under 128... That's why I get the shivers... Another reason why I get the shivers? Expanding an mp3 to an .AIFF file and then re-encoding at a lower bitrate... Read WetSponge's response and you will see exactly what I was thinking....

One final reason I get the shivers? People that get all defensive on a bulletin board for no reason... You obviously have other problems that you are so concerned about my thoughts on the quality of mp3s...

And if you didn't notice, I had a smiley next to my "Shivers" comment... I'll make sure to check out your streaming stuff to hear the newest Barenaked Ladies or Sarah MacLachlan stuff...

(once again, notice the smilie, eh!...)

Originally posted by anothermacguy:
Thanks Cyber Dave, I'll try your suggestions out. I started my collection at 192, and now have gradually moved everything up to 320. I do a lot of streaming, and have been getting a lot of hits lately, whcih is why I need to bump it down. Moronsin obviously knows nothing about this, but likes to look intelligent on BBS', and offers useless advice...well not even advice, useless comments...

Marusin: did I say anything about compressing lower than 128? And even if I was, you honestly can't think of a reason huh? If you can't, explaining it to you would obviously be a waste of time. Bitrates lower than 128 do exist for a reason.

...Give's you shiver's huh? You're pathetic. I hope knowone else gets shivers from a question on a BBS.

[This message has been edited by anothermacguy (edited 03-11-2001).]

anothermacguy · Mar 16, 2001, 12:42 AM

Both you and wetsponge are idiots. If either of you had read my post, there was NO MENTION OF ENCODING TO A HIGHER BITRATE. That makes Wetsponges point useless. Any idiot knows what he is talking about, and the fact you are holding his opinion with such high praise shows you are in the same company.

I can see there are some people with sense, namely Cyberdave, jwardell, and DocWest.

Someday, maybe you'll understand what the F@#k this post is about. (wetsponge/marusin)

marusin · Mar 16, 2001, 09:49 AM

AnotherMacGuy,

Have you ever made a photocopy of a photocopy? Have you ever made a tape of a tape? That's the point... A compression of something already compressed equals an even more compressed item... An mp3 that is already compressed is going to sound even worse when you re-compress it... That's all...

You need to take out some of that agression... You clearly get very pissed about your mp3s.... (I guess I would be too if I was doing what you are doing)...

Originally posted by anothermacguy:
Both you and wetsponge are idiots. If either of you had read my post, there was NO MENTION OF ENCODING TO A HIGHER BITRATE. That makes Wetsponges point useless. Any idiot knows what he is talking about, and the fact you are holding his opinion with such high praise shows you are in the same company.

I can see there are some people with sense, namely Cyberdave, jwardell, and DocWest.

Someday, maybe you'll understand what the F@#k this post is about. (wetsponge/marusin)

[This message has been edited by marusin (edited 03-16-2001).]

Mar 16, 2001, 06:03 PM

wow, tempers sure do run hot, sorry i made a mistake in not understanding you, i'll try to not do it again. it's considered bad form to call people idiots, not to mention immature and a waste of bandwidth. These forums often spawn different topics within the threads i thought that a little friendly advice would be helpful, next time i'll try to be less of an idiot, have a nice day

anothermacguy · Mar 24, 2001, 11:21 PM

Wetsponge, I apologize for grouping you with Marusin. I did not think that you could have simply mis-read, and jumped to the conclusion you were in the same company as Marusin. I hope you accept my apology.

Marusin, you simply have a way of stating the obvious, and making it look intellectual. Does that drive me crazy? Yes. Does that make you feel smart? I hope so. Either way, I wanted to stop this ridiculous string since I got the answer I was looking for from CyberDave.