> X-Authentication-Warning: geek.rcc.se: majordom set sender to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:33:34 +0200
> From: Ivo van Heel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-UIDL: W)0!!*\@!!*(U!!CPS"!
>
> > LAME will resample the 22.05khz files to 44.1khz for you with
> > --resample 44.1, but you are better off doing that with
> > something like 'sox' first. LAME's resample code is
> > adequate for downsampling, but probably not for upsampling.
>
> I've been wondering about this for a long time. I mean, since these 22.05kHz
> have already been encoded to MP3 once, and LAME decodes, upsamples or downsamples
> it, then encodes it to MP3 AGAIN, how much does the quality suffer from re-encoding
> the file?
>
> Ivo
>
I would guess that the quality loss is large.
It only makes sense for something like 128kbs -> 24kbs, where the
quality loss from the bitrate reduction is much greater (and the
re-encoding quality loss doesn't matter so much)
Mark
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
