Again, you can't lose what's not there to lose. A 128 bit rate mp3 has already lost information - converting it to 320 does not regenerate it. I don't understand what you're not getting.
You can't lose what's not there to lose. I don't understand what you're not getting. When you convert a 128 to 320, alot of the info is already gone - converting it to 320 does not regenerate it.
What Andy is saying, and he is mainly correct, you lose NOTHING on the conversion from the 128K compressed signal to an uncompressed temporary version, but potentially lose something on the reconversion back to a compressed 320k mp3 since the recompression process will most likely not compress it identically to the compression that happened at 128K.If you have a 128 bit rate file, most of the information that would be lost in a 320 bit rate file is already not in existence - and it's gone forever. Converting it to 320 does not create it.
If you have a half of a burger, no matter what you do, you will never have a whole burger.
I think we all agree on that strategy ...If I have a 128 bit rate file and want a 320, I'm going to look for a better quality to rip from - as in the original. I wouldn't even be trying to convert it - as I know it's already worse.
While true, less devices (though most software) support AAC, so you might limit yourself if you put some songs on a flash drive and brought them somewhere else to play.I recommend AAC over mp3 as the encoding process is mode advanced and generally can sound better in a smaller size format.
Thanks Apple!
If you have a half of a burger, no matter what you do, you will never have a whole burger.