Re: raise a mp3 from 192kbs to 320kbs
Reply #4 – 2024-10-17 16:48:50
okay i did have a program that did it but have swapped to new pc You thought it did, but that was just good olde placebo effect kicking in - nothing more nothing less, trust me on that, as we humans are prone to that now and then. Also, a bit of Dunning-Kruger, but I digress... Just to illustrate what others have been trying to tell you, see the collage below: The left half of this scene was encoded with HQ lossy settings, which, for this comparison's sake, can be said to be practically the same as the original file it came from (RAW, TIF or even JPG, it doesn't matter much here). The right half is an equally lossy encoding of the same image - but this time with too aggressive compression settings - that's all there is to it. So, if a program pops up claiming the right half could have its quality rescued or... "raised" as you said, you can, as per these scientifically proven data, regard such claim as just a truckload of BS, 'cause that ain't just possible - once the quality is lossily taken away it is never returned - that's why it's called lossy and not lossless encoding. The same can be said of that lost "miraculous" program o' yours: it's just a lot of baloney - no "ifs" on that statement, sorry! In fact, in view of what lossy encoding is all about, the term "raising lossy quality" sounds as ludicrous as the "raise" in "raising someone from the dead"! Edit: disclaimers: Naturally, the same unrecoverable quality can be said of the left half, but since its starting point has got fairly good quality, it's gonna take longer for anyone to notice any degradation. The right half is the left one "in the future", if we carry on lossily reencoding it. Image, audio or video - it doesn't matter : all lossy encoding generates losses. I just used the image as it's more obvious to they eye (unintended pun, I swear). I hope this helps. Also recommended as further reading are HA's own wiki as well as Vorbis's "Monty" Montgomery's one as well.