[jwbrent]

Hi all,
 
I decided to buy a Colorfly C4 again due to Massdrop having a sale for $349. The unit has its issues, but it does sound good and I'm buying it for nostalgia sake.
 
My question is how to convert my AAC 256 files to either FLAC or MP3. I use a Mac.
 
If I convert the files to MP3 320, will they still have the same level of performance as the native AAC 256 files? Or should I convert them to FLAC ... but will that increase the file size?
 
My AAC files are 16 bit, 44.1KHz.
 
Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Roseval]

In principle converting from one lossy format to another lossy format is not a good idea.
You combine the artifacts of one lossy compression with those of an another lossy compression.
In practice high bitrate AAC converted to high bitrate MP3  has a pretty good change to sound the same.
Converting to FLAC will give you the quality of the originating ACC at the expense of doubling the file size.
Your best bet of course is to convert a couple of ACCs to both MP3 and FLAC.
Test if you do hear a difference.
I expect the answer will be no.

 

[jwbrent]

  In principle converting from one lossy format to another lossy format is not a good idea.
You combine the artifacts of one lossy compression with those of an another lossy compression.
In practice high bitrate AAC converted to high bitrate MP3  has a pretty good change to sound the same.
Converting to FLAC will give you the quality of the originating ACC at the expense of doubling the file size.
Your best bet of course is to convert a couple of ACCs to both MP3 and FLAC.
Test if you do hear a difference.
I expect the answer will be no.

Thank you for replying. I had always wondered whether converting one lossy format to another would compromise sound quality, now I know. 

 

[ProtegeManiac]

  Hi all,
 
I decided to buy a Colorfly C4 again due to Massdrop having a sale for $349. The unit has its issues, but it does sound good and I'm buying it for nostalgia sake.
 
My question is how to convert my AAC 256 files to either FLAC or MP3. I use a Mac.
 
If I convert the files to MP3 320, will they still have the same level of performance as the native AAC 256 files? Or should I convert them to FLAC ... but will that increase the file size?
 
My AAC files are 16 bit, 44.1KHz.
 
Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

Converting 256kbps to 320kbps or FLAC would be like converting a photo slightly larger than a thumbnail into a desktop wallpaper or a large print. Unlike video upscaling there's no software or hardware that can sufficiently extrapolate what needs to be added in there (and even then upscaled DVD at 1080i isn't going to look exactly the same as BluRay 1080P).

 

[jwbrent]

Converting 256kbps to 320kbps or FLAC would be like converting a photo slightly larger than a thumbnail into a desktop wallpaper or a large print. Unlike video upscaling there's no software or hardware that can sufficiently extrapolate what needs to be added in there (and even then upscaled DVD at 1080i isn't going to look exactly the same as BluRay 1080P).

I get your point about AAC to MP3, but FLAC is lossless, so that should work fine. It doesn't matter anymore since I learned there is no warranty on the Colorfly, so I opted out of the drop.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

I get your point about AAC to MP3, but FLAC is lossless, so that should work fine. 

 

Ummm...that's actually worse. FLAC might be lossless, but if you're converting AAC256kbps or 320kbps MP3 (or whatever the heck lossy file), the FLAC out of it will only be lossy relative to the original file, but not relative to the original copy of the recording (CD, FLAC, etc). Going from CD/FLAC to lossy then back to FLAC does not restore the lost data much less remove the compression artifacts if any are audible. Again, back to the photo example, it's like I took a series of exposures merged into an HDR image using a 36mp Nikon D800E, then after merging the RAW files (ie the studio copies of each track) I end up with a JPEG (the CD copy) that I then upload to Facebook where it gets compressed (the lossy copy) and then you right click and download from FB and ask for it to be printed as a 12ft x 8ft poster that people will look at from relatively close quarters (your FLAC made from a lossy file).

 

 

It doesn't matter anymore since I learned there is no warranty on the Colorfly, so I opted out of the drop.

 
Well that's still some extra info you already know next time you consider some other player, right?

 

[jwbrent]

Ummm...that's actually worse. FLAC might be lossless, but if you're converting AAC256kbps or 320kbps MP3 (or whatever the heck lossy file), the FLAC out of it will only be lossy relative to the original file, but not relative to the original copy of the recording (CD, FLAC, etc). Going from CD/FLAC to lossy then back to FLAC does not restore the lost data much less remove the compression artifacts if any are audible. Again, back to the photo example, it's like I took a series of exposures merged into an HDR image using a 36mp Nikon D800E, then after merging the RAW files (ie the studio copies of each track) I end up with a JPEG (the CD copy) that I then upload to Facebook where it gets compressed (the lossy copy) and then you right click and download from FB and ask for it to be printed as a 12ft x 8ft poster that people will look at from relatively close quarters (your FLAC made from a lossy file).



Well that's still some extra info you already know next time you consider some other player, right?

I suppose I wasn't clear. My only expectation was if I converted my AAC files to FLAC, the FLAC files would provide the same sound quality as the original AAC files.

This whole thing came up because Massdrop has a special on the Colorfly C4. The issue with the C4 is that it doesn't support AAC files, just WAV, FLAC, and MP3. The C4 is an old product, but it has a very unique aesthetic design and it sounds pretty good, so I just wanted to put my iTunes library on it.

I owned the C4 years ago but sold it due to its limitations, but the Massdrop price was low, so I thought for nostalgia sake I would pick one up. I found out today there is no warranty, and due to the troublesome nature of the C4, I decided to not get it, hence, I have no need to convert any of my music files since my AK240SS supports all formats that I use.

Thank you for chiming in on this confusing issue about music file conversion, I appreciate it.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

I suppose I wasn't clear. My only expectation was if I converted my AAC files to FLAC, the FLAC files would provide the same sound quality as the original AAC files.

 

That's exactly what I said. It will be lossless relative to the lossy file you converted, but not with respect to the original copy.

 

And while you might say, "oh that's good enough," the problem is the FLAC file will still not be compressed (ie, it's lossless compression, but not as compressed as lossy compression formats) as much, meaning you will end up with lossy files not much smaller than the size of a FLAC file converted from CD/WAV. So sure, you can use it, and you were happy with the SQ of the 256 AAC, but now you need more storage.

 

So even if you're not joining the drop for the C4 anymore my point about just having a large lossy file not being worth it considering it will make you spend on storage media will be something that you'll take into consideration in case some similar issue comes up again in the future.