Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: compress mp3 of powerful electronic music from 320 to 256 kbps (Read 4437 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

compress mp3 of powerful electronic music from 320 to 256 kbps

I found on the web many 320 kbps dj sets to listen on to the USB flash drive 8 GB of portable stereo SONY CFD-RS60CP; i want to compress to put more files.
I compressed with the awesome Xrecode free and Lame 3.99.3 external encoder as well keep the tags (LameDropXPd is not capable, produces a wav file is not an mp3 file)
I ask the experts whether it is better parameter -b 256 or -V 0.3 (~ 256kbps) for better quality listening;  not known listenable differences between the original mp3 and the compressed mp3.

compress mp3 of powerful electronic music from 320 to 256 kbps

Reply #2 –
There is a good chance you won't hear any difference, since 256kbps is a high quality setting.  But, there is potential quality loss wnenever you re-compress an MP3 (I think even if you re-compress to a higher bitrate...)

The general rule is that VBR (variable bit rate) is better since it can use higher bitrates on hard-to-compress music and lower bitrates on easy-to-compress music.  CBR (constant bit rate) uses the same amount of space without "thinking".

And, it might be better to get a bigger flash drive rather than to re-compress every time you add more music to your collection... 

compress mp3 of powerful electronic music from 320 to 256 kbps

Reply #3 –
I would second Saratoga's motion for MP3packer. It's really the best option for cutting down 320 kb/s MP3s, as it doesn't actually re-encode the files, it just reorganizes the frames somehow to save space. That way there's no further quality regression from encoding the audio a second time.

How far MP3packer can compress your files depends on which encoder and which settings were used to make them, so it varies a lot. On some encodes it only got me 1% extra compression, but on other encodes I got an extra 10-15%. (320 kb/s to 256 kb/s would be 20%).

Now, if you really need further compression than what you can get with MP3packer, you could use LAME at -V1 or even -V2 and the files will probably come out OK. I'd advise you to just do a few encodes and listen. For me, personally, I'd just take whatever gains I could get with MP3packer and not even have to worry about the quality degrading.

compress mp3 of powerful electronic music from 320 to 256 kbps

Reply #4 –
Quote from: saratoga on
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=32379

This might be better then reencoding if you just want to save a bit of space.

WinMP3Packer:
151 MB mp3 320 kbps to 146 MB mp3 309 kbps = 5 MB bit saved

Xrecode with Lame 3.99.3 -V 0.3:
151 MB mp3 320 kbps to 126 MB mp3 267 kbps = 25 MB saved
 

compress mp3 of powerful electronic music from 320 to 256 kbps

Reply #5 –
Quote from: goa pride on
Xrecode with Lame 3.99.3 -V 0.3:
151 MB mp3 320 kbps to 126 MB mp3 267 kbps = 25 MB saved

So?  You can re-encode anything, but you create Generation Loss.
eg:

Re-encode with Lame 3.99.3 --abr 96
151 MB mp3 320 kbps to 45 MB mp3 96 kbps = 106 MB saved

But using MP3packer is Lossless.