192 kbps mp3's - should I delete them?

[tomspace]

cant you just convert any 128 192 to 320+

[BradCee]

cant you just convert any 128 192 to 320+

won't fill in the gaps, like trying to enlarge a jpeg, it'll improve the size, but not the quality with it

[sj03w4t]

cant you just convert any 128 192 to 320+

First off, there is no higher bitrate than 320 for mp3.
Secondly if you convert to mp3 in what ever way, from whichever format and no matter what time of day data is LOST. As in, FOREVER. (unless you keep the orignal file )
But that means that conversion from lower bitrates to higher bitrates will only result in quality LOSS.
Look at it like this: there is no point in describing very precisely what a song sounds like (conversion to 320) when the file you are describing (128) is a bad description of the original file(wav).

edit: BradCee beat me to it

[tomspace]

Damn! a large portion of my music has been converted.... from 128

[sm00sh]

if you have files that are lossy ex: MP3 then I would suggest using bitrates no lower than 256 kbps. always shoot for 320.

or use lossless files ex: WAV, Flac, Ogg ...

in my opinion anything lower in quality than listed above should be deleted, or left for the bedroom.

[Jester]

Run you 192's through platinum notes mate.

[Zac Kyoti]

Damn! a large portion of my music has been converted.... from 128

Yeah man, it doesn't work that way. ANY time a file is encoded as an MP3 (or any lossy format), it has data REMOVED. Doesn't matter if your upping the bitrate, dropping it, or going sideways. A file should only be lossily encoded once, if at all.
Using your ears is more important than any "standard" though. I have 192k files that sound bangin' too, and some 320's that sound shite. It just depends on the source material, settings, and the encoder itself. I'm surprised no one mentioned this yet: MP3 encoding is a dynamic process, and not all encoders are created equal. Many feel that the LAME encoder is one of the best sounding out there. I use it, and am very satisfied. ITunes' encoder on the other hand is widely known to be pretty sub par.

A/B it. Take a track you know really well and drop it into various encoders using the same settings and pick the one you like the best. Try some really complex material too, dense stuff that must remain clear in order to pick out all the instruments in the mix. A crappy encoder will make music like this sound smeared and washed out.

[Bassline Brine]

I honestly can tell a difference between the difference qualities of mp3's usually. But it's something that honestly, it's worth having the music if it's at 192kbps.

Yeah I just ended up tossing all of my 128 kbps mp3's. I know I have a bunch to replace, but honestly most of that stuff I "shouldn't" have had anyhow.

My goal for the future is to have 320 kbps and nothing less.

But has anyone dealt with itunes? I used it for the first time today to download a track, and it was 256 kbps. Is there a way to get higher quality from that site or should I just be okay with that? Honestly, the prices are cheaper than beatport for most of the same tunes if I can find them on there.

[Jester]

Yeah its 256 aac which is equivalent to a 320 mp3 mate.

[Bassline Brine]

Thanks. Learning a lot about mp3's that I never knew even existed before.

Currently running my files through MP3Gain to normalize the output levels. I've always had this problem with tunes even just while listening to them, and I'm so psyched I found an article on how to fix it.

Also just bought/downloaded a copy of mixed in key. I come from a strong traditional music background (yeah I was a band kid once upon a time) and I think this is a really interesting thing.

I plan on going through and using the color/key chart and trying to update the album art according to key as well, though that's well down on my list. I think having a quick color visual reference to what color is what key would be wicked damned handy for easy correlation.

Man, I've been unhappy with my music library forever. Even told a friend once that I never planned on fixing it because it would take too much time. I guess that's one of the perks of being unemployed, you have way to much time to do shit you would never do otherwise :P