Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
John Doe John Doe is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
John Doe John Doe is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Geoff Geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,562
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
John Doe John Doe is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Dave Platt Dave Platt is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WMA vs FLAC WindsorFox[_3_] Tech 54 May 13th 08 08:49 PM
WAV vs FLAC [email protected] Pro Audio 46 October 16th 06 02:22 AM
WAV vs FLAC [email protected] High End Audio 5 September 28th 06 12:46 AM
Flac Vs. Wav [email protected] Tech 10 September 26th 06 03:15 PM
how to rip to FLAC? Yibbels Tech 2 May 2nd 05 07:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:57 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"