Finally. Converting my stuff

Pauly

.mp3 to FLAC


BTW some of you are sickos.

Got a 1TB slave at CompUSA for 85 and converting everything on my computer from .mp3 to FLAC. Alot of stuff was FLAC or WAV or the such already but now i have the room i need to convert everything else (the other Half). Im using Media Monkey (first time) I have all my Music backed up just in case.

Inputs, Thoughts,

I know you got some

Pauly

beardog03

afflack !

disneyjoe7

Go Pauly Go

Norm Apter

Pauly wrote: »

.mp3 to FLAC


BTW some of you are sickos.

Got a 1TB slave at CompUSA for 85 and converting everything on my computer from .mp3 to FLAC. Alot of stuff was FLAC or WAV or the such already but now i have the room i need to convert everything else (the other Half). Im using Media Monkey (first time) I have all my Music backed up just in case.

Inputs, Thoughts,

I know you got some

Pauly

I'm confused:o

I was under the impression that one could not upconvert mp3 to flac, which I thought was the like adding missing data/information that is no longer there. Obviously, I know that one can convert FLAC to WAV and each to mp3 which would be scaling down, but I didn't realize you could go the other way.

Or do you mean you still have the original CDs and will be ripping them again and converting those electronic files to FLAC?

Pauly

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

Go Pauly Go

Hope your not humping my 10's

I'll hit you up and hopefully i can swing by Sat or Sun to pick em up....

On a side note it takes some time to convert 120 gigs of music


Pauly

Pauly

Norm Apter wrote: »

I'm confused:o

I was under the impression that one could not upconvert mp3 to flac, which I thought was the like adding missing data/information that is no longer there. Obviously, I know that one can convert FLAC to WAV and each to mp3 which would be scaling down, but I didn't realize you could go the other way.

Or do you mean you still have the original CDs and will be ripping them again and converting those electronic files to FLAC?

Dunno never tried. Media Monkey has the option to convert from mp3 to FLAC... I would think its all 1's and 0's. Its compression / expansion. Guess it will depend on the Source.....

Check back and will let you know my thoughts..

Pauly

John30_30

Norm Apter wrote: »

I'm confused:o

I was under the impression that one could not upconvert mp3 to flac, which I thought was the like adding missing data/information that is no longer there. Obviously, I know that one can convert FLAC to WAV and each to mp3 which would be scaling down, but I didn't realize you could go the other way.

Or do you mean you still have the original CDs and will be ripping them again and converting those electronic files to FLAC?

You're right. mp3 to flac is a waste of time.

cd to flac or forget it.

nadams

You CAN convert from MP3 to FLAC, but you can never get back the data that MP3 compression lost, therefore it's still going to sound just as bad as the original MP3 file. The only way to have any true Lossless file is to convert from a lossless medium, such as original material or another LOSSLESS format. MP3 is lossy, so you'll never get the quality back.

mmadden28

+1 to Just Say NO to MP3 to FLAC conversion. Defiantly if you're re-doing your library as FLAC, use the source CDs to rip.

Pauly

John30_30 wrote: »

You're right. mp3 to flac is a waste of time.

cd to flac or forget it.

nadams wrote: »

You CAN convert from MP3 to FLAC, but you can never get back the data that MP3 compression lost, therefore it's still going to sound just as bad as the original MP3 file. The only way to have any true Lossless file is to convert from a lossless medium, such as original material or another LOSSLESS format. MP3 is lossy, so you'll never get the quality back.

Sounds like i might have to rethink. The Gems i have are CD or DVD or already Lossless, just wanted to try all my other stuff.... Will see if i hear a diff


Pauly

bobman1235

As others have said, once you have an MP3 the extra data is long gone, converting it to FLAC just takes that same lost information and puts it into a new box.

Pauly

So i have a general ?,

If you zip a file (compression) it loses data? Or only some Data? Why in audio and not others?

Edit

Add in, so a .mp3 is smaller than say wav or flac. When it encodes what data is being replaced to make it bigger?

Input

Pauly

bobman1235

There are two types of compression - lossy and lossless. Zipping a file is a lossless compression. It's a different way of representing data, but ALL data is still there. Ditto for FLAC.

MP3 is a LOSSY compression. It uses algorithms to shrink the file by removing information.

