Increasing the bitrate of an audio file will not create a file with a better quality than the original When a video file is the input, check (like this or this) what kind of audio it contains (for the purpose of what is said below, 'audio file' will also mean the audio from a video input) I have edited it to clarify, but the bad is done. There are different ideas floating here, maybe because my question was too general or vague. This is a complementary answer made to record what I consider to be the meaning of the other answers so far. This will also achieve better compression and/or lower data rates, since you're not carrying aboard the noise and artifacts that the encoding process is heir to. My golden rule, however, is that information can only be destroyed - so transcode as little as possible, and always try to get as "near" as possible to the original source (in terms of transcoding "hops"). When the transcoding goes towards a higher compression for the same quality, then increasing the data rate does not make sense (actually it might well be that you're transcoding because the target format allows a better compression, and therefore the same quality with lower data rate). So if you were transcoding from a format to another with 10% less compression, you should proportionally increase the data rate.Īctually a bit more than proportionally, because the second encoder, when cascaded with the first decoder, will always introduce an additional quality loss (unless you're using two lossless formats) that has to be compensated (even if you can't compensate all of it). Why is that? It is because the compression of the two formats is wildly different.Ĭompression * Data Rate = (useful) information. If you did not - actually if you did not raise the data rate enough, and only went up to 350 kbps - the RAW format would allow for only half the sampling frequency. Does it make sense to raise the data rate? You bet it does. Suppose now we're doing the reverse, and want to encode a 64 kbps MP3 stream as RAW. You encode it to MP3, high quality, 22 kHz, and get around, say, 64 kbps. It may make sense, since we're talking bits per second in different formats and not sampling frequency.Īs an extreme case, suppose you have an uncompressed raw file with 16 bits per sample, stereo, at the sampling rate of 22 kHz. It make sense outputing to a higher bitrate when converting to mp3 or When a certain file (mp4, flv, etc) has a 95 kbps audio bitrate - does (is it aac?) (- And in general the answers seem to fall in one of the two positions represented by the most voted answers.) The most voted two answers below ( this and this) seem to say different things, namely, the later says that Bitrates are not directly comparable and if the original audio is in a more efficient format, then the output ( less efficient) audio should have a somewhat superior bitrate (the same idea here and here) - but while the less efficient is mp3, I am not sure which exactly are the more efficient formats. Maybe a sub-question is useful: is the answer dependent on the type of the output file (lossless or lossy)? The question is just about the usefulness of optionally increasing the bitrate when converting. Only that in some cases an original cd/wave may be unavailable. Please consider that I am aware that converting between lossy formats is not recommendable. (Except for going from a lossless format to the original wave.) I am talking whether an output with a higher bitrate than the input will have a better quality than it might otherwise have. I am not talking about the output having better quality than the input: obviously, that is not possible. Would this result in higher audio quality or just in a bigger file? When a certain file (mp4, flv, etc) has a 95 kbps audio bitrate - does it make sense outputing to a higher bitrate when converting to mp3 or other format (be it lossy or not)? Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted. Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |