# Converting MP3 to Flac good or bad idea?



## aurabullet

As title states, finding music in flac format is a hassle, and cd ripping is pretty expensive x.x


----------



## bik2101

you can't upconvert. mp3--> flac is not possible


----------



## aurabullet

, i thought i did my research right too


----------



## kyuuketsuki

Horrible idea. You can upconvert, but it will do no good, except create a larger file with the same audio quality. When you convert to a lossy format (.mp3 for instance) you are removing some information from the file for the sake of size preservation. Once lost that information can never be brought back, not unless you have the original media on hand, but then you'd just be reripping and not transcoding. 
   
  BTW... is it wrong that upon reading this topic I instantly thought of the Animaniacs and considered replying in that manner?....
   
  Know what? I shall anyway...
   
  Good Idea: Taking a CD and ripping it into the FLAC format. [insert scene of a happy head-fier]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Bad Idea: Taking a 192kbps mp3 and transcoding it into FLAC format [insert scene of a head-fier's head being blown up from poor audio quality] (no smiley to depict this, sorry)


----------



## bik2101

yeah.. well i meant impossible in the sense that your attemptoing to go from lossy to lossless = impossible.


----------



## Redcarmoose

37.2 MB (39,021,032 bytes)   FLAC Normalized
 9.38 MB (9,838,222 bytes)     Mp3 before a FLAC was made     I read the bic2101 and thought I would give it a try. Sounds better now normalized but I'm a purest and I think this is a waist of time. Leave Mp3s as they are.
   
   
   
  Correction....................I can not tell the difference in the Mp3 prenormalized and the FLAC normalized. The two files sound the same.


----------



## danroche

It's possible and harmless but will not give you any benefit. The only reason to do this would be in the distant future, when the last iPod standing is about to sunset the MP3 format, FLAC still survives (maybe) and you want to keep jamming to your favorite old MP3s.  As far as which format will last longer, my money would be on MP3, as it's still the king lossy format while FLAC is just one of a dozen equivalent lossless ones.


----------



## TheDreamthinker

why don't you try it yourself and see whether it works for you?
   
  I'm using dbPowerAmp Music Convertor to get from lossy to lossless......why shouldn't it work


----------



## Roller

Quote: 





kyuuketsuki said:


> Horrible idea. You can upconvert, but it will do no good, except create a larger file with the same audio quality. When you convert to a lossy format (.mp3 for instance) you are removing some information from the file for the sake of size preservation. Once lost that information can never be brought back, not unless you have the original media on hand, but then you'd just be reripping and not transcoding.
> 
> BTW... is it wrong that upon reading this topic I instantly thought of the Animaniacs and considered replying in that manner?....
> 
> ...


 






   
  Converting lossy to lossless is a HORRENDOUS idea, and should never be done for it serves no purpose, other than increasing the world's quota of bad FLACs.


----------



## TheDreamthinker

But honestly 192kbps is really worth converting, for me.
_In my ears_ the difference between 192 and Flac in very noticeable.


----------



## Satellite_6

Quote: 





thedreamthinker said:


> why don't you try it yourself and see whether it works for you?
> 
> I'm using dbPowerAmp Music Convertor to get from lossy to lossless......why shouldn't it work


 

 Going from lossy to lossless is impossible, as already stated.


----------



## TheDreamthinker

Quote: 





satellite_6 said:


> Going from lossy to lossless is impossible, as already stated.


 

 i am very sorry, but i don't understand what you mean.
   
  do you mean that converters only resize the songs?


----------



## Roller

Quote: 





thedreamthinker said:


> But honestly 192kbps is really worth converting, for me.
> _In my ears_ the difference between 192 and Flac in very noticeable.


 


  Converting, for instance, a lossy 192kbps file to lossless will give you a perfect reproduction of a 192kbps lossy file on the size of a lossless file. No gains there whatsoever.


----------



## NoKTurNal

Quote: 





thedreamthinker said:


> i am very sorry, but i don't understand what you mean.
> 
> do you mean that converters only resize the songs?


 


  Yes, exactly
   
*When you rip from a CD into FLAC (Lossless)*
   
  The details and quality is there, straight from the original.
  This the best (and only 0.o) option we should be doing.
   
