ProtegeManiac
Headphoneus Supremus
For the nth time in this thread, convert it to MP3 instead of FLAC. You're just making a larger file out of a file that doesn't have the info already lost during compression. Lossless formats act more like a zip file while lossy compression shaves off the extremes of the frequency spectrum - not even a reconstructive algorithm like BBE Bass Maximizer or MediaXPander can accurately restore that file since it can only guess what was shaved off.
Think of it this way and do this if you can borrow a camera. Take a camera with a 4/3 or larger sensor, take a sharp image (properly focused, aperture stopped down, post process it, upload it to Facebook. Then, download the image from the FB post, and then resize it to the same resolution as the original PP'd JPEG image, then print a 3ft x 2ft (just crop if it's a 4/3). Now print the original PP'd JPEG image and the FB blow-up, and compare them.
WilliamLeonhart
Headphoneus Supremus
ProtegeManiac
Headphoneus Supremus
Well he's planning on buying gear (it's in another thread I think). I use FLAC on my smartphone, but only because I use it as a music server. If I didn't I'd cram as much stuff into it (including some pop music) so I wouldn't use up the battery using Spotify.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2006
- Posts
- 10,021
- Likes
- 715
Good question. I don't. 256K & 320K MP3 work fine for my purposes.
However, one reason to rip into lossless is to preserve ALL of the bits of the original CD for archive purposes. Once you have done that, there is really no reason to even keep the CD. You can recreate the CD bit-for-bit anytime you wish. That lossless source can then be used to create the smaller compressed AAC or MP3 files that are actually used for portable players or whatever. This all makes sense when you *start* with the RedBook CD. It makes no sense if you are starting with a lossy, compressed file.
However, one reason to rip into lossless is to preserve ALL of the bits of the original CD for archive purposes. Once you have done that, there is really no reason to even keep the CD. You can recreate the CD bit-for-bit anytime you wish. That lossless source can then be used to create the smaller compressed AAC or MP3 files that are actually used for portable players or whatever. This all makes sense when you *start* with the RedBook CD. It makes no sense if you are starting with a lossy, compressed file.
WitzyZed
500+ Head-Fier
Where did you read the FiiO X1 doesn't support m4a?
ALAC is in an m4a container & it also supports AAC, also in an m4a container.
Unless you're talking about some other X1.
snellemin
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2015
- Posts
- 834
- Likes
- 769
I've ripped my cd's with EAC, into wav. files. I can take those wave files and convert them to Flac with Freac(free audio converter). The EAC is free and a link was provided a few threads back. It's a bit slow, but that is expected when you want accurate rips. To save time, I rip 5 cd's at a time with the EAC.
kingofsand
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2015
- Posts
- 32
- Likes
- 0
Where did you read the FiiO X1 doesn't support m4a?
ALAC is in an m4a container & it also supports AAC, also in an m4a container.
Unless you're talking about some other X1.
I will try it when I get home. Thanks for the input, I guess I just had some confusion on the matter.
cel4145
Headphoneus Supremus
With EAC you can also have it automatically compress files into flac. No need for that additional step
WitzyZed
500+ Head-Fier
Hope it eases the hassle on ya to not have to convert anything. Without going back in the thread (all one page xD I'm sorry) I was not sure if it was a FiiO, ha.
snellemin
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2015
- Posts
- 834
- Likes
- 769
With EAC you can also have it automatically compress files into flac. No need for that additional step
Did a quick search on how to rip to flac + wave with EAC at the same time. 5 minutes later I'm doing it. Thanks for the heads up.
kingofsand
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2015
- Posts
- 32
- Likes
- 0
One of the big reasons I am ripping to FLAC was for my media server. I have a 30TB NAS that needs to be filled with something lol. I also have a 1.6TB of One Drive Storage from Microsoft. For me it doesn't really come down to whether I will notice a difference, it comes down to preserving all the bits as best as possible. The analogy made with the FB picture is missing one thing, the original perfectly preserved file. What is done after the file is placed into a FLAC doesn't matter to me, as long as I have the most perfectly preserved file I can I can turn it into whatever I want.
