Duplicate my MP3 library and it's structure - encoded at a lower bit rate.

[CES]

All,

I'm looking for a way of re-encoding my all of my MP3's (folders and
directory structure) from 320kbs to 192kbs in one pass. I currently use
Musicmatch as my encoder but it will only allow me to re-encode individual
files in a specific folder and not all of the files in all of the folders at
one time. I would like to keep them as MP3 and not convert them to another
format so Windows Media Player is out - Is their a program that will do
it???

Thanks in advance.

CES

[dj.forest]

search on the net for "batch encode mp3"

-dj

"CES" <No...@NotAnEmailAddress.com> wrote in message
news:99v4b.73524$Sq.13...@twister.nyc.rr.com...

[Psytaur]

"CES" <No...@NotAnEmailAddress.com> wrote in message
news:99v4b.73524$Sq.13...@twister.nyc.rr.com...

====================================
CDex will also do what you want and batches, free and available from
http://www.cdex.n3.net/ .

[Armin Freiberg]

As being an old command-line fan I use lame.exe for this...
It has the switch --mp3input which means it takes an MP3 file
(decodes it internally) and encodes it in the new bit rate.
This can be quite easily done for whole directories with some
batch programming.
If anybody is intersted in details - contact me:
xA.xFr...@xcenit.xde
(remove all x)

Regards
Armin Freiberg

"CES" <No...@NotAnEmailAddress.com> wrote in message news:<99v4b.73524$Sq.13...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...

[DaveS]

A.Fre...@cenit.de (Armin Freiberg) wrote:

I was under the impression that doing this will degrade the quality.
ie. 320kps -> 192kbs will result in worse quality then initially
encoding at 192kbs.

IIRC OGG Vorbis doesn't suffer from this problem though.

--
DS

[Armin Freiberg]

In my opinion the loss by going down to 192 kbit from 320 is far
larger
than that from re-encoding. I may be wrong but I wonder why taking
away
nearly half of the information (320/192=1.72) should result in a worse
result than encoding directly from wav.
It would seem that since there is so much more "musical" information
im 320 kbit than in 196 kbit that it should suffice to give a good
result.
Hmmm ... anybody has done any ABX tests or similar on that?

Regards
Armin Freiberg

DaveS <da...@telus.net> wrote in message news:<uad9mv...@telus.net>...

> A.Fre...@cenit.de (Armin Freiberg) wrote:
>
> > As being an old command-line fan I use lame.exe for this...
> > It has the switch --mp3input which means it takes an MP3 file
> > (decodes it internally) and encodes it in the new bit rate.
> > This can be quite easily done for whole directories with some
> > batch programming.
> > If anybody is intersted in details - contact me:
> > xA.xFr...@xcenit.xde
> > (remove all x)
> >
> > Regards
> > Armin Freiberg
> >

...

[mike_papa_iii]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 05:28:03 GMT, DaveS <da...@telus.net> wrote:

>I was under the impression that doing this will degrade the quality.
>ie. 320kps -> 192kbs will result in worse quality then initially
>encoding at 192kbs.

There are at least 2 problems with encoding. One is the MDCT performed
on the audio signal...I believe the closest analog to this is the
video example given by someone else. This is where the "copy of a
copy" type degadration occurs although for very different reasons.

The second problem is with artifacts. When you encode the original
wave file you almost always introduce artifacts. The second generation
encoding then accepts those artifacts as part of the sound to be
encoded and could create artifacts on the original artifacts,
especially when going to a lower bit rate.

You could try making several generations of a brief sample and then
compare the last generation to the first generation. I'd bet that
most of the problems would be barely, if at all, noticeable to most
people, at least for the first couple generations anyway.