Converting MP3 to Flac good or bad idea?

[xnor]

Depending on the encoder and settings used, the lowpass filter can be around 15.5 kHz with 128 kbps. Unless you're old or have hearing damage you should definitely be able to hear a difference in an ABX test.
Encoders also have changed a lot over the years and I can imagine that an old 128 kbps mp3 could sound very bad compared to a recently encoded one. Guess you're outta luck unless you have a lossless 'archive' or the original CDs.

 

[matbhuvi]

My goal is to reduce the noice, clipping, pops in my 128kbps collection. The izotope software is good..but it is pricey..I am looking for some freeware.

 

[Shrapnel]

How do you know (before actually hearing FLAC format songs) if it's genuinely FLAC or is it mp3 to FLAC converted songs? Is there any noticeable technical details?

 

[xnor]

Analyzing spectrograms can be helpful but there's no way to be absolutely sure unless you rip the CDs yourself.

 

[Shrapnel]

appreciate the info xnor, though analyzing specrtograms can be a pain in the @**. Well gotta live by it.

 

[FastEddyG2]

if the "original" music file is mp3 and you want to play it in a standard CD player (not an mp3 player) then you must convert it to flac.

 

[kraken2109]

This thread is from 2011....

 

[earthpeople]

  This thread is from 2011....

and the statement is also not true

 

[BlueSkyHi]

My Denafrips Terminator+ DAC allows files to be oversampled on the fly. For example, and MP3 file can be over-sampled to the maximum rate the DAC can handle which is PCM1411.2 or PCM1536. I do like the oversampled sound on many files. I understand this is not the same process as converting from a lossy to a lossless format but I thought this dead thread needs a kick in the tail.

 

[bigshot]

Why does it sound different? Are you sure it sounds different?

 

[BlueSkyHi]

The why is unknown to me but I suspect that the gurus at Denafrips must have known something when they offered the oversampling vs. non-oversampling mode on their DACs. And, yes, it sounds different, more pleasing, or it could just be confirmation bias on my part.

 

[71 dB]

The why is unknown to me but I suspect that the gurus at Denafrips must have known something when they offered the oversampling vs. non-oversampling mode on their DACs. And, yes, it sounds different, more pleasing, or it could just be confirmation bias on my part.

You could do some kind of blind testing to figure out which one it is. Ask someone to randomly toggle the oversampling setting without showing it to you and try to tell what it is based on the sound.

Very often people notice in these kind of situations the differences are much harder to tell apart if possible at all.

 

[bigshot]

I too suspect expectation bias. I don’t think a legitimate company would deliberately reduce fidelity. It *shouldn’t• sound different. If it really does, something is wrong with the oversampling. So the difference must be placebo.

 

[BlueSkyHi]

You could do some kind of blind testing to figure out which one it is. Ask someone to randomly toggle the oversampling setting without showing it to you and try to tell what it is based on the sound.

Very often people notice in these kind of situations the differences are much harder to tell apart if possible at all.

Excellent idea.

 

[earmonger]

Removing clicks and pops is one thing; just bring down sudden brief spikes. Restoring sonic information that got removed during compression is less likely.