[Spinjitzu]

Or just stick to FLAC?

 

[HipHopScribe]

Stick with FLAC. It's going to be re-encoded when it's sent over Bluetooth either way, so there's no real benefit to converting to AAC first.

 

[bigshot]

I rip all my CDs in AAC and the sound quality is perfect to human ears. But if you have already ripped to FLAC, or if you don't own the CDs as a lossless backup, you should stick to FLAC just to avoid all the work of transcoding to AAC. I use AAC as my master because I own all the CDs and my library numbers over ten thousand CDs and storing everything in FLAC is inefficient for such a large library.

 

[Spinjitzu]

I rip all my CDs in AAC and the sound quality is perfect to human ears. But if you have already ripped to FLAC, or if you don't own the CDs as a lossless backup, you should stick to FLAC just to avoid all the work of transcoding to AAC. I use AAC as my master because I own all the CDs and my library numbers over ten thousand CDs and storing everything in FLAC is inefficient for such a large library.

So I only convert to AAC to save space then?

 

[bigshot]

That's why I do it.

 

[chef8489]

Just realize you will have no difference in sound quality whether you use flac or aac as the aac Bluetooth can't handle flac and will convert it to aac.

 

[Spinjitzu]

Just realize you will have no difference in sound quality whether you use flac or aac as the aac Bluetooth can't handle flac and will convert it to aac.

What about the concept of generation loss, i.e double compression/re-encoding?
Isn't it better to convert lossless files to lossy, rather than lossy to lossy, as the latter results in further quality degradation and data loss?
By the way, I do notice a difference though, but it's very slight; when I listen to FLAC files, the music sounds slightly more open and refined compared to listening to AAC files.
It's no placebo effect or bias in any way because I have tested it many times.
Although the difference is very subtle, I have decided to keep using FLAC, so that I can have them stored and readily available when I get better audio gear.
I will only convert to AAC to save space, what I have a lot of at the moment.

 

[chef8489]

What about the concept of generation loss, i.e double compression/re-encoding?
Isn't it better to convert lossless files to lossy, rather than lossy to lossy, as the latter results in further quality degradation and data loss?
By the way, I do notice a difference though, but it's very slight; when I listen to FLAC files, the music sounds slightly more open and refined compared to listening to AAC files.
It's no placebo effect or bias in any way because I have tested it many times.
Although the difference is very subtle, I have decided to keep using FLAC, so that I can have them stored and readily available when I get better audio gear.
I will only convert to AAC to save space, what I have a lot of at the moment.

I bet you don't do proper double blind testing and if you did you wouldn't notice a difference especially across Bluetooth.
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/

 

[Spinjitzu]

I bet you don't do proper double blind testing and if you did you wouldn't notice a difference especially across Bluetooth.
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/

The testing uses which lossy format? MP3 or AAC?

Edit: It does matter because I've heard no difference between MP3 and FLAC, but I have heard a very slight difference between AAC and FLAC.

 

[chef8489]

The testing uses which lossy format? MP3 or AAC?

Edit: It does matter because I've heard no difference between MP3 and FLAC, but I have heard a very slight difference between AAC and FLAC.

Aac is a better encoding algorithm than mp3.

 

[chef8489]

@castleofargh @bigshot @gregorio @71 dB

Getting other opinions

 

[bigshot]

What about the concept of generation loss, i.e double compression/re-encoding?

It depends on what codec you are converting to. I encoded a track from WAV to AAC 256 VBR back to WAV again ten times and it still sounded fine to me. Once the codec has pulled out what it's going to pull out, it really doesn't matter if you run it through again. It just tries to pull out sound that isn't there any more. Obviously, if you re encode it lower, it would lose quality. Theoretically, MP3 might pull out different things than AAC. But I haven't tested that to see how it comes out. I doubt it would be too bad even after ten times. If someone wants to try that, it would be an interesting experiment. But I don't think you would alter the sound much if you used MP3 LAME 320.

However, everything in my system can play and stream native AAC, so I've had no reason to need to transcode. So for me it's all moot.

 

[Roseval]

Once the codec has pulled out what it's going to pull out, it really doesn't matter if you run it through again.

No, this differs strongly per codec.
AAC is very good in avoiding generation loss, others are less successful as Berndhold has proven.
This is what is looks after 100 passes.

https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Generation.htm

 

[bigshot]

Posting waveforms without data rates is meaningless. Most people who care about sound use AAC or MP3 LAME above 256 VBR. Try that. Of course if you scrunch it down to telephone quality it won't be the same. Take a WAV file. Transcode it to 320 VBR AAC. Then transcode it to MP3 LAME 320 VBR. Then back to WAV. Do it a few more times and see what you get. But listen to it. A waveform is not a representation of sound quality. It's just a visual representation for editing purposes.

 

[Spinjitzu]

Posting waveforms without data rates is meaningless. Most people who care about sound use AAC or MP3 LAME above 256 VBR. Try that. Of course if you scrunch it down to telephone quality it won't be the same. Take a WAV file. Transcode it to 320 VBR AAC. Then transcode it to MP3 LAME 320 VBR. Then back to WAV. Do it a few more times and see what you get. But listen to it. A waveform is not a representation of sound quality. It's just a visual representation for editing purposes.

So I'll just stick with AAC then because none of it matters in the end, at least as long as bluetooth is concerned.