Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Converting MP3 to FLAC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Converting MP3 to FLAC

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 

Hey guys,

 

Just wondering, would the quality of the music be the same or be better if you convert MP3 128kbps music to FLAC with a higher encoding rate? Because most of my music are in the MP3 formats and I learned that FLAC is a lossy format which is much better, same as Apple lossless. Also, would it be better if you convert high quality YouTube videos into FLAC? Would that make a difference?

post #2 of 15
You won't be able to improve the quality by using a different encoding system, Take a visual analogy, suppose you take a picture with low resolution 36 ppi. Resaving it as 100 ppi won't get you a better picture. You can't add information.
post #3 of 15

^ what he said, you will only end up having a file about 8 times bigger with the same substandard audio quality as well

post #4 of 15

You will get no audio improvement. The file will only get bigger.

 

Converting WAV to FLAC is another story.

post #5 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamageInc77 View Post

You will get no audio improvement. The file will only get bigger.

Converting WAV to FLAC is another story.
To be clear: another story in file size, not in sound quality. You can never improve the sound quality. What is lost is lost. (there are ways to 'guess' what was once there and add it, but that's not the same).

P.S. FLAC is lossless, not lossy.
post #6 of 15

wav -> flac is ok, you will preserve 100% of the sound while reducing the filesize by a good amount (about 30-40% i think, forgot)

basically taking a lower quality format and saving it in a higher quality format is pointless. since lost info cannot be returned

post #7 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by rroseperry View Post

You won't be able to improve the quality by using a different encoding system, Take a visual analogy, suppose you take a picture with low resolution 36 ppi. Resaving it as 100 ppi won't get you a better picture. You can't add information.

 

That's a nice analogy I haven't thought about... Here's the one I often use:

 

Converting a low bit-rate audio file into a loss-less file is like scanning a black and white picture on a color scanner. Yes, the scanner will give you a file with a high resolution color encoding, but the original picture still is black and white. When you open the file for viewing, the picture will still be black and white, and not in color, as the color was never there to start with.

 

Edit:

 

Quote:
 Because most of my music are in the MP3 formats and I learned that FLAC is a lossy format (1) which is much better, same as Apple lossless (2).
  1. FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec, an audio format similar to MP3, but lossless, meaning that audio is compressed in FLAC without any loss in quality. This is similar to how Zip works, except with FLAC you will get much better compression because it is designed specifically for audio, and you can play back compressed FLAC files in your favorite player (or your car or home stereo, see supported devices) just like you would an MP3 file. http://flac.sourceforge.net/
  2. I believe it's the other way around: ALAC is the same as FLAC. FLAC was launched 3 years prior to ALAC. FLAC has been a stable product for 5 years now, while the first ALAC stable release was 10 months ago.

Edited by KimLaroux - 9/30/12 at 9:23pm
post #8 of 15
Thread Starter 

Thanks guys, those were really helpful replies. And sorry for the spelling mistake, i did mean lossless but somehow wrote lossy?. Then how about converting High quality YouTube music vids into FLAC format? would that preserve the quality of the music? 

post #9 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by gshadow View Post

Thanks guys, those were really helpful replies. And sorry for the spelling mistake, i did mean lossless but somehow wrote lossy?. Then how about converting High quality YouTube music vids into FLAC format? would that preserve the quality of the music? 

uhh... no. you see when they upload it to youtube, the site compresses it (if the uploader didn't compress it before that already to meet size requirements), when you rip it it compresses it again, and to even archive 192 kbps the video needs to be at least 720p since youtube sets it that way, under normal circumstances it is 128kbps or less (i have had 8 kbps before). 
so in the end what you get is double or triple compressed.

post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by gshadow View Post

Thanks guys, those were really helpful replies. And sorry for the spelling mistake, i did mean lossless but somehow wrote lossy?. Then how about converting High quality YouTube music vids into FLAC format? would that preserve the quality of the music? 


LOL no. You have to get Lossless files from a CD or download them in Lossless quality. You can polish a turd but in the end it's still gonna be a POS. Youtube videos are never in high quality. Its always compressed down to mp3 type files so don't bother. Your best bet is ripping from CDs. Plus use a program that will verify their integrity. Otherwise you are wasting your time and may not have proper rips of the recordings.

post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


LOL no. You have to get Lossless files from a CD or download them in Lossless quality. You can polish a turd but in the end it's still gonna be a POS. Youtube videos are never in high quality. Its always compressed down to mp3 type files so don't bother. Your best bet is ripping from CDs. Plus use a program that will verify their integrity. Otherwise you are wasting your time and may not have proper rips of the recordings.

on side note about polishing a turd:

it just won't look anyhow like a chrome ball though

anyway yeah what he said, i know getting FLAC files are much harder than ripping them off youtube but when you do get them its worth it.
also is windows media player a good software to rip CD's into wav? then i can convert it to 320mp3 or FLAC using Sony Soundforge 10


Edited by streetdragon - 10/1/12 at 3:39am
post #12 of 15

lol :P.
 

post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetdragon View Post

on side note about polishing a turd:

it just won't look anyhow like a chrome ball though

anyway yeah what he said, i know getting FLAC files are much harder than ripping them off youtube but when you do get them its worth it.
also is windows media player a good software to rip CD's into wav? then i can convert it to 320mp3 or FLAC using Sony Soundforge 10

I use dBpoweramp converter and ripper for my music processing. It's excellent, but not free. There is however a 21 day fully functional trial, which I recommend you download.

post #14 of 15

Just download EAC and Flac Frontend. You also download the lame encoder separately and set it up. Once it's all set up you can properly rip your CDs and Flac Frontend will convert those files on the fly for you to FLAC. I downloaded a bundled set of the programs with directions so it was quite simple. Just follow the steps. Best part is it's free.
 

post #15 of 15

alright sure thanks for the advice^^

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Converting MP3 to FLAC