don't believe everything you see on the internet.
FLAC format...overkill?
- Thread starter Quadman2
- Start date
don't believe everything you see on the internet.
olderroust
AK Member
I agree with the general advice to rip to flac. But manually downgrading files for media players seems like a PITA.
I have software for ebooks that knows several formats, and to put compatible files onto different e-reading devices.
So I wondered if media management software didn't have that built in as well.
At least jriver does:
https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Handheld_Sync_Options
I'm not a huge fan of jriver - it has a big footprint on a system, though not as bad as itunes does, and currently it's not playing at all well with the remote control for my dac/preamp - but that's a pretty great feature to have built in.
Do any of the other media management software tools know to do that?
I have software for ebooks that knows several formats, and to put compatible files onto different e-reading devices.
So I wondered if media management software didn't have that built in as well.
At least jriver does:
https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Handheld_Sync_Options
I'm not a huge fan of jriver - it has a big footprint on a system, though not as bad as itunes does, and currently it's not playing at all well with the remote control for my dac/preamp - but that's a pretty great feature to have built in.
Do any of the other media management software tools know to do that?
batch conversion with dbpoweramp is iperson friendly to ALAC
Another vote here for FLAC. I have some 320 kbps MP3 files I have converted from FLAC using an AVS tool. I can hear the difference between MP3 and FLAC. I believe the encoding method is the reason for that.
MP3 uses lossy data compression to encode data using inexact approximations and the partial discarding of data. Basically it shaves off the top and bottom of the sound wave then compresses it. So you are missing some bits and bytes after it is encoded.
FLAC, on the other hand, uses lossless data compression and does not discard any data. FLAC processing at the audio playback end uncompresses the data for full reproduction. The bit resolution and sampling rates are higher than MP3 encoding, hence the improvement in SQ for many listeners.
Storage is cheap and if you want to move to a digital solution I'd highly recommend getting at least 1TB of storage and not limit your available collection. All those CDs people have are rippable into a digital music and there are a lot of them available out there for cheap. I actually have 2TB of storage with 6 more available if needed on my Network Attached Storage (NAS) device on the network.
I used to run all my digital music on a 500GB portable HD but ran out of space pretty quickly when I moved from MP3 to FLAC which are larger than MP3. By way of comparison, Joe Satriani's track "Unstoppable Momentum" from the album of the same name in FLAC at a 16bit/44.1kHz resolution requires 39.9MB of storage on the drive. The same file, converted to MP3 with a 320 kbps resolution requires 11.97MB of storage on the drive.
Sure you can store more MP3 on the same size HD as you can FLAC. For me, though, I find I am missing some of the music when listening to MP3.
So good luck with your digital project and keep us in the loop on how it's going!
MP3 uses lossy data compression to encode data using inexact approximations and the partial discarding of data. Basically it shaves off the top and bottom of the sound wave then compresses it. So you are missing some bits and bytes after it is encoded.
FLAC, on the other hand, uses lossless data compression and does not discard any data. FLAC processing at the audio playback end uncompresses the data for full reproduction. The bit resolution and sampling rates are higher than MP3 encoding, hence the improvement in SQ for many listeners.
Storage is cheap and if you want to move to a digital solution I'd highly recommend getting at least 1TB of storage and not limit your available collection. All those CDs people have are rippable into a digital music and there are a lot of them available out there for cheap. I actually have 2TB of storage with 6 more available if needed on my Network Attached Storage (NAS) device on the network.
I used to run all my digital music on a 500GB portable HD but ran out of space pretty quickly when I moved from MP3 to FLAC which are larger than MP3. By way of comparison, Joe Satriani's track "Unstoppable Momentum" from the album of the same name in FLAC at a 16bit/44.1kHz resolution requires 39.9MB of storage on the drive. The same file, converted to MP3 with a 320 kbps resolution requires 11.97MB of storage on the drive.
