I convert any audio files to 192k MP3s for use in my Zen. It makes sense that a flac (lossless) file, or even a 256/320 MP3 file will convert to 192. I've got some 160k wma files that I want to convert. Does it make any sense to try to convert them to 192k MP3, or should I use 160k or lower? I guess I'm really asking about the amount of information that each format carries with a given bitrate and what converting does to the files.
Personally, I would just leave them alone. When you convert from 1 lossy format(wma,mp3,etc...) to another lossy format you will lose quality by just doing the reencoding. Having said that, if you really want to change the format, reencoding to a higher bitrate does you no good at all. You cannot add information back into the file. So, in the end, if you were to switch from 160kbps wma file to a 160kbps mp3 file, you'll wind up with a file that is the same size but of a lesser quality, because of the reencoding. You may not hear the difference though. It all depends on how good your ears are.
no no no my friend, it does NOT make sense to convert your files to a different format. if you convert a lossy file to another lossy format (mp3 to mp3, wma to mp3, mp3 to wma), you are losing a GREAT deal of quality. even if the original file it only 128kpbs and you are re encoding them to 320kpbs, there is still a great deal of quality loss. just leave your lossy files at the compressed bitrate they are, don't convert them. think of copying VHS video tapes. if you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, each generation is going to get worse. each to you decompress and recompress a lossy format, you are losing data, and therefore losing a large deal of quality.
the only exception to this is lossless files, such as flac. you can convert a lossless flac file to an mp3 without quality loss if you wish, but what would be the point?