  From here, yes you can rip the FLAC into mp3
   
  HOWEVER doing the opposite would just waste your time and storage
   
*Ripping a CD into mp3 (Lossy)*
   
  Already, mp3 is a compressed format, meaning it will lose detail and quality over size
  THAT detail and quality is *LOST for good*.
   
  Ripping into FLAC would just increase that space, not gaining any advantages in audio quality.


----------



## Dzjudz

Compare a small cup (MP3) to a large cup (FLAC). The original CD has as much water (song info) as will fill the large cup.

If you fill the large cup with water you have all the water (song info).

If you fill the small cup, you will lose some water (song info) forever.

Now if you take what you have in the small cup and put it in the large cup you still only have as much water as was in that small cup, except you still take up a large cup of space.


So going from MP3 to FLAC will not make the file sound any better, if will only take up much more space on your Hard Drive.

If you want better quality, you really have to rip FLAC straight from the CD.


----------



## aurabullet

alright thanks for the tips, I won't convert


----------



## khaos974

Lossless, reducing size via non audio affecting means, such as "1 100 times" is shorter than "1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111..................."
  Lossy, using psycho-acoustics to reduce the complexity of the sound with as little audible impact as possible, such as, if a very soft sound is played at the same time as a very loud sound, get rid of the softer sound.
   
  Thus, lossy -> lossless, exact same sound played as with the lossy file with a sharp increase of file size. It is technically possible to do so, but in practice, it's less than useless.


----------



## gbamboo

not benifits from mp3-> flac


----------



## Vikingatheart

As stated about twenty other times, there are zero benefits from converting files that have already been compressed to an  uncompressed format. You will gain nothing but file size.


----------



## aurabullet

Quote: 





vikingatheart said:


> As stated about twenty other times, there are zero benefits from converting files that have already been compressed to an  uncompressed format. You will gain nothing but file size.


 


  As stated this time on my thread, you don't have to be a dick about it. Ignore this thread if you think it's a waste of your time. Honestly that statement sounded like a "use the search thread" type of troll. Maybe I did use the search thread and didn't find any useful information. Maybe I didn't want to go through the trouble of reading billions of essays when I could just ask a question and get repetitive answers.


----------



## dsf3g

Quote: 





aurabullet said:


> alright thanks for the tips, I won't convert


 


 Here's a better idea. Take a CD you have, rip a song in 192k MP3 (or whatever bitrate you listen to) and then rip it again in a lossless format like FLAC. Then using a program like Foobar, do a double blind test against the files and see if you can spot the difference. I'd say there's a 99% chance you will not be able to with any consistency. I, for one, can barely distinguish a 96k MP3 from a 128k MP3 (a result that surprised me to no end when I first tried it).
   
  There are lots and lots of people out there complaining about how "horrible" 320k MP3's sound compared to FLAC, but I promise you, the vast majority would not be able to distinguish a 128k MP3 from a FLAC in a true double blind test.
   
  All my iTunes music is encoded at 192k AAC. When I recently bought a non Apple smartphone I had no qualms about taking those same AAC files and downconverting to 128k MP3's so I could fit most of my 22GB AAC library on a 16GB micro SD. And I tell you: the music sounds full and accurate to me. And let me note further that my hearing extends into very high ranges. I was always able to hear computer monitors (back in the days of CRT) that had been left on in a computer lab that was otherwise shut down (even when others in the room heard no such thing).
   
  There is a fetishism of high bitrate sound files on these forums that is wholly unwarranted by the actual audio perceptive abilities of the vast majority of listeners. The "sound science" forum is a great place to disabuse yourself of many of these "golden ears" myths (but you have to be humble enough to accept the results of double blind tests that you cannot pass).


----------



## TheDreamthinker

I tried the blind test mp3 vs FLAC with my crappy Nano 3G and NC Denon and i still noticed a slight difference in sound.
  As I don't have a High-Res Headphone yet, i would be interested to know whether then difference is more obvious on the more expensive models.


----------



## danroche

Quote: 





dsf3g said:


> There are lots and lots of people out there complaining about how "horrible" 320k MP3's sound compared to FLAC, but I promise you, the vast majority would not be able to distinguish a 128k MP3 from a FLAC in a true double blind test.


