[kingofsand]

   

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.

 

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.

 
If that is not what you meant then you went on an irreverent tangent because that was already discussed. The reason I assumed it because I would have guessed someone with as many posts as you may actually read threads, so I just assumed you were talking about something that was not already discussed. Instead of being a dick maybe you should read the thread next time.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

 
If that is not what you meant then you went on an irreverent tangent because that was already discussed. The reason I assumed it because I would have guessed someone with as many posts as you may actually read threads, so I just assumed you were talking about something that was not already discussed. Instead of being a dick maybe you should read the thread next time.

 
I don't see how I "went on an irreverent tangent because that was already discussed" since the post you quoted was a reply to your post, which I will quote again below.
 

  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.
 

 

To which, again, as has been explained by myself as well as by other people, you cannot "have the most perfectly preserved file I can I can turn it into whatever I want" when you are converting a lossy file to a lossless file, not even when using a restoration DSP algorithm. THAT much was already discussed, and instead of understanding any of that, you go and  accuse me of going on an "irreverent tangent." On my end I was hoping that somebody who we bother replying to would actually take time to read and understand what we're saying, instead of going above and beyond bone-headed by actually doing the forum equivalent of head-butting us.
 

 

 

[kingofsand]

   
I don't see how I "went on an irreverent tangent because that was already discussed" since the post you quoted was a reply to your post, which I will quote again below.
 
 

To which, again, as has been explained by myself as well as by other people, you cannot "have the most perfectly preserved file I can I can turn it into whatever I want" when you are converting a lossy file to a lossless file, not even when using a restoration DSP algorithm. THAT much was already discussed, and instead of understanding any of that, you go and  accuse me of going on an "irreverent tangent." On my end I was hoping that somebody who we bother replying to would actually take time to read and understand what we're saying, instead of going above and beyond bone-headed by actually doing the forum equivalent of head-butting us.
 

 

 
I don't know if you don't know how to read or you just simply cannot comprehend what is being said. READ the first sentence AGAIN! One of the big reasons I am ripping to FLAC was for my media server. What in the world does that have to do with converting M4A into FLAC?! Or converting any low audio format to a lossy for that matter?!

 

[cel4145]

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.

I think you are both right, given the context of the problem that he is trying to solve, which is he thinks his X1 doesn't play m4a. Theoretically his idea of converting to flac is right, but practically, maybe not.

MP3 and M4A use slightly different psycholacoustic models for their compression that distort the original file in slightly different ways, albeit, likely not audible if the highest bit rate encoding is used. So converting from M4A to FLAC guarantees that the resulting file will be the same as the M4A file once decoded. However, if he takes the M4A file and coverts it to MP3, he will add more distortion to the audio. But of course, practically, this difference might not be audible.

And since you brought up jpgs and photography, notably what he's doing is also a best practice in photography. If you have an image that has been converted to a jpg, best to convert it to tiff or png than recompress it again.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

I think you are both right, given the context of the problem that he is trying to solve, which is he thinks his X1 doesn't play m4a. Theoretically his idea of converting to flac is right, but practically, maybe not.

 
We also covered that part already, but despite how many times it's said, he's the one to accuse me of not reading.
 

MP3 and M4A use slightly different psycholacoustic models for their compression that distort the original file in slightly different ways, albeit, likely not audible if the highest bit rate encoding is used. So converting from M4A to FLAC guarantees that the resulting file will be the same as the M4A file once decoded. However, if he takes the M4A file and coverts it to MP3, he will add more distortion to the audio. But of course, practically, this difference might not be audible.

And since you brought up jpgs and photography, notably what he's doing is also a best practice in photography. If you have an image that has been converted to a jpg, best to convert it to tiff or png than recompress it again.

 

The thing is he's archiving FLAC for "preserving every bit" (sic), and even if I would go on such a circuitous route, well yeah, I'd convert to FLAC, then convert it to MP3 again for use. But my archive of an originally m4a file I have no CD or other lossless copy of will still be m4a. 

