decrease audio size

[vivabarca]

Hi
I need to compress an audio ( mp3 format) without decrease quality . is there any way? (I want decrease the size for upload the audio from my PC, on VPS and then I can change it's features again (Increase it's Size) )
(Sorry for my English!)

[johns0]

Can't do what you want,any time you re-encode to lower bitrates you lose quality and then increase again you retain that quality lose plus a bit more.

[Noahtuck]

So you want to compress an MP3 file even more ??

If it is already MP3 it has already been pretty much destroyed!!

You could re-encode it at an even lower bitrate but the size difference will be very little and just destroy it even more.

and then I can change it's features again (Increase it's Size)

You can not put back what has been removed.... Unless you ZIP or RAR it, but still, there will not be much in space savings.....

But you are not very clear or specific on what you are starting with.....

[AaronDude]

I rip most of my music in flac just so I have lossless source so I'm not compressing it a million times. I honestly don't hear much of a difference between anything encoded in 112kbps mp3 or higher using lame fast settings. I still don't hear much of a difference even after reencoding lossy audio. So I don't think MP3 compression destroys music. Of course it depends on your headphones and other things but even with nicer headphones I've never heard much of a difference.

Just so you know I listen to mostly classical recordings recorded before 1990 and many from the 70 60s or earlier. It may just be that earlier sound was so bad I wouldn't know the difference. They still sound great to me though.

[johns0]

112kps mp3 sounds crappy compared to a 320kps mp3 if both were encoded from a good source on a good stereo system.

[Noahtuck]

Of course it depends on your headphones

Yeah, that say's a lot......
LOL!!

I can't tell much of a difference between cheap crappy earbuds/headphones either but I don't usually listen to music on them or a cheap audio system with little cheap bookshelf speakers.....

And if you can't hear any difference between uncompressed audio or FLAC from uncompressed audio & compressed audio to MP3 at 112kpbs then you either have really cheap crappy audio equipment or you are extremely deaf!!

[AaronDude]

Well I got better hearing than anyone. In my last hearing test a couple years ago I was perfect.

Anyway I'm just saying with the recordings I listen to there is not a huge difference. I can notice a difference but it's not a big leap.

my Audio Technica M30s or jvc rx700s are good enough. I don't need to spend hundreds for Beats that are probably no better if not worse. I think most audio equipment is just overpriced. To me they really don't produce sound better they just modify the sound so it's different and maybe more pleasing. Probably my etymotic MC5s are the most accurate headphones at least they claim but their range is so narrow they sound fake so I don't like them. Most people would say they are some of the best headphones they ever used.

If I'm using my sansa fuze+, clip+ with my etymotic mc5 I'm not getting the absolute best sound with a 112kbps mp3 but it is pretty darn good and to me good enough. I actually prefer the sound the jvc gummys put out compared to the mc5s for that matter. It has a nice wide range and a bright signature. It can get muddy though if you're listing to complicated music but it aint bad especially for 8 bucks.

[hech54]

Well I got better hearing than anyone.

[fritzi93]

112kps mp3 sounds crappy compared to a 320kps mp3 if both were encoded from a good source on a good stereo system.

Big time. Even I can tell the difference, and my hearing is not perfect.

This makes me wonder if we and AaronDude are talking about the same thing, i.e. using the correct terminology.

[vivabarca]

So you want to compress an MP3 file even more ??

If it is already MP3 it has already been pretty much destroyed!!

You could re-encode it at an even lower bitrate but the size difference will be very little and just destroy it even more.

and then I can change it's features again (Increase it's Size)

You can not put back what has been removed.... Unless you ZIP or RAR it, but still, there will not be much in space savings.....

But you are not very clear or specific on what you are starting with.....

My upload speed is too low an I want to decrease the size for uploading on vps.
When I compare my audio track with a mka audio (That extracted from MKV file with mkvmerge) , it seems mka has less size. (whiles mka has better quality!), is there any way that I can convert Mp3 to Mka for decrease the size?

[Hoser Rob]

Well I got better hearing than anyone. In my last hearing test a couple years ago I was perfect. ...

Right ... if that were true that doesn't mean you know what music is supposed to sound like.

Yes, all mp3 sounds like dog doo compared to lossless. Especially 128kB/s or less.

But if you're talking about most recordings made in the last 10 years, which are so wildly over compressed they have about 1 or 2 dB of dynamic range, you may as well use mp3.

Because it sounds like crap anyway.

As far as what the OP asked, I agree that it makes no sense to compress then reencode at a higher bit rate thinking you'll get the quality back. It doesn't work that way. Once you compress you lose data, and it can't be put back in.

[jman98]

My upload speed is too low an I want to decrease the size for uploading on vps.
When I compare my audio track with a mka audio (That extracted from MKV file with mkvmerge) , it seems mka has less size. (whiles mka has better quality!), is there any way that I can convert Mp3 to Mka for decrease the size?

Your complete lack of understanding on this topic is making it very difficult to help you as you are clearly not listening to what you are being told because it conflicts with your erroneous preconceptions.

There's no such format as "mka". Probably what you are calling mka is actually AAC audio. AAC can probably offer better quality than MP3 at the same bit rate, but you have already made up your mind about this and don't seem to be open to listening to anything that doesn't confirm what you think is true. So just use AAC and compress the crap out of your audio. Try using a bit rate of 96 Kpbs or 64 Kpbs. Transfer the file to your server. Re-encode it to MP3 at a high bit rate. Let us know what you think. If this somehow is OK for you then keep doing it. If you think the audio you get after transfer and re-encoding sucks then maybe you will finally understand what we are trying to tell you now.

