[ecclesand]

Greetings All!
I subscribe to emusic.com which is an online music service that allows you to download a fixed number of songs for a monthly fee (number of songs depends on monthly fee). It's actually a really great deal and they have a lot of the music I listen to (lot of non-mainstream stuff). The files themselves are mp3s ranging from 196kbps to 256kbps. Now on to my question: If I were to burn one of these 256kbps mp3s to a CD and then rip them using a higher bit rate or even FLAC, would they sound better? I'm thinking yes because the mp3 is un-encoded during the burn process giving you more bit depth and then re-encoded during the FLAC process. I mean, an encoded music file is very similar to a regular zip file....right?

I may be completely off base and full of s**t. If so, please tell me before I go thru the brain cancer of burning and ripping all my mp3 files!

Thanks as always!

 

[slinger1182]

Hehe, no. When a song is encoded to a lossy format, some information is already gone. So if you write your mp3s to a CD, it would be the same quality as the mp3. If you encode that to FLAC, it will again be the same quality as the original mp3. If you encode the CD stuff to mp3, it will sound worse than the original mp3.

So no, you are wasting your time with the transcoding stuff.

And more simply, transcoding lossy stuff = bad, very bad.

(BTW, there is no need to burn and rip them if you want to try it anyway. Use foobar or dbPoweramp to convert files from one format to another)

 

[ecclesand]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slinger1182 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hehe, no. When a song is encoded to a lossy format, some information is already gone. So if you write your mp3s to a CD, it would be the same quality as the mp3. If you encode that to FLAC, it will again be the same quality as the original mp3. If you encode the CD stuff to mp3, it will sound worse than the original mp3. So no, you are wasting your time with the transcoding stuff. And more simply, transcoding lossy stuff = bad, very bad. (BTW, there is no need to burn and rip them if you want to try it anyway. Use foobar or dbPoweramp to convert files from one format to another)

Ah...so during the encoding process to MP3, much of the data is actually removed, not just compressed. Well, that's just LAME!

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecclesand /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah...so during the encoding process to MP3, much of the data is actually removed, not just compressed. Well, that's just LAME!

Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. I am not a technically well-versed person. There are many here at Head-Fi who could fit my tech knowledge into their little fingers. So if I have grossly misrepresented anything technical in this post, please correct me (And try to avoid flaming me. I'm usually pretty good about accepting constructive criticism.)

It comes down to the difference between lossy and lossless compression. Lossy compression reduces the size of the file by literally throwing away most of it. The algorithm looks at the wave form and decides what you will miss the least. Then it throws that material away, and it's gone for good. That's how it makes the file smaller. When you convert that compressed file to a .Wav file, what you have is a representation of the gutted file, not the original, since the conversion is based on a file that lacks much of the original data.

The bit rate of an uncompressed PCM file is 1411 Kbps. A 128K MP3 is literally one tenth of that original file. And sounds like it.

Lossless CODECS, like FLAC, SHN, Apple Lossless, etc., work in a completely different way. The algorithm looks for repeated patterns in the digital wave form, and replaces each instance of that pattern with a "shorthand" representation for that pattern. When the file is played back, it refers to a table that lists what each shorthand representation stands for. So when you play back a lossless file, it literally re-inflates the compressed file, on the fly, to a bit-for-bit identical version of the original. Sort of like frozen concentrated OJ, but tastier.

The drawback to lossless is that you get much less compression. A typical FLAC encoded file will be about 40 to 60 percent smaller than the orginal, vs 90 percent smaller in the case of a 128k MP3.

On the other hand, you can convert a FLAC to Wav and get back a bit-for-bit identical version of the original file.

I have to agree with you about eMusic; it's a great service. The fact that they use lossy MP3 compression is the one glaring problem, but this is mitigated to some degree by the fact that they use VBR (variable bit rate) MP3 encoding. This means that the algorithm raises the bit rate (and throws away less) in parts of the file that are more demanding sonically. Overall, a more or less acceptable compromise between horrible, low bit-rate MP3s, and cumbersome, large files that you get with lossless.

I sent an email to the folks at eMusic (their support is very good, BTW) inquiring about the possiblity of getting lossless from them in the future. They were polite, but the answer basically boiled down to "not anytime soon."

And at any rate, their stuff sounds MUCH better than the 128k garbage Dweeb Slobs sells at iTunes. I'll accept that kind of poor sound if the file is free and I am listening to get an idea of whether the track is worth buying. But I ain't paying for it.

It's fairly wierd to me that iTunes gets away with selling such crap for a buck a pop, while eMusic charges less than a third of that per track for much better sounding files. I hate to say it, but people are just sheep.

 

[Lord Chaos]

Cross-posted with DrBenway... he did it better, so I've deleted mine.

 

[ecclesand]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. I am not a technically well-versed person. There are many here at Head-Fi who could fit my tech knowledge into their little fingers. So if I have grossly misrepresented anything technical in this post, please correct me (And try to avoid flaming me. I'm usually pretty good about accepting constructive criticism.) It comes down to the difference between lossy and lossless compression. Lossy compression reduces the size of the file by literally throwing away most of it. The algorithm looks at the wave form and decides what you will miss the least. Then it throws that material away, and it's gone for good. That's how it makes the file smaller. When you convert that compressed file to a .Wav file, what you have is a representation of the gutted file, not the original, since the conversion is based on a file that lacks much of the original data. The bit rate of an uncompressed PCM file is 1411 Kbps. A 128K MP3 is literally one tenth of that original file. And sounds like it. Lossless CODECS, like FLAC, SHN, Apple Lossless, etc., work in a completely different way. The algorithm looks for repeated patterns in the digital wave form, and replaces each instance of that pattern with a "shorthand" representation for that pattern. When the file is played back, it refers to a table that lists what each shorthand representation stands for. So when you play back a lossless file, it literally re-inflates the compressed file, on the fly, to a bit-for-bit identical version of the original. Sort of like frozen concentrated OJ, but tastier. The drawback to lossless is that you get much less compression. A typical FLAC encoded file will be about 40 to 60 percent smaller than the orginal, vs 90 percent smaller in the case of a 128k MP3. On the other hand, you can convert a FLAC to Wav and get back a bit-for-bit identical version of the original file. I have to agree with you about eMusic; it's a great service. The fact that they use lossy MP3 compression is the one glaring problem, but this is mitigated to some degree by the fact that they use VBR (variable bit rate) MP3 encoding. This means that the algorithm raises the bit rate (and throws away less) in parts of the file that are more demanding sonically. Overall, a more or less acceptable compromise between horrible, low bit-rate MP3s, and cumbersome, large files that you get with lossless. I sent an email to the folks at eMusic (their support is very good, BTW) inquiring about the possiblity of getting lossless from them in the future. They were polite, but the answer basically boiled down to "not anytime soon." And at any rate, their stuff sounds MUCH better than the 128k garbage Dweeb Slobs sells at iTunes. I'll accept that kind of poor sound if the file is free and I am listening to get an idea of whether the track is worth buying. But I ain't paying for it. It's fairly wierd to me that iTunes gets away with selling such crap for a buck a pop, while eMusic charges less than a third of that per track for much better sounding files. I hate to say it, but people are just sheep.

Wow...great explanation! Thank you for that!

 

[vcoheda]

I sometimes buy songs from Yahoo Music Jukebox. Songs are in Windows Media format (WMA) at 192 Kbps. Better than iTunes. However, I don't think these songs can be tranferred to an iPod.