Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Converting FLAC to MP3 or AAF?
Converting FLAC to MP3... if the file size is reduced from 22MB to
9MB, does that suggest that sound quality is diminished? Thanks. -- Is this group supposed to be for hardware only? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Converting FLAC to MP3 or AAF?
John Doe wrote:
Converting FLAC to MP3... if the file size is reduced from 22MB to 9MB, does that suggest that sound quality is diminished? Thanks. Objective facts. You do the math... The "L" in FLAC stands for "lossless" MP3 and AAF were *designed* to be lossy. "Diminished" is a subjective evaluation. For example, you can apply as much lossy compression as you wish to hip-hop or rap and it won't further "diminish" the sound quality to MY ear. :-) |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Converting FLAC to MP3 or AAF?
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
John Doe wrote: Converting FLAC to MP3... if the file size is reduced from 22MB to 9MB, does that suggest that sound quality is diminished? Thanks. Objective facts. You do the math... WTF? I compress binary files that much without necessarily losing anything. The "L" in FLAC stands for "lossless" And... What about the other three letters, Marley? MP3 and AAF were *designed* to be lossy. I have read that some conversions to MP3 lose no information. That is why I asked. I am wondering if there is some conversion percentage reduction cut off when it becomes obvious that information is being lost. "Diminished" is a subjective evaluation. A subjective evaluation, Marley? |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Converting FLAC to MP3 or AAF?
"John Doe" wrote in message ... MP3 and AAF were *designed* to be lossy. Add WMA to that list. I compress binary files that much without necessarily losing anything. One would certainly hope so! And Flac is designed for the same purpose with audio files. I have read that some conversions to MP3 lose no information. You read wrong, or probably read someone else who is misinformed. No shortage of those on the net. I am wondering if there is some conversion percentage reduction cut off when it becomes obvious that information is being lost. Nope, YOU get to decide when YOU think it's obvious some information is being lost. "Diminished" is a subjective evaluation. A subjective evaluation, Marley? Yep, sound quality is *always* subjective to the listener. Everyone gets their own opinion! MrT. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Converting FLAC to MP3 or AAF?
Mr.T wrote:
Yep, sound quality is *always* subjective to the listener. Everyone gets their own opinion! Yep, but lossless is always the SAME quality as the original. Objectively, not subjectively. geoff |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Converting FLAC to MP3 or AAF?
"Mr.T" MrT home wrote:
"John Doe" jdoe usenetlove.invalid wrote in message MP3 and AAF were *designed* to be lossy. Add WMA to that list. How about "WMA lossless"? I compress binary files that much without necessarily losing anything. One would certainly hope so! Tito would certainly hope so! And Flac is designed for the same purpose with audio files. Same purpose as what?! And for what purpose?! WOW!!! I have read that some conversions to MP3 lose no information. You read wrong, or probably read someone else who is misinformed. How badly do you need attention, Tito?! No shortage of those on the net. No shortage of trolls on the net either, Tito! I am wondering if there is some conversion percentage reduction cut off when it becomes obvious that information is being lost. Nope, YOU get to decide when YOU think it's obvious some information is being lost. That is a distinct possibility, Tito. "Diminished" is a subjective evaluation. A subjective evaluation, Marley? Yep, sound quality is *always* subjective to the listener. Sure Tito... There is no such thing as bad sound or good sound, unless of course trolling dictates otherwise. MrT. Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com! news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.enother.com!bo rder2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news 1.optus.net.au!optus!newsfeeder.syd.optusnet.com.a u!news.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail From: "Mr.T" MrT home Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech References: 00ac1f89$0$6844$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com qJSdncX6hbEgMv7XnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d posted.pcez 00ac4122$0$6875$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com Subject: Converting FLAC to MP3 or AAF? Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:50:45 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Lines: 35 Message-ID: 4a63cd33$0$7463$afc38c87 news.optusnet.com.au NNTP-Posting-Host: 122.107.147.126 X-Trace: 1248054580 7463 122.107.147.126 |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Converting FLAC to MP3 or AAF?
"geoff" wrote in message ... Yep, sound quality is *always* subjective to the listener. Everyone gets their own opinion! Yep, but lossless is always the SAME quality as the original. Objectively, not subjectively. Did I say otherwise? Try re-reading the parts this referred to. FLAC to MP3 conversion is NOT lossless. Converting FLAC to MP3... if the file size is reduced from 22MB to 9MB, does that suggest that sound quality is diminished? I am wondering if there is some conversion percentage reduction cut off when it becomes obvious that information is being lost. "Diminished" is a subjective evaluation. A subjective evaluation? MrT. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Converting FLAC to MP3 or AAF?
"John Doe" wrote in message ... I compress binary files that much without necessarily losing anything. And Flac is designed for the same purpose with audio files. Same purpose as what?! And for what purpose?! Are you really unaware what lossless compression programs do? WOW!!! WOW what? How badly do you need attention, Tito?! Who's Tito? No shortage of those on the net. No shortage of trolls on the net either, Tito! So it would seem!!! That is a distinct possibility, Tito. Is "Tito" your version of other Bogons adding "eh" to every sentence? MrT. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Converting FLAC to MP3 or AAF?
