I want to convert 192k wma to mp3's. I was wondering what quality mp3 I should make considering the source. My choices are:
CBR 160
CBR 192
CBR 224
VBR 160-224
VBR 192-256
There are more choices but i think one of these 5 should be the best. I will be using Tunebite to do the conversion. I know there will be loss of quality going from one lossy to another but what will give me the best result considering the source file. Will going high be a waste since the infomation that would be kept by higher bit rate was already lost in the wma compression.
Thanks for your help

No matter what, you're losing even more quality. Technically, VBR 192-256 would be the best, but it's really silly to convert to a higher bitrate when you'll be getting less quality.

I would just use 128 and forget about it. I mean, when your resulting file has a double loss, why should you even care about sound quality anymore?

I don't consider myself an audiophile but I do use mid level grado headphones and klipsch speakers. The weird thing is the 192 wma's don't sound that bad. Maybe I don't detect audio diffences that well but the mp3's i create from wave files using lame -alt standard do sound so increadibly better than these 192 wma. Nren2k5, I know you say just encode at 128 because at this point the audio is so degraded its not even worth it. But just say the 192 wma is the best you can get, would you convert it at 192-256 vbr or is that just a complete waste. Tell you the truth I tried all of them and really couldn't tell the difference. Maybe someone with a better ear for music could suggest which one. Basically I want the one with the best sound that doesn't go overboard with space.

Bump. Nobody uses tunebite in this way?

NOT TUNEBITE! - not unless they are protected - since tunebite imposes an analog loopback step with further potential for quality impairment.

http://www.wma-mp3.org/index.html - maybe this, for unprotected ones, though the site make me a little nervous - I'd run a really good antispyware on it, whatever they claim, since there seems to be no established pedigree or independent review.

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/wma-mp3.org - seems ok
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/jodix.com/summary/ - also no problems

Guess I was a bit too nervous of this one, but vary wary of anyting that does not fit within the known realms of:
1. Promotional freeware
2. Open source
3. Known "good" authors

Looks like this one's a keeper