Re: m4a vs mp3 anyone?

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

Any time you convert from or to a lossy format you will lose some quality.
It might be little enough to be imperceptible but it will happen.

If you were converting from a lossless format to a lossless format (e.g. WAV
to FLAC) then you would not lose any quality.

However if you convert from m4a (i.e. AAC) at 64kbps to MP3 even if you
specify as high as 320kbps it will still result in a small loss of quality.

An AAC (m4a) file at 64kbps is generally regarded as being better quality
than an MP3 at the same speed (i.e. 64kbps).

On 9/10/07 20:39, in article eSWskwqCIHA.4912@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"JethroUK©" <reply@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks - I read a bit about m4a and there arguments both ways but it seems
mp3 & m4a are much of a muchness (both lossy to similar degree) - i
converted to mp3 (i can play them in car and house) but i stuck to 64 kps


"RalfG" <itsnotme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%235B1GrnCIHA.5980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you don't plan on keeping copies of the original files, any loss in
quality will be permanent. Anytime you decrease the bitrate you will lose
quality. You may notice the degredation at 48kbps even with audio books
but they should still be "not awfull" down to 32kbps. You will lose some
quality just by converting to mp3, that's inherent in the process, but you
might not notice it at 64kbps.

"JethroUK©" <reply@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23nXM7tgCIHA.4196@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have some (several 100's hours) audio books in m4a 64 kbps

Will I loose (forever) any quality by converting to 64k in mp3?

For that matter would I loose any quality by converting to 48k in mp3?

I realise that different compression methods are more/less lossy than
others - but then it's only audio books - hence the question




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: alt.usage.english
    ... (still assuming you're happy with standard quality audio) ... make sure that it saves your music in *MP3* ... It is a good format to archive CDs in. ... MP3 would be a poor archive format but it's the best option for everyday ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: OTish whats going to happen to HiFi?
    ... Fair point, but I think these days, good quality MP3s are high enough ... collection in uncompressed format would be impractical. ... considering the momentum behind MP3 I'm now not sure ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)
  • Re: Paramount and Dreamworks drop Blu-ray
    ... they will either be slightly fuzzier on HD-DVD as ... The consumer loses some quality. ... |> side-by-side comparisons for most consumers to see, though, so they will ... | the phony 'format war', the actual prices of both are much less than ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio myth
    ... SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD ... impracticalities of replacing cd as a two-channel format. ... the disadvantage of a format that nonsensically requires a new disc player. ... Knee-jerk disrespect for a very high quality live sound system noted. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: audio
    ... burn another with no loss of sound quality. ... but would never be thinking of making CDs of MP3 copies. ... because there is a quality degradation if, e.g. you go from CD to format ... And check out their help files, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)