If I started out with the wma file at 64 kbs and I wanted to convert it to mp3, my feeling is that I would want to convert the 64 kbs wma file to mp3 at 96 kbs. So if I wanted this degree of quality when encoding, but I want to use mp3, I would be advised to encode the audio directly to mp3 at 96 kbs. It is accepted that wma files encoded at a (especially) low bitrate (say 64 kbs.) is equivalent in quality to the same audio encoded to mp3 at 96 kbs. The first relies on a certain amount of experience and theory. Here I have two ideas to offer for this type of situation. The question raised by Kada20 is whether there is indeed an advantage to this and if so, what would be the optimal bitrate. So there might be some advantage to converting the m4a file to a higher quality mp3 file. The other drawback of the 320 kbs mp3 file will be again that it is much larger than the m4a file (although not as large as a lossless copy would be). It will not be a better file than the original 192 kbs m4a file. Likewise, if you convert the m4a file to mp3 at 320 kbs, you should expect to find a better copy of the m4a file than the two other mp3 files (at 64 kbs and at 160 kbs). You should expect to find a difference and you will.

Say you convert the m4a file to mp3 at 64 kbs and at 160 kbs. This being said, it should be obvious that mp3 copies of the m4a made at different bitrates will themselves vary in quality. The mp3 file will never be as good as the 192 kbs m4a file. Or you can convert it to a different lossy format, in this case mp3. You can make a lossless copy (which will be much largeer in size). In thhis case the m4a file cannot be improved.

I think that Neil's opinion is valid-sometimes.ДЄny audio file is always its own best copy.

Bitrate converter mp3