Going from MP3 to FLAC will basically but superfluous data into the file. It's kind of like, did you ever download a video on your computer, and it looks fine in teh little window, but then you go to view it full-size it looks like ****? Similar type of thing; sure, the video is "bigger", but the data that gets filled in is just a guess, and a **** guess at that.

Pauly

Hmmmmm. This is confusing with the Absinthe ive been drinking. I'll check back tomorrow...

Pauly

mmadden28

Zipping computer data is different. The decompressed file MUST contain the original data or it wouldn't work. And simplified example would be a file, in binary form, might have repeating patterns throughout. Like a buch of times where 0000000010 occurs, in compressed form 011 might represent that block. Same with 1110000000 might be represeted compressed as 110. So with what originally was 20 digits, is now 6, so about 70% reduction in size. But when unzipped, the 110 is restored to 1110000000.
I'd imagine this is essentially how the Lossless algorythms work.

Think of MP3 (and other lossy formats) this way, and keep in mind this is highly simplified and not really how the conversion actually happens:
Human ears can only hear so much of the frequency range, so one algorithms might strip out all the sub bass and really high frequencies altogether. With what's left, some bits of data here and there would get taken out, in areas where the human ear might not be able to detect the loss of the info.
Different MP3 encoders (some better than others) and varying bit rates change how much of that data is lost, but its lost either way. The key point here is the data is stripped out and gone forever. Any program that enhances the MP3, is really just guessing.
***EDIT - This might help explain it a bit better than I can
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/mp31.htm


One analogy might be animation, where when run at 30 frames per second, you're brain interprets the rapidly moving still shot frames as smooth motion even though we all know its not really smooth motion, such as from a flip book. Some animation is smoother than others (different encoding bitrates), and thus the clarity of the video.
Another might be 1080i vs 1080p, or interlaced vs. non interlaced. With Non interlaced every scan line is displayed on every frame (FLAC) where with interlaced, only every other scan line (half of the complete image) is shown for each frame. So in one frame you see the odd scanlines, and the next the even lines, but it happens so fast that your brain doesn't see the oddity and interprets it as smooth video. Some can't deifferentiate between 1080i and 1080p.

You could also look at image compression formats the same as MP3. High vs. low resolution photos.
The compression processes strips out and smooths bits of the image. The human brain can still see the image as it looked originally, but with a much smaller file size.
However zoom in on those pictures and you can clearly see the difference, the low rez image is pixelated and choppy, wherr you can zoom in more on the High rez format pic and still show clarity.

Audio is more subjectove and harder to see the concrete proof like you can with video and images, but the principle is the same.
I hope that helps and doesn't add to the confusion any more with my sometimes off the wall analogies.

heiney9

nadams wrote: »

You CAN convert from MP3 to FLAC, but you can never get back the data that MP3 compression lost, therefore it's still going to sound just as bad as the original MP3 file. The only way to have any true Lossless file is to convert from a lossless medium, such as original material or another LOSSLESS format. MP3 is lossy, so you'll never get the quality back.

Yep. complete and total waste of time and HD space. Don't even bother. Mp3's suck

Fongolio

Not to mention the fact that not all mp3's are created equal. Some have very high compression (e.g. 128 kb/s sampling rate) and some less compression that sounds much better (320 kb/s sampling rate which aproaches Dolby Digital quality sound). However, it's a far cry from the 1411 kb/s sampling rate of redbook cd.

vc69

Don't bother converting MP3 to FLAC. All you will have is a larger file in the end.

CD-->FLAC or leave it alone.

jimmydep

I had the same question as Pauly, The scary thing is, I'm actually starting to understand this stuff.

Thanks for the analogies Mike.


Jimmy

Pauly

how about MP3 to WAV? Still Lossy? Not as much as FLAC? Same?

Input

Pauly

heiney9

Pauly wrote: »

how about MP3 to WAV? Still Lossy? Not as much as FLAC? Same?

Input

Pauly

YES, exactly the same! The mp3's are the lossy files. Once you convert to mp3's the data that is lost thru compression will never be recovered no matter how many lossless formats you convert to from an mp3 file.

The mp3 file is already a "corupt" file in that it has discarded information from the original .WAV or .CDA file. It can never be recovered.

vc69

There is no turning back from MP3. It's a dead-end encode, no matter what format you choose to convert back to.

tcrossma

Pauly wrote: »

how about MP3 to WAV? Still Lossy? Not as much as FLAC? Same?