 
   
  +1,000,000
   
  The bad rep that lossy gets, even among the more informed communities, is sometimes really surprising.  I'd invite anyone to get a copy of Foobar and start ABXing FLACs against 320kbps or even 256kbps MP3s.   Just use a recent implementation of the (free) LAME encoder and DON'T do a search to find those rare and elusive "killer samples."  My prediction is that you won't be able to pass the tests beyond a coin's flip.  Ever.  The state of the art of compression is that good.  Most naysayers hear someone with authority decry MP3 as a format, or say how 192kbps MP3s are "unacceptable," but without testing this is the same as letting someone else tell you why a pricier wine should taste better, or how that expensive line conditioner will buy you better soundstage.
   
  Perorming the same tests with 128kbps files, especially the newest AAC implementations, you'd shock and surprise yourself.
   
  The question remains "why would you ever go lossy when space is so cheap?"   This is a good point, but practicality and saving money, even just a little of it, are perfectly reasonable ends.  I have a LOT of music.  Being able to store it ALL on my iPod is of significant value.  I could save FLACs of the original files, but those would only seem practical were I to assume my ears would get better with age, and I'd magically be able to sense minute artifacts I couldn't hear today with a gun to my head.


----------



## revolink24

thedreamthinker said:


> I tried the blind test mp3 vs FLAC with my crappy Nano 3G and NC Denon and i still noticed a slight difference in sound.
> As I don't have a High-Res Headphone yet, i would be interested to know whether then difference is more obvious on the more expensive models.




Ahh, the classic placebo effect.

The cup analogy is actually pretty good, I like it. 

As for 128kbps, erm, no. 128k is easily distinguishable. 192 is distinguishable. 256 is distinguishable with effort. 320 is not distinguishable (all IMHO, YMMV, of course.)


----------



## RuthlessVermin

Quote: 





thedreamthinker said:


> I tried the blind test mp3 vs FLAC with my crappy Nano 3G and NC Denon and i still noticed a slight difference in sound.
> As I don't have a High-Res Headphone yet, i would be interested to know whether then difference is more obvious on the more expensive models.


 
  It's not a blind test if you're manually switching between files that you can see on a media player.  Further, I don't even think the Nano will play FLAC.
   
  Try foobar and the ABX Comparator plugin if you really want to perform a double blind test: http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx.  I cannot personally discern between FLAC and V0 using any of my equipment.


----------



## TheDreamthinker

1. Yes u are right, it doesn't play flac but it does play aiff.
   
  2. I let other people "randomly" decide what to play. But yes, the difference was quite difficult to notice and not always consistent, but it was there.


----------



## Permagrin

danroche said:


> +1,000,000
> 
> The bad rep that lossy gets, even among the more informed communities, is sometimes really surprising.  I'd invite anyone to get a copy of Foobar and start ABXing FLACs against 320kbps or even 256kbps MP3s.   Just use a recent implementation of the (free) LAME encoder and DON'T do a search to find those rare and elusive "killer samples."  My prediction is that you won't be able to pass the tests beyond a coin's flip.  Ever.  The state of the art of compression is that good.  Most naysayers hear someone with authority decry MP3 as a format, or say how 192kbps MP3s are "unacceptable," but without testing this is the same as letting someone else tell you why a pricier wine should taste better, or how that expensive line conditioner will buy you better soundstage.
> 
> ...




320 vs 256, yeah thats a big difference...

Just use LAME? I'm not an expert but isn't that the best mp3 encoder? Yeah I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. :rolleyes:

"The question remains "why would you ever go lossy when space is so cheap?"   This is a good point, but practicality and saving money, even just a little of it, are perfectly reasonable ends."

You're on a hi-fi headphone forum and you're talking about practicality? You could buy a 1/2 terabyte drive for the price of 3 CDs right now, that's quite frugal.

I have a LOT of music as well. Being able to store it all on my iPod doesn't matter to me as a lot of it I don't listen to frequently and I also have a PC.

"I could save FLACs of the original files, but those would only seem practical were I to assume my ears would get better with age, and I'd magically be able to sense minute artifacts I couldn't hear today with a gun to my head."

Please elucidate your definition of "original files".


----------



## revolink24

thedreamthinker said:


> 1. Yes u are right, it doesn't play flac but it does play aiff.
> 
> 2. I let other people "randomly" decide what to play. But yes, the difference was quite difficult to notice and not always consistent, but it was there.




No possible way that a lossless file of a lossy file sounds any better. Not at all.


----------



## Permagrin

revolink24 said:


> thedreamthinker said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Yes u are right, it doesn't play flac but it does play aiff.
> ...




Unless I'm mistaken this thread has gone off-topic into the generic Lossy vs. Lossless debate. I don't believe he was up-converting, I may be wrong though.


----------



## revolink24

thedreamthinker said:


> why don't you try it yourself and see whether it works for you?
> 
> I'm using dbPowerAmp Music Convertor to get from lossy to lossless......why shouldn't it work






thedreamthinker said:


> But honestly 192kbps is really worth converting, for me.
> _In my ears_ the difference between 192 and Flac in very noticeable.






thedreamthinker said:


> i am very sorry, but i don't understand what you mean.
> 
> do you mean that converters only resize the songs?


----------



## Permagrin

revolink24 said:


> thedreamthinker said:
> 
> 
> > why don't you try it yourself and see whether it works for you?
> ...




Never mind. :rolleyes:


----------



## danroche

Responses below in bold....
  
  Quote: 





permagrin said:


> 320 vs 256, yeah thats a big difference...
> 
> Just use LAME? I'm not an expert but isn't that the best mp3 encoder? Yeah I'd take that bet in a heartbeat.





>





> *Yeah, if I could reliably get people to put money down on their ability to discern 320kbps from FLAC in DBTs, I could likely quit my job.  If I could do the same with 256kbps, I could probably put the money down for a nice beach house somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> "The question remains "why would you ever go lossy when space is so cheap?"   This is a good point, but practicality and saving money, even just a little of it, are perfectly reasonable ends."
> 
> You're on a hi-fi headphone forum and you're talking about practicality? You could buy a 1/2 terabyte drive for the price of 3 CDs right now, that's quite frugal.





>





> *Yes, but I'm horrifically cheap. Also, the 160 gig limit on the iPod is probably more of an obstacle to me than the availability of raw storage.  With kids running around, I'm rarely able to listen to anything sitting still.  Did I mention I'm really, really cheap?*
> 
> I have a LOT of music as well. Being able to store it all on my iPod doesn't matter to me as a lot of it I don't listen to frequently and I also have a PC.
> 
> Please elucidate your definition of "original files".





>





> *Original files = original media (CDs) = error-checked WAVs from the original CDs.   And to clarify, there are some CDs I do own that I HAVE chosen to store in FLAC (or ALAC), they' re just usually ones that I want to reserve the right to re-burn or re-distribute at a later date, such as discs I've recorded or performed on.  If re-burning something would constitute piracy, it's "LAME vbr -q2" all day long and no regrets, no lookbacks.*


----------



## Permagrin

That's a lot more clear now. Especially the having kids and WAV storage part. I've met a lot of people that have Terabytes of music like it's something special even though they downloaded all of it and never paid a dime. Meanwhile I've been collecting CDs for ~17 years, only lost some, and spent probably well over $10k now so I could enjoy that music at my leisure. It's really a pet peeve of mine, so I apologize if I came across as accusatory.


----------



## danroche

Quote: 





permagrin said:


> That's a lot more clear now. Especially the having kids and WAV storage part. I've met a lot of people that have Terabytes of music like it's something special even though they downloaded all of it and never paid a dime. Meanwhile I've been collecting CDs for ~17 years, only lost some, and spent probably well over $10k now so I could enjoy that music at my leisure. It's really a pet peeve of mine, so I apologize if I came across as accusatory.


 

 You didn't come across that way at all. No worries. I know some people on my own who were turned on to torrent sites and quickly accumulated multiple terrabytes of music. I once started trying to estimate how much I had spent, lifetime, on CDs and other music-related material. I had to stop as it got to be really, really depressing.  It's also kind of annoying to suggest a CD to somebody else, and then the next day they've magically accumulated the artist's entire discography.  The irony here is that some of these same people wouldn't DARE degrade the music they just completely stole by compressing it down to MP3 or AAC.


----------



## dsf3g

Quote: 





thedreamthinker said:


> I tried the blind test mp3 vs FLAC with my crappy Nano 3G and NC Denon and i still noticed a slight difference in sound.
> As I don't have a High-Res Headphone yet, i would be interested to know whether then difference is more obvious on the more expensive models.


 


  
  Please describe your test. I'm suspicious of any "blind" test that doesn't involve a purpose designed ABX system like the Foobar ABX plugin.