Sure you can store more MP3 on the same size HD as you can FLAC. For me, though, I find I am missing some of the music when listening to MP3.
So good luck with your digital project and keep us in the loop on how it's going!
I believe iTunes will convert on the fly when it syncs to player. However, I haven't manually sync'd to a player in a long time, so it may not have that feature anymore. It is irrelevant for FLAC users because last time I checked, iTunes wasn't compatible with FLAC.
I have used Foobar to convert files and in the distant past and it worked great, though.
As for SQ, I would definitely rip to the computer in a lossless format. The NW-A45 has a USB input, so you can use it as a DAC for your computer. I am not sure how you plan to use the portable features. If you are planning sitting down and listening intently, I have a feeling that knowing you are not getting lossless will bother you. I would just put as many favorites in lossless on the card and just change the songs out on occasion until you can get another card. Personally, I could live with high bit rate mp3s (on a portable device), but I don't typically obsess over sound quality these days.
KeninDC
Hazy Cosmic Jive
I know you know this, but I'm going to say/type it anyway to keep this thread helpful to any newbies looking to go digital. Converting a lossy format (MP3) to non-lossy (FLAC) does not magically make the lossy source non-lossy. In other words, if I convert a 128 kbps MP3 to a WAV file, I will not get CD quality.
Last edited:
mars_volta
Super Member
FLAC all the way
I know you know this, but I'm going to say/type it anyway to keep this thread helpful to any newbies looking to go digital. Converting a lossy format (MP3) to non-lossy (FLAC) does not magically make the lossy source non-lossy. In other words, if I convert a 128 kbps MP3 to a WAV file, I will not get CD quality.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely correct. Once the data is lost, it's gone forever. You can't upconvert MP3 to FLAC and get it back.
mgosdin
Super Member
When I started haunting the thrift stores and bulking up my CD collection I decided to rip to WAV and 320 kps mp3. I've got a collection now that catalogs at 427 CD's, the total taken up on my 4 TB external drive is 199 GB. That is only about 5% of the space I have to work with, so no worries.
Mark Gosdin
Mark Gosdin
An attempt to obtain a higher res result? FLAC doesn't compromise the signal.
Why throw the baby out with the bathwater using lossy encoding?
mfrench
Addicted Member
There is still discussion of FLAC vs. Lossy?
In october, I had a week of recording where I generated over 100gb of new data. That was a bit of an eye opener.
Some time in the last 10 days, I finally learned how to make an mp3, so that I could post an incomplete song sample on a website.
In october, I had a week of recording where I generated over 100gb of new data. That was a bit of an eye opener.
Some time in the last 10 days, I finally learned how to make an mp3, so that I could post an incomplete song sample on a website.
KrisM
Lunatic Member
That online person has some pretty serious math issues to sort out.
Hopefully they don't do something for a living that requires math, and people's safety.
KrisM
Lunatic Member
You probably won't be able to wait that long.
From what I've been reading it's a diabolical plot to control all music delivery going forward. You'll have no choice.
Condorsat
Audio Enthusiast
About 5+ years ago ... when I ripped the bulk of my Car CDs (greatest hits, compilations, best of .. etc) to files ... I choose
128k AAC. Also use these files for my DAP. Figured eventually (after some time had passed) that I would re-rip to FLAC but never found it necessary for Car audio or DAPs.
Most of my CD rips can be streamed ... so if I ever want to hear them ... I just stream them on my mains. For the few albums that are not
on streaming (currently) ... I rip to 256k AAC on my Laptop hard drive (mains rig). My streaming plan is currently Tidal AAC ... so everything is roughly
the same.
Anyway for me ... FLAC would be overkill for Car or DAP audio ... my audio equipment for these tasks are strictly low to mid fi.
128k AAC. Also use these files for my DAP. Figured eventually (after some time had passed) that I would re-rip to FLAC but never found it necessary for Car audio or DAPs.