 

I don't mind too much repeating myself (and others as the case may be, if I can elaborate on it, like discussing how the fileconverter doesn't have a restorative algorithm but it wouldn't really work to "preserve every bit"), but then some people lash back from Lala Land when things don't conform to their own version of reality, twist my words around in such a tone, and then claim the victim card. That's a lot like when people say "hey if we 'evolved' like you say, which by the way offends Jesus, then why are there still chimps in the zoo? booyah!" Arguments like that actually do make me wonder if evolution is real...in the sense that I am no longer sure that there aren't any neanderthals around.

 

[cel4145]

The thing is he's archiving FLAC for "preserving every bit" (sic), and even if I would go on such a circuitous route, well yeah, I'd convert to FLAC, then convert it to MP3 again for use. But my archive of an originally m4a file I have no CD or other lossless copy of will still be m4a. 

That was not his original purpose. It was that he thought the X1 wouldn't play the m4a files.

The thing is he's archiving FLAC for "preserving every bit" (sic), and even if I would go on such a circuitous route, well yeah, I'd convert to FLAC, then convert it to MP3 again for use. But my archive of an originally m4a file I have no CD or other lossless copy of will still be m4a. 

I agree. He should store the m4a as long as his media server supports it. Mainly because as his music collection grows, he may lose track of which flacs are original copies from CD, and which are degraded copies of the original (having originally been m4a).

But I probably wouldn't convert them from m4a to flac and back to mp3 for use unless I had to. It's just adding extra degradation to the original audio.

 

[PinkyPowers]

   
I don't know if you don't know how to read or you just simply cannot comprehend what is being said. READ the first sentence AGAIN! One of the big reasons I am ripping to FLAC was for my media server. What in the world does that have to do with converting M4A into FLAC?! Or converting any low audio format to a lossy for that matter?!

 
The title of the thread reads "CD to FLAC and M4A to FLAC"
 
If you are simply ripping from CD, then you can and should preserve every bit by converting to FLAC or the like. But if you have a file that has already lost much of its quality, then converting to FLAC cannot reconstruct that information. It is best to change it to MP3 if you're worried about compatibility. That way you're not wasting HDD space for no reason.

 

[kingofsand]

 

   
I don't know if you don't know how to read or you just simply cannot comprehend what is being said. READ the first sentence AGAIN! One of the big reasons I am ripping to FLAC was for my media server. What in the world does that have to do with converting M4A into FLAC?! Or converting any low audio format to a lossy for that matter?!

 
The title of the thread reads "CD to FLAC and M4A to FLAC"
 
If you are simply ripping from CD, then you can and should preserve every bit by converting to FLAC or the like. But if you have a file that has already lost much of its quality, then converting to FLAC cannot reconstruct that information. It is best to change it to MP3 if you're worried about compatibility. That way you're not wasting HDD space for no reason.

 
The "m4a to FLAC" question was already answered. In fact both have already been answered.

 

[PinkyPowers]

Yeah, I kinda got that impression. This thread has spiraled out so weirdly, it's hard to tell what anyone is thinking.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

  Yeah, I kinda got that impression. This thread has spiraled out so weirdly, it's hard to tell what anyone is thinking.

 
That depends on how one understands the space-time continuum considering "answered" and the sequence of posts on the second page.

 

[kingofsand]

  Yeah, I kinda got that impression. This thread has spiraled out so weirdly, it's hard to tell what anyone is thinking.

 
Put simply I always knew you cannot regain quality simply by converting a lower quality to a higher one, that was never my intention and nor did I ever ask or assume that. My intention of converting a m4a to a FLAC was so my X1 could read it. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what lossy format I use nor even non lossy, as long as my Fiio can read it. And as stated earlier it looks like my Fiio MIGHT be able too, I still need to try it. Again I was never looking at "upscaling" the quality from a poorer copy to a better one, just trying to change the extension essentially. 

 

[billybob_jcv]

 

[tomb]

 

  Yeah, I kinda got that impression. This thread has spiraled out so weirdly, it's hard to tell what anyone is thinking.