----------



## TheDreamthinker

i just listened to it while a friend of mine randomly picked a song from a playlist filled with one song in different formats.
  i only tried 128, mp3 and aiff.
  I used Recovery, because it was the only cd i had at hand.
   
  sadly, i can't retest it now, because my headphones are broken and my new iems will arrive some time this month.


----------



## dsf3g

Quote: 





thedreamthinker said:


> i just listened to it while a friend of mine randomly picked a song from a playlist filled with one song in different formats.
> i only tried 128, mp3 and aiff.
> I used Recovery, because it was the only cd i had at hand.
> 
> sadly, i can't retest it now, because my headphones are broken and my new iems will arrive some time this month.


 

 Too much room for fudging there. I can see potential problems with everything from possible differences in the volume levels of your encoded tracks, to the statistical significance of your results.  To really see what you can and cannot distinguish, try Foobar on your computer with the ABX plugin. Foobar will normalize both tracks and produce precise statistics on your performance, allowing you to determine how statistically significant your results really are.


----------



## TheDreamthinker

do you mean foobar2000.org?


----------



## nikongod

Quote: 





revolink24 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> thedreamthinker said:
> ...


 


  I wouldnt quite go that far... 
   
  It is not uncommon for a certain fruity computer company to use VERY PATHETIC MP3 decoder software. This was the topic of MUCH debate back when people were first comparing low quality AAC to high quality MP3 and finding some disturbing trends.


----------



## revolink24

nikongod said:


> I wouldnt quite go that far...
> 
> It is not uncommon for a certain fruity computer company to use VERY PATHETIC MP3 decoder software. This was the topic of MUCH debate back when people were first comparing low quality AAC to high quality MP3 and finding some disturbing trends.




True. Any music I've listened to with the fruity MP3 _encoder _and decoded with, well, anything has sounded pretty much dreadful, so I'm not ruling out decoder issues.

I think 320kbps LAME is pretty darn good. That said, I still use FLAC. Hard drive space is cheap these days, so why bother? Heck, for $100, I can store my library in both FLAC and 320 MP3.
Running foobar2000, however, I honestly am hard pressed to successfully ABX 320kbps converted via LAME from a FLAC original. If he's using an equally good MP3 decoder, I can't think what might be causing the audible differences.


----------



## Snag1e

Quote: 





danroche said:


> The irony here is that some of these same people wouldn't DARE degrade the music they just completely stole by compressing it down to MP3 or AAC.


 

 Downloading music does not equate to stealing it. If I shoplift an album from a store, no one else can buy it. When I download a song, no one loses it and another person gets it. There’s no ethical problem here. Also, downloading music may very well help the artist because they become better known from it.... If I download music and like it, I'll recommend it to my friends ect....
   
  I have been to many concerts where the bands playing told people to buy their album, *or* *go home and download it.* They said they didn't care how we got their music as long as we were listing to it. 
   
  Out of every $1000 dollars of CDs sold, each member of the band on average makes $23.40. Most of the rest of the money goes to the record labels, and distributors. Even if "Piracy" is causing a decline of CD sales (which is debatable), I personally have no problem ripping record labels off. They are the ones that are brickwalling all the life out of music and making it sound like garbage with the loudness war. I "pirate" lossless flacs, and support the bands that I like by buying their merch, and going to their shows....that way they actually benefit from it, and not label........


----------



## Permagrin

snag1e said:


> Downloading music does not equate to stealing it. If I shoplift an album from a store, no one else can buy it. When I download a song, no one loses it and another person gets it. There’s no ethical problem here. Also, downloading music may very well help the artist because they become better known from it.... If I download music and like it, I'll recommend it to my friends ect....
> 
> I have been to many concerts where the bands playing told people to buy their album, *or* *go home and download it.* They said they didn't care how we got their music as long as we were listing to it.
> 
> Out of every $1000 dollars of CDs sold, each member of the band on average makes $23.40. Most of the rest of the money goes to the record labels, and distributors. Even if "Piracy" is causing a decline of CD sales (which is debatable), I personally have no problem ripping record labels off. They are the ones that are brickwalling all the life out of music and making it sound like garbage with the loudness war. I "pirate" lossless flacs, and support the bands that I like by buying their merch, and going to their shows....that way they actually benefit from it, and not label........




That's nice, it's still illegal though...