Most of my CD rips can be streamed ... so if I ever want to hear them ... I just stream them on my mains. For the few albums that are not
on streaming (currently) ... I rip to 256k AAC on my Laptop hard drive (mains rig). My streaming plan is currently Tidal AAC ... so everything is roughly
the same.
Anyway for me ... FLAC would be overkill for Car or DAP audio ... my audio equipment for these tasks are strictly low to mid fi.
Last edited:
I did the same thing back in the day because of the expense of storage and because everyone on tech sites were saying that 128k was "CD quality". Though, I re-ripped everything to lossless when storage got cheaper.
To answer the OP's question. I would always archive to the computer in lossless because if they come out with some new terrific lossless format that is a quarter of the size you can always convert them without a loss.
For players and real world use. People on audiophile sites will typically tell you to go lossless for everything. Forums like Hydrogen Audio, where they strictly believe in ABX testing, will tell you:
"Non-lossy compression algorithms are assumed to be transparent: a non-lossy compression methodology should never introduce any artifact.
Transparency at the lowest possible bitrate also seems to be used as a measure of the quality or degree of sophistication and tuning of a lossy compression algorithm:
- MP3-encoded files are generally considered artifact-free at bitrates at/above 192kbps.
- Vorbis ogg files are supposedly artifact-free at bitrates at/above 160kbps.
- AAC- and Opus-encoded files, depending on the particular encoder implementation, are claimed to be artifact-free at lower bitrates than both Vorbis ogg and MP3."
I am not endorsing either opinion. However, you should pick your poison and then stop over analyzing every sound and enjoy the music.
(I believe Foobar has an ABX testing process you can use if you trust ABX tests. However, be aware that a lot of audiophiles don't trust ABX testing.)
sKiZo
Hates received: 92644 43.20°N 85.50°W
- Converting a lossy MP3 to FLAC probably won't improve what you're hearing. Can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, eh. If anything, you MIGHT have some audible improvement, but I'd attribute that to the DAC and conversion process more than anything. Some just handle different formats better.
- Now, upsampling from an uncompressed source like a CD can benefit from increasing the bitrate, depending on the playback equipment due to improved headroom. More bits per second just allow the decoders more elbow room to do error sorting and such for improved accuracy - once again - if your playback equipment can handle it.
- Another vote for FLAC depending on how much music you want to be able to cram into your limited storage space. Speaking of which - have you tried connecting a larger external drive and see what happens? My trusty old Moto is supposedly limited at 32gb but works fine with 64gb card.
- If you DO decide to stick with a lossy format I'd consider MP3 256VBR. The "variable bit rate" uses only as many bits as needed, when needed, to keep the file size down while still providing accuracy compared to the original. Yes, it IS still a lossy compression, but you're less likely to lose any important audio in the process. I keep two libraries here - one all FLAC for home, and MP3 256VBR of my "5 star" list for the portables with excellent results.
- Now, upsampling from an uncompressed source like a CD can benefit from increasing the bitrate, depending on the playback equipment due to improved headroom. More bits per second just allow the decoders more elbow room to do error sorting and such for improved accuracy - once again - if your playback equipment can handle it.
- Another vote for FLAC depending on how much music you want to be able to cram into your limited storage space. Speaking of which - have you tried connecting a larger external drive and see what happens? My trusty old Moto is supposedly limited at 32gb but works fine with 64gb card.
- If you DO decide to stick with a lossy format I'd consider MP3 256VBR. The "variable bit rate" uses only as many bits as needed, when needed, to keep the file size down while still providing accuracy compared to the original. Yes, it IS still a lossy compression, but you're less likely to lose any important audio in the process. I keep two libraries here - one all FLAC for home, and MP3 256VBR of my "5 star" list for the portables with excellent results.
mfrench
Addicted Member
You probably won't be able to wait that long.
From what I've been reading it's a diabolical plot to control all music delivery going forward. You'll have no choice.
All the more reason to keep all of my music in-house, and not commercially sourced.
Similar threads
