transcoding mp3 to higher bitrate questions

[spiritgumm]

This is a non-video related audio question (which a Mod okayed).
I'd like to post some music on a file sharing site but the required minimum MP3 bitrate is 192, and my tracks are 128. The original waves are essentially impossible to get.
I realize there will be some quality loss regardless of desired bitrate, since it's being re-compressed. Are there any programs that will minimize (or workaround) the transcode damage?

If I just do a transcode, would someone be able to tell that it was transcoded from between mp3 bitrates? Like running it in some graph in Cool Edit?

[jagabo]

If I just do a transcode, would someone be able to tell that it was transcoded from between mp3 bitrates? Like running it in some graph in Cool Edit?

They can probably run the file through a spectrum analyzer and see there are no high frequencies. And of course, they can just listen to it and hear the defects from the earlier low bitrate encoding.

[Noahtuck]

But how much difference can there be between the high frequencies of a 128 and 192 mp3 ?

Plus it would depend on how the original 128 mp3 was encoded, from what it was encoded, etc.

It could have been encoded so it would even seem or look worse than other 128 mp3 files, same goes for any 192 mp3.

Anyone could say, well from the looks of it, this was not originally encoded to 192 but there is no way to tell for sure as it could just be a crappy encoding, it's just ridiculous to even worry about it between those two types of files/mp3's

[jagabo]

But how much difference can there be between the high frequencies of a 128 and 192 mp3 ?

A lot. At 128 kbps most encoders eliminate everything above ~16 KHz.

Plus it would depend on how the original 128 mp3 was encoded, from what it was encoded, etc.

Yes. If the original recording had no high frequencies you couldn't use that as an indicator.

Anyone could say, well from the looks of it, this was not originally encoded to 192 but there is no way to tell for sure as it could just be a crappy encoding, it's just ridiculous to even worry about it between those two types of files/mp3's

I would assume the site asks for 192+ kbps because they don't want poor mp3 encodings. Though personally, I'd prefer to have a 128 kbps mp3 to nothing of all if it was something I was interested in.

[spiritgumm]

So someone may or may not be able to tell these were re-compressed, even if they dont have the original 128 mp3 for comparison. Btw, my motive for doing this is not to cheat anyone but simply to share rare music that's out of reach for most of us. I would share the 128 if I could.

So I guess there's no improved software for mp3 transcodes.
Is there any damage when converting mp3 just to wave? I'm not sure, but waves might be acceptable on the site.

[jagabo]

So I guess there's no improved software for mp3 transcodes.

I'm not up on the latest audio encoders but LAME seems to be about as good as it gets for MP3.

Is there any damage when converting mp3 just to wave?

Any mp3 has to be converted to uncompressed PCM to be played. I don't know if some decoder do a better job than others.

[davexnet]

Perhaps create the WAV's and convert to FLAC to prevent further loss.