Also in case you haven't noticed I am VERY well off on storage lol. And if I need to I can add another 30TB to my NAS and purchase more Micro SD cards lol. I am not afraid to use up all my storage.
Also in case you haven't noticed I am VERY well off on storage lol. And if I need to I can add another 30TB to my NAS and purchase more Micro SD cards lol. I am not afraid to use up all my storage.
ProtegeManiac
Headphoneus Supremus
Alright, so with that the storage limitations aren't as severe since we're talking HDDs instead of, say, on-board or SD cards. You still have the equivalent of a Facebook blow-up. You have to buy the lossless copy or buy the CD and rip that to FLAC. Since you are converting it into FLAC from a lossy copy that already lost some of the data, there's no "preserving all the bits as best as possible." If you convert a lossy file to another lossy file, as long as the bitrate is the same, you don't lose anything. Converting it to a "lossless" file doesn't have some kind of algorithm that will guess what was shaved off (like a bass and treble EQ for MP3).
I'll give another example in case you're totally not into photography. Let's say you work at a frozen pizza factory and you have to box the frozen pizzas for shipping. When one of the frozen pizzas comes out, you take a photo of it, and that appears on the box; but then you take a bite and eat three slices out of it. The photo on the box captures what the pizza looks like when it was whole, but then when you open the box, it's not like the three slices you ate will just reappear on the pizza. This is actually better than converting from lossy to "lossless" considering the photo at least can help you "restructure" the pizza since you can positiong the toppings as it was in the photo; when converting from lossy to "lossless" the software has no idea what the hell the original file had.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2006
- Posts
- 10,021
- Likes
- 715
I really don't understand the concept that converting from MP3/AAC to FLAC "preserves all the bits as best as possible". How? When the MP3 or AAC file is uncompressed and played, that represents all the bits of the original recording that you ever had, and all the bits from the original recording that you will *ever* have - no matter what you do later to that file. You gain absolutely nothing by the transcoding of MP3/AAC to FLAC, and you "preserve" absolutely nothing by transcoding them to FLAC.
kingofsand
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2015
- Posts
- 32
- Likes
- 0
ProtegeManiac
Headphoneus Supremus
Look, we're helping you out here, the very least you can do for for the calories and time we put in typing responses to you is to actually understand what we're saying.
For starters, I did not and NEVER said that ripping CD to FLAC "adds any extra bits" - before you quote and reply, you might actually want to read and comprehend. I'll explain the part you restructured to fit into your own reality, but first, understand this: what we are all saying is that your converting a lossy file like m4a to FLAC is pointless, because in the process of converting the regular CD audio to a lossy file like mp3 or m4a, you already lost a bit of the data. Converting that lossy file into FLAC doesn't change that because the converter has no freaking clue what the original looks like.
For starters, I did not and NEVER said that ripping CD to FLAC "adds any extra bits" - before you quote and reply, you might actually want to read and comprehend. I'll explain the part you restructured to fit into your own reality, but first, understand this: what we are all saying is that your converting a lossy file like m4a to FLAC is pointless, because in the process of converting the regular CD audio to a lossy file like mp3 or m4a, you already lost a bit of the data. Converting that lossy file into FLAC doesn't change that because the converter has no freaking clue what the original looks like.
What you might have misunderstood about "adding extra bits" is my use of "restoration algorithms" on some DSPs, like BBE Bass or as applied in ///////ALPINE receivers for example, "Bass Engine Media XPander." It uses a default equation of how much of the low and high frequencies are shaved off during lossy compression, then adds another layer of EQ to compensate. The problem there is that if for example you put a track through lossy compression that doesn't have that much of the extreme low and high freqs to start with, the DSP is overcompensating. So as an extreme, let's say you rip a track with predominantly vocals, like something from Best Audiophile Voices. BBE, MediaXpander, nor whatever program you use to convert from lossy to lossless, have no freaking idea what the hell the original file looked like, and at best the "restoration" algorithms will just do the aforementioned EQ. Congratulations, Susan Wong's pianist sounds like he's using keys too far to the left or right.
Here's an example of what happens when a human tries to restore something when he has no idea what the original looks like, and a computer isn't too different.
Users who are viewing this thread