----------



## kyuuketsuki

OK, that is fine, but I have a question for you, and all of your infinite wisdom. If you pirate music, and the label goes down in flames or is forced to make cut backs, how will you be able to download said tracks? If the studio cannot record and master the tracks, then they can't distribute them. Sure you can make the argument that making CDs is easy now, but they won't be the same quality. Also it is the label that usually sets up concerts for promotions. So again, another thing will collapse if you remove labels from the equation. There is a lot more to the music industry than what you are making out. There are reasons why artists prefer to be signed to a major label than an indie label. 
   
  And as Permagrin said, no matter how you justify it in your head, it is still illegal. I try to keep my downloading to a minimum and buy the actual CDs. Besides... there is something nice about having the physical media in your hand.
  
  Quote: 





snag1e said:


> Downloading music does not equate to stealing it. If I shoplift an album from a store, no one else can buy it. When I download a song, no one loses it and another person gets it. There’s no ethical problem here. Also, downloading music may very well help the artist because they become better known from it.... If I download music and like it, I'll recommend it to my friends ect....
> 
> I have been to many concerts where the bands playing told people to buy their album, *or* *go home and download it.* They said they didn't care how we got their music as long as we were listing to it.
> 
> Out of every $1000 dollars of CDs sold, each member of the band on average makes $23.40. Most of the rest of the money goes to the record labels, and distributors. Even if "Piracy" is causing a decline of CD sales (which is debatable), I personally have no problem ripping record labels off. They are the ones that are brickwalling all the life out of music and making it sound like garbage with the loudness war. I "pirate" lossless flacs, and support the bands that I like by buying their merch, and going to their shows....that way they actually benefit from it, and not label........


----------



## loremipsum

Converting from .mp3 to .flac would be like resizing an 800x600 .jpeg image saved at 50% quality (i.e, artifacts everywhere) to 1920x1080 and saving it as a .png file. (just straight resizing, no actual editing involved). The 1920x1080 .png file would be a lossless, high resolution reproduction, but it would be a high-res reproduction of 800x600 pixels worth of artifacts.
   
  Unless you're a CSI character, that is.


----------



## Snag1e

...So is driving to fast, showing a movie depicting felonious content (Montana), fishing from the back of a camel (Idaho),
   Singing off key (North Carolina) etc....
   
  Legality is a horrible barometer for morality. Slavery was once legal, and is a horrible practice, there are many things today that are illegal, and do not harm anyone.
   
  Also, there are many countries that "Pirating" music is perfectly legal in.
   
  If you have the money and the desire to buy all of your albums then that is great, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 however I do not feel that it is immoral or "stealing" for anyone to acquire copyrighted music for free over the Internet.
   
  Edit @ Permagrin =]


----------



## Snag1e

Quote: 





kyuuketsuki said:


> OK, that is fine, but I have a question for you, and all of your infinite wisdom. If you pirate music, and the label goes down in flames or is forced to make cut backs, how will you be able to download said tracks? If the studio cannot record and master the tracks, then they can't distribute them. Sure you can make the argument that making CDs is easy now, but they won't be the same quality. Also it is the label that usually sets up concerts for promotions. So again, another thing will collapse if you remove labels from the equation. There is a lot more to the music industry than what you are making out. There are reasons why artists prefer to be signed to a major label than an indie label.
> 
> And as Permagrin said, no matter how you justify it in your head, it is still illegal. I try to keep my downloading to a minimum and buy the actual CDs. Besides... there is something nice about having the physical media in your hand.


 

 Labels do not equate to studios. I listen to a lot of stuff that was recorded in privet studios. I also never said I wanted labels to "go down" or "make cut backs" ...All I want is them to stop compressing the life out of music during mastering.....I am personally not going to support them until they do. 
   
  Likewise, music recorded in a privet studio could be distributed online, either for free, or for sale....many artists already do this actually. 
   
  You're right, CDs wouldn't be the same quality, they would likely be better quality, because they wouldn't be mastered absolutely HORRENDOUSLY.
   
  And again, while the label may set up shows / promos for *some *bands, there would still be shows without the labels ...look at any unsigned band...they still have shows...and once again, I never said anything about the labels going out of business. 
   
  The main reason that Artist want to be signed to a major label is simply money and popularity. I can't blame them for that, If I was in a band I would want to be rich and popular as well.
   
