My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To!http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487 "And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33
Yes, attempting to defy the laws of physics will doom one to an afterlife in Newtonian Hell :)
Your plan would of course simply generate the same sub-par audio at a higher bitrate, unless you re-encoded the original source directly.
Like Neph says, one cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear...
That's why audiophiles scorn converting to mp3s. Because people convert to mp3, then convert back to wav thinking they haven't lost anything and no one would be the wiser. Simply put, when you convert to mp3, you get compression but also alot of data is tossed out forever that supposedly the average listener won't miss. When you convert back to wav, that information that was tossed out doesn't magically come back.
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To!http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487 "And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33
CD quality in general is not enough (if you an audiophile). If you are compressing music from an analog source like a live performance then a lossless codec who be the best way to go. But for simple CD-Ripping mp3 at 192 kbps isn't horrible.
I think people have gotten the wrong message about the whole lossless codec movement. Using Flac or WMA lossless or any of the few lossless formats available to rip audio of a CD is over kill! DVD-Audio is another story...
I wish that it was possible to compress a sound file then uncompress it without any loss. Isn't it possible to do such things with Flac (mathematically) since it offers a range of compression levels while keeping a lossless status?
