Re: Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison
|
JM Casey
Hey.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I think your best bet might be to use a *slightly* higher bitrate than the original. This will in theory mean that you will lose less quality when transcoding from lossy to lossy format. This is up for some debate, I believe. You could also use the same bitrate (160 in this case) and see if you notice a difference. But as space probably isnt' a huge consideration at this point -- my choice would probably be to use 192. I don't think there would be much point in going higher as you won't be able to improve on what's already in the .m4a.
-----Original Message-----
From: all-audio@groups.io <all-audio@groups.io> On Behalf Of Darran Ross via Groups.Io Sent: January 9, 2020 12:44 PM To: all-audio@groups.io Subject: [all-audio] Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison Hi List. Can anyone in the know provide me with a rough idea of what the equivalent kbs would be for a m4a file when compared to a 160 mp3 version? I probably haven't explained that very well. If I have a file saved at 96kbs m4a, what would a rough approximation to this be for an mp3 file? Would it be 128kbs or 160 kbs for example? I've tried finding some kind of guide on the web, but haven't been able to turn up anything that I can readily see as a comparison. Thanks to anyone with any knowledge who can help me out with this one! Darran
|
|
|