Originally Posted by rroseperry
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.
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).
Edited by KimLaroux - 9/30/12 at 9:23pm
- 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/
- 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.