[Ai Haibara]

Actually, there is an MKA container format (audio-only MKV, hence the 'a,' following certain other container naming conventions). It just seems to be rarely used.

Q: What file extensions does Matroska use?
A: We currently have 4 different extensions specified :

• .mkv : Used for Video files, as well those containing audio (movies) or video only
• .mka : Used for audio only files, can contain any supported audio compresion format, such as MP2, MP3, Vorbis, AAC, AC3, DTS, or PCM
• .mk3d : For files with stereoscopic (3D) video
• .mks :Used for Subtitles that an 'elementary' matroska stream

[AaronDude]

There is a complete lack of respect on this board. I tired to be respectful and nice but I'm getting none in return. Some of you seem to think you know everything about me and you know nothing. I was expecting these attacks against me at some point. I returned here(this thread specifically) to check to see if this board was any different from any other on the internet. Obviously it is not. The internet is the biggest BS medium there is and everyone thinks they are better or know more than anyone else. I'm expecting to get banned because of how these type of boards work.

Anyway to vivabarca, Try converting the files with freac or foobar and find a format and bitrate you like. I honestly think if you're not fooling yourself anything 128kbps or above would be fine. Just convert, play them back and if they don't sound ok bump up the bitrate, If they sound find that's great use that bitrate all the time. No need to waste space for something you can't notice a difference with anyway.

If you want to convert them again you will lose quality really no matter what unless you convert it into a lossless format which would be many times larger than the mp3 you already have and still have the same data.

[Noahtuck]

Well I got better hearing than anyone.

In other words, I can hear what you are whispering from across the room but I am more tone deaf than a rock!!

[hech54]

There is a complete lack of respect on this board. I tired to be respectful and nice but I'm getting none in return. Some of you seem to think you know everything about me and you know nothing. I was expecting these attacks against me at some point. I returned here(this thread specifically) to check to see if this board was any different from any other on the internet. Obviously it is not. The internet is the biggest BS medium there is and everyone thinks they are better or know more than anyone else. I'm expecting to get banned because of how these type of boards work.

Well I got better hearing than anyone.

I guess you heard me whisper "What a jackass"? Gee I'm sorry Superman. It won't happen again.

[[_chef_]]

112kps mp3 sounds crappy compared to a 320kps mp3 if both were encoded from a good source on a good stereo system.

112 would Be VBR, which does improve things. Never forget.

[T_Jet]

I was expecting these attacks against me at some point. I returned here(this thread specifically) to check to see if this board was any different from any other on the internet. Obviously it is not. The internet is the biggest BS medium there is and everyone thinks they are better or know more than anyone else. I'm expecting to get banned because of how these type of boards work.

This says more about your attitude and why you get the reaction you do than it does about anyone else here. It appears that you pre determined the outcome before you even posted and then the posts you made helped move it to that outcome.

[AlanHK]

My upload speed is too low an I want to decrease the size for uploading on vps.
When I compare my audio track with a mka audio (That extracted from MKV file with mkvmerge) , it seems mka has less size. (whiles mka has better quality!), is there any way that I can convert Mp3 to Mka for decrease the size?

MKVs generally use AAC encoded audio, which is a bit more efficient than MP3.

If you can start with a high quality source, encode directly to AAC and you will get better quality in the same size than MP3.

But if you start with low rate MP3, you can only lose quality by reencoding.


I think Foobar2000 can save as AAC.

[johns0]

Mkv mainly use ac3 with more using dts,rarely aac,its mp4 that uses aac audio.

[AlanHK]

Mkv mainly use ac3 with more using dts,rarely aac,its mp4 that uses aac audio.

Not in my experience.
Let's just say that MKV can and often does use AAC, especially when size is a factor, and that's what this whole thread is about. I don't think he wants the 448 kbps AC3 5.1 soundtrack.

[hello_hello]

I rip most of my music in flac just so I have lossless source so I'm not compressing it a million times. I honestly don't hear much of a difference between anything encoded in 112kbps mp3 or higher using lame fast settings. I still don't hear much of a difference even after reencoding lossy audio. So I don't think MP3 compression destroys music. Of course it depends on your headphones and other things but even with nicer headphones I've never heard much of a difference.

I'm kind of on your side.... Personally I think if you can listen to a piece of music and pick whether it's lossless or MP3 then you've got golden ears. If you can compare the same piece of music using two sources and tell which one is the MP3 and which is lossless then that's a different story, but I do wonder how many of the people who claim they can easily tell which is which, or that it's obvious the MP3 sounds crappy by comparison, have actually tried a real ABX test to see how reliably they can pick which is which. My guess would be not many. And of course everyone keeps talking "bitrate" as though it's the only factor. Encoders have different quality settings and not all MP3 encoders are created equal.

When it comes to claims such "all MP3 sounds like dog doo compared to lossless".... well it's utter nonsense. Even the golden-eared "gurus" at Hydrogenaudio say LAME is basically transparent using a V3 preset or higher. Sure, some may be able to pick differences when conducting an ABX test, but to claim it'll sound like "dog doo" simply because it's MP3 is ridiculous. http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME#Recommended_encoder_settings

On the other hand.... if you try re-encoding an MP3 as another MP3, then re-encode the second MP3, then the third etc..... it won't take long before you can't help but hear the sound degradation. You mightn't notice much of a quality loss after re-encoding once, but once is probably about it.