  Again, legality is a *horrible* barometer for morality. If you guys buy all of your music, great....some people don't though, and there is nothing wrong with that... (subjectively of course)


----------



## Permagrin

snag1e said:


> ...So is driving to fast, showing a movie depicting felonious content (Montana), fishing from the back of a camel (Idaho),
> Singing off key (North Carolina) etc....
> 
> Legality is a horrible barometer for morality. Slavery was once legal, and is a horrible practice, there are many things today that are illegal, and do not harm anyone.
> ...




All true (afaik I didn't check on those obscure laws but every place has some old ones on the books still).

I'm not really into morals or ethics I really feel that unless you're affecting someone else you go and ruin your life however you like.

Originally this was about me and my problem with people I meet who think they're special and love music so much but they won't give a penny to artists as "everyone else is doing it and none of them have been prosecuted so it must not be a bad thing to do".

When I first started collecting music, one of the few places that I could get music from was one of those boutique stores that sold $16+ CDs. Then I learned that it only costs 10 cents to manufacture a CD and I was like this is totally BS! Greedy corporate monopolists!

But then I came to realize that it's all logical. As a business it's all about making money (just like being human, without the money tickets we'd be out on the street and die, survival mechanism, blah blah, etc.) so the less I have to spend and the more I take in the more I increase the chances that I will survive.

Something about assuming intent where none exists will only make you a bitter, lonely person who will eventually die alone (speaking from experience).

Cheers!


----------



## kyuuketsuki

Wow... you are really naive.
   
  1) Most bands out there, if you download their music online, chances are they are a part of a label. VERY few artists are private. Most artists are either part of a major label (Sony, Universal) or an indie label (too many to even think of listing). You are just kidding yourself if you think labels don't help. 
   
  2) You honestly think that major labels master tracks horribly? Really? Wow, I don't know what music you listen to, but most major labels that deal with good artists master their CDs amazingly. Each label treats their artists differently and each label has their intents. And if they are mastering properly, they shouldn't be compressing that much. Granted, I'm sure more than a few studios compress more than they need to, but that tends to happen MORE with indie labels, because they want to put more on one CD to launch their respective artists.
   
  3) You think every artist signs to a major label for those reasons? Clearly you have never worked in the entertainment industry or known anyone that worked in the entertainment industry. You can get all the freedom you want being alone, but you'll never have connections to certain venues of distribution and exposure. You'll also have to work that much harder to make anything happening. You'll also have to spend that much more, because studios, especially private ones are not cheap. Many bands are never heard because of such problems. Do you have any idea how many bands die off because of not being able to afford enough studio time to make a proper demo? Or to make a proper master disk for their first album? (The cheapest is approximately $50 per hour, where as a top rated studio can cost upwards of $100) Now that may seem like plenty of time until you realize to make a proper CD HUNDREDS of takes are usually needed to get it right. So to make lets say 3 tracks it could take an entire day. Lets say your day is 10 hours. That is $1000 right there, and that is not including the money it would take you to distribute your media, or to hire a proper mastering engineer to make sure that everything is perfect.  Jumping on the web? Well... there is hosting costs, sure you can distribute through torrent for free, but you still need a site to host your bands information and dates, otherwise no one will know who you are and thus, all of your work will be for nothing. Also after spending that money, why would you let people download your music for free? At this point you are losing money, and you won't last long. At the end of the day it is all about capital, and record labels have that. 
  
  There is a lot more to the entertainment industry than what you know or even realize. I used to be like you until I got to know people in the entertainment industry. My friend's father is an audio engineer, my friend is an unsigned artist under Armada music, and another friend who is trying to make it as a jazz musician. It is not easy. They lose work in a moments notice, and it is usually because of people like you who download music for free. I'm not saying you have to buy all of your music, but downloading all of your music is also a mistake.
   
  PS: A lot of those laws you were stating earlier are really archaic and never enforced. But downloading something for free that is not supposed to be free is stealing, which in every country is illegal. You may not be physically taking something from someone, but you are removing money from the pockets of the record label and artist. And you never know how much an artist is getting from record sales. Each label constructs their contracts differently between artists. So one artist may only get 5% while another may get 30%. Indie labels may be even more shifted towards the artists favor depending on the label.
   