 
Put simply I always knew you cannot regain quality simply by converting a lower quality to a higher one, that was never my intention and nor did I ever ask or assume that. My intention of converting a m4a to a FLAC was so my X1 could read it. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what lossy format I use nor even non lossy, as long as my Fiio can read it. And as stated earlier it looks like my Fiio MIGHT be able too, I still need to try it. Again I was never looking at "upscaling" the quality from a poorer copy to a better one, just trying to change the extension essentially. 

 
The best solution would be to convert your m4a to wav, then use the wav files to convert to mp3 (then blow away the wav files).  As others have said, mp3 will give you the maximum compatibility and you won't be wasting space with FLAC files that don't have CD Redbook quality.  The wav files should guarantee that you're not compressing a compression.
 
This is the same philosophy espoused about photography.  Whatever quality the jpg file, get it to tiff before you do anymore compression on it.  Then you're not exponentially increasing the artifacts.  That's what cel4145 was describing.
 
If you really like the music, though, maybe you should buy CD's for the m4a files then go to straight to FLAC from those.

 

 

[cel4145]

The best solution would be to convert your m4a to wav, then use the wav files to convert to mp3 (then blow away the wav files).  As others have said, mp3 will give you the maximum compatibility and you won't be wasting space with FLAC files that don't have CD Redbook quality.  The wav files should guarantee that you're not compressing a compression.

This is the same philosophy espoused about photography.  Whatever quality the jpg file, get it to tiff before you do anymore compression on it.  Then you're not exponentially increasing the artifacts.  That's what cel4145 was describing.

If you really like the music, though, maybe you should buy CD's for the m4a files then go to straight to FLAC from those.  

I don't think that's quite right, though. Whether you take an m4a > wav to > mp3, or m4a > mp3, the amount of data loss is the same. The loss is at the encoding stage. Same with jpg. jpg > tiff > jpg will be the same as jpg re-encoding it again as jpg.

This is why I agree with the OP. For archival purposes, m4a to flac is better than m4a to mp3 in terms of data loss (although who knows if the data loss is audible). Although if his music server will play m4a, it seems pointless. No advantage.

 

[tomb]

 

The best solution would be to convert your m4a to wav, then use the wav files to convert to mp3 (then blow away the wav files).  As others have said, mp3 will give you the maximum compatibility and you won't be wasting space with FLAC files that don't have CD Redbook quality.  The wav files should guarantee that you're not compressing a compression.

This is the same philosophy espoused about photography.  Whatever quality the jpg file, get it to tiff before you do anymore compression on it.  Then you're not exponentially increasing the artifacts.  That's what cel4145 was describing.

If you really like the music, though, maybe you should buy CD's for the m4a files then go to straight to FLAC from those.

 

I don't think that's quite right, though. Whether you take an m4a > wav to > mp3, or m4a > mp3, the amount of data loss is the same. The loss is at the encoding stage. Same with jpg. jpg > tiff > jpg will be the same as jpg re-encoding it again as jpg.

This is why I agree with the OP. For archival purposes, m4a to flac is better than m4a to mp3 in terms of data loss (although who knows if the data loss is audible). Although if his music server will play m4a, it seems pointless. No advantage.

 
It's only supposition, but the analogy is correct with jpg's vs. tiff.  You're neglecting that in the m4a to FLAC you've processed through two different compression algorithms (even if the FLAC is lossless).  In jpg to tiff to jpg or jpg to jpg, you're only using one.  If the compression software is first converting to an intermediate non-compressed standard, then it may be OK. However, you/we don't really know what the compression algorithm is looking for in the file structure.  Or, the actual conversion software itself may not be as refined in making the jump from one compression algorithm to another (m4a to FLAC) - that may be even more important.  Everyone will do wav to an absolute standard.  In the end, it's doing your best to reduce risk.

 
 
I agree that if his system will play m4a, it's pointless.  However, I thought I read where he said it won't.