Input

Pauly

MP3 to *anything* is a waste of time -- garbage in, garbage out. Your MP3 files are already compromised -- they can't be used as a source of any conversion.

disneyjoe7

This is why I convert in Lossless modes only, a complete waste of time if not. Sorry to state this but yes you need to redo everything, I was wrong before "Go Pauly Go" as I didn't really understand what you where doing before.

reeltrouble1

Ok Geeks........

so I ain't saying but I'm just saying.......

IF I was going to put some sort of a server in my listening room what do I need.......no computer allowed.........no monitor screen allowed. Can I put high def DVD-A and SACD on any server/hard drive sort of thing from an original high rez disc I did not think I could??? maybe with fire-wire pro stuff?????

And if a digital audio signal goes through a wire and an analog audio signal goes through a wire how come I see posts saying the digital wire does not matter or does it, I cut open a digital cable and its was copper wire inside.....no ones or zeroes that I could see......I cut open an analog interconnect and it was copper as well......no notes on a staff or wave forms (damm)........so what is the difference, it is an audio signal and everything would seem to need to be handled carefully.

I have certainly done enough research and become informed to know a few things, like USB wire does not really transfer signals all that well and that Lossless still eliminates some information but that this information does not matter....still though everything matters. I guess I would not mind some type of server for digital but do not want to give up anything.........I have heard ipods.....terrible.......I have heard i-pods with a supposed good outboard DAC....a little better but still my digital source is much better, I just heard an i-pod with a tube buffer..no thanks.......so anyway to do this at hi-fi???? or just continue to wait......I saw an Ayre DAC that was written up as being good, but expensive, not that I mind paying to play but I want no loss of SQ I really want it to sound better than my player, otherwise its just an expensive convenience thing in my individual situtation cause I already got a hi-fi digital source. (well I kinda do--inside joke)

RT1

Pauly

Thanks for the input fellas. Time for a Music Make over yet again.....


Pauly

reeltrouble1

oh, enjoy the speaks Pauly, hopefully I will see you soon.

So you gotta go back and copy more stuff........I made some backups of discs today......I find it tiring and burdensome.......

RT1

BlueFox

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

Lossless still eliminates some information but that this information does not matter....still though everything matters.

Not true. Lossless means lossless, not almost lossless. Did you get this info from a speaker wire makes no differance guru?

reeltrouble1

no, I got it from several sources far better than the internet.........but the report indicates what is lost does not matter.....besides its only a small part of what I perceive as a problem with servers which I am reeeeeely trying come to some sort of musical strategy on. But I see no answers here so I guess I will just wait a bit more, no hurry, I will be visiting with my favorite Geek, a highly trained electronic technician near the House of the Mouse and I hope Pauly early next month, perhaps I can gleem some education from him.

As far as the wire question........errrrrr.......you do realize I spend small fortunes on it......

RT1

Bubinga99

reeltrouble1: How come you didn't post this in the electronics forum? Might get more discussion on it.
Anyways, I'm looking at doing something similar (hi-res digital archive of everything, not integrating to a PC, but able to transfer data to/from a PC as needed).

Anyway, if you want a few products to look at, here are a few (they each have different feature sets, and none has exactly what I want, so I've not decided yet):

(Note some of these are portable models, which has pros and cons, but they're quite high quality)
Korg MR-2000S (or prev. model MR-1000)
Tascam DV-RA1000HD (or models having less features for less cost like: HD-P2, SS-CDR1, SS-R1, SS-R05, HD-R1)
Fostex UR-2 (and portable FR-2)
Alesis ML-9600
Nagra VI, LB
Sound Devices 702
(and a few Marantz/Denon models but I can't find the models)

bigaudiofanatic

Norm Apter wrote: »

I'm confused:o

I was under the impression that one could not upconvert mp3 to flac, which I thought was the like adding missing data/information that is no longer there. Obviously, I know that one can convert FLAC to WAV and each to mp3 which would be scaling down, but I didn't realize you could go the other way.

Or do you mean you still have the original CDs and will be ripping them again and converting those electronic files to FLAC?

You are correct once the music is compressed the info is lost it can not be brought back. So unless you rip in flac to being with it is worthless to convert a mp3 to flac.