John Doe wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote: John Doe wrote: Converting FLAC to MP3... if the file size is reduced from 22MB to 9MB, does that suggest that sound quality is diminished? Objective facts. You do the math... WTF? I compress binary files that much without necessarily losing anything. Presumably you mean "without ACTUALLY losing anything" since things like ZIP (et.al.) are actually lossless BY DESIGN. The "L" in FLAC stands for "lossless" And... What about the other three letters, Marley? It would have taken less time to Google the answer to that than it took to type that sentence. So presumably you are only trying to be argumentative and not really seeking information here. MP3 and AAF were *designed* to be lossy. I have read that some conversions to MP3 lose no information. Several compression schemes have "lossless" options which obviously don't compress down to a file size as small as the lossy variations. That is why I asked. I am wondering if there is some conversion percentage reduction cut off when it becomes obvious that information is being lost. "Diminished" is a subjective evaluation. A subjective evaluation, Marley? OK. If you think that "diminished" is a black-and-white defined status, then go ahead and post a reference the official definition. You put up with diminished audio quality every day without thinking about it. Every time you use a telephone or listen to a traffic report on AM radio or listen to compressed music on your iPod (or whatever). Clearly you (and I and everyone else reading this) put up with "diminished audio" because it is consistent with the cost/benefit ratio that we find acceptable for various things. You don't need 192K sampling rate and 24-bit depth for a traffic report or for a quick conversation on your cell phone. Those are both clearly "diminished audio quality", but nobody cares. If you are looking for some sort of magic formula that tells when audio in general is "diminished quality", forget it. Such a formula does not exist here in the real world. It completely depends on a whole bunch of factors to numerous to list here. And the final determiniation can not be anything but a subjective judgement call on the part of a human listening with their ears and processing with their brain. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Converting FLAC to MP3 or AAF?
John Doe wrote:
Converting FLAC to MP3... if the file size is reduced from 22MB to 9MB, does that suggest that sound quality is diminished? Thanks. Do an ABX comparison of the two and see. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Converting FLAC to MP3 or AAF?
John Doe wrote:
I compress binary files that much without necessarily losing anything. The "L" in FLAC stands for "lossless" And... What about the other three letters, Marley? "free" "audio" "codec" MP3 and AAF were *designed* to be lossy. I have read that some conversions to MP3 lose no information. Then you have misread. MP3, unlike lossless codecs, always permanently discards *data*, which is why it's called a *lossy* codec.. Whether the absence of that data is audible to you, is best deteremined by you, via a blind comparison, which in this case is easy to do on with a PC setup via WinABX or the ABX tool that comes with Foobar2000. That is why I asked. I am wondering if there is some conversion percentage reduction cut off when it becomes obvious that information is being lost. 128 kbps using a good MP3 codec (e.g. modern LAME versions) is notionally the lower bound for 'transparency' to untrained listeners with most music. Your mileage may vary. "Diminished" is a subjective evaluation. A subjective evaluation, Marley? Objectively the data content of an MP3 is diminished compared to the source. But subjectively that may or may not matter. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Converting FLAC to MP3 or AAF?
In article ,
John Doe wrote: I have read that some conversions to MP3 lose no information. That is why I asked. I've read reports that Thomson is introducing a variant of MP3 which is lossless. The new format apparently combines a traditional MP3 encoding (which is lossy) and a lossless packing (which is stored in ID3 tags in the MP3 stream, and is thus skipped over by standard MP3 players). The basic MP3 encoding is inherently lossy - even at high bit rates it does not guarantee that the data coming out of the decoder is bit-identical to the data which went into the encoder. Some information is lost. I am wondering if there is some conversion percentage reduction cut off when it becomes obvious that information is being lost. Depends what you mean by "obvious". For "obvious to a computer", the answer is no - any MP3 encoding/decoding will alter the signal, and it's easily detectable. For "obvious to the listener", it depends on the listener, the type of music, and the quality of the MP3 encoder. I've read a number of opinions stating that with a good MP3 encoder, most audio material encoded at a 256 kbit/second data rate is audibly indistinguishable from the original. It's still "lossy" - the output audio stream is not bit-identical with the original - but the differences are small enough that psychoacoustic masking makes it very difficult to detect the differences reliably. Repeatedly encoding and decoding audio material (i.e. multiple passes) with MP3 will result in an increasing amount of sonic degradation, even at these relatively high bit rates. Doing a truly lossless encoding of high-quality audio, and achieving a high compression rate, is far from trivial. As a rule of thumb, today's lossless audio encoders (e.g. FLAC, Apple Lossless, MPEG-4 ALS, WavPack) seem to achieve a reduction in data size of roughly 50%, with quite a bit of variation which depends on the characteristics of the music. Repeated encode/decode passes with these algorithms do *not* result in any sonic degradation. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Converting FLAC to MP3 or AAF?
"Dave Platt" wrote in message ... I've read a number of opinions stating that with a good MP3 encoder, most audio material encoded at a 256 kbit/second data rate is audibly indistinguishable from the original. It's still "lossy" - the output audio stream is not bit-identical with the original - but the differences are small enough that psychoacoustic masking makes it very difficult to detect the differences reliably. Repeatedly encoding and decoding audio material (i.e. multiple passes) with MP3 will result in an increasing amount of sonic degradation, even at these relatively high bit rates. While this is true, many people simply quote this as akin to re-recording cassette tapes. In my testing the first encode creates more loss than another 5 encodes, simply because data has already been thrown away, and no longer needs to be encoded anyway. So editing high bit rate MP3 is not as bad as it first seems IME. Doing a truly lossless encoding of high-quality audio, and achieving a high compression rate, is far from trivial. As a rule of thumb, today's lossless audio encoders (e.g. FLAC, Apple Lossless, MPEG-4 ALS, WavPack) seem to achieve a reduction in data size of roughly 50%, with quite a bit of variation which depends on the characteristics of the music. Repeated encode/decode passes with these algorithms do *not* result in any sonic degradation. If it did they would not be lossless would they! MrT. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WMA vs FLAC | Tech | |||
WAV vs FLAC | Pro Audio | |||
WAV vs FLAC | High End Audio | |||
Flac Vs. Wav | Tech | |||
how to rip to FLAC? | Tech |