  Quote: 





snag1e said:


> Labels do not equate to studios. I listen to a lot of stuff that was recorded in privet studios. I also never said I wanted labels to "go down" or "make cut backs" ...All I want is them to stop compressing the life out of music during mastering.....I am personally not going to support them until they do.
> 
> Likewise, music recorded in a privet studio could be distributed online, either for free, or for sale....many artists already do this actually.
> 
> ...


----------



## Permagrin

snag1e said:


> Labels do not equate to studios. I listen to a lot of stuff that was recorded in privet studios. I also never said I wanted labels to "go down" or "make cut backs" ...All I want is them to stop compressing the life out of music during mastering.....I am personally not going to support them until they do.
> 
> Likewise, music recorded in a privet studio could be distributed online, either for free, or for sale....many artists already do this actually.
> 
> ...




This isn't directed specifically at you but you're the last one to post.

Nothing you said answers the question, why do you feel that acquiring copyrighted music is not immoral (if you are a moralist) or should not be considered theft?

Is it because the product is now available digitally which is so easy to transfer?

Is it because the product can be easily copied on to physical media?

Before CD writers were commercially available the only way to acquire music (other than tape to tape, etc.) was to walk into a brick and mortar and take it off the shelf. 

That's the same product that people now "steal" daily because they're unafraid of recourse because people are rarely prosecuted as it is so widespread.

What's the difference? Walk into your local music outlet, grab some CDs, and try walking out without paying. Act surprised when they call the cops. "But, but I download music all the time for free off the internet and never received a subpoena. There's no difference! This isn't stealing!"

That's where you (again, not the last poster specifically) are drawing the line.


----------



## Snag1e

Quote: 





kyuuketsuki said:


> Wow... you are really naive.
> 
> 1) Most bands out there, if you download their music online, chances are they are a part of a label. VERY few artists are private. Most artists are either part of a major label (Sony, Universal) or an indie label (too many to even think of listing). You are just kidding yourself if you think labels don't help.
> 
> ...


 


  1. Correct. Most bands are a part of a label, and labels do help bands get their music out to people who otherwise wouldn't hear it. I actually do listen do a fair amount of music by local and unsigned bands (much of which I bought from the artist at small local shows) , however I will admit that the vast majority of artist that I listen to are still signed to some kind of a label. 
   
  2. Really Really. I don't know if you have heard of "The Loudness War" or not, but If you won't believe what I have to say on that matter I will give you some links that illustrate it better than I can explain. I will say that many indie labels do use brickwall limiting to make albums "appear" loud just as much as major labels do (although I wouldn't say more).  The links below should be a good start to learning about the subject, although there are considerably more websights dedicated to it.
   
http://www.turnmeup.org/
http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
   
  3. Yes, recording can and most often is expensive...although it doesn't always have to be (especially for a mix tape etc) ...I have heard music recorded in small basement studios (that are far cheaper than larger professional ones) that IMHO sounds just as good if not better than many of the albums recorded in larger studios. Much of this again comes back to the loudness war, and improper mastering (links above).
   
  Admittedly I have never worked in the entertainment industry, I do however have several friends and acquaintances who are in small bands, and I have done, and helped do, sound at several small local shows, but that is the extent of my experience there. 
   
  4. (PS)
   
  Again, I feel that stealing involves removing the original piece, and not simply copying it. You are right, Steeling is illegal in every country, "piracy" is not illegal in every country however, simply because it is not theft.
   
  Blaming a decline on album sales soley on "piracy" is a ridiculous assertion, there are far to many uncontrolled variables that completely flaw any apparent correlation (again, including but not limited to progressively mastering albums hotter). I actually read an interesting article once that was arguing (quite convincingly)  that "piracy" was actually increasing album sales, but I don't know where to find it now.....
   
  Sure different artists get paid different amounts due to record sales, the $23.40 / $1000 is simply the average.
   
  I love music, and I am all for supporting bands that I love. I buy their merch at shows ect. I simply feel that there are better ways of supporting them that buying albums.
   
  Oh, and while I'd be down to argue this, this thread really isn't the place for it, and obviously I'm not going to win you over to my viewpoint haha =]. That really is good honestly, I'm glad that people have different Ideas and views on subjects, and I'm glad that you are informed and willing to defend yours. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Please though, read into the loudness war, it really is a horrible thing....


----------



## Snag1e

Quote: 





permagrin said:


> This isn't directed specifically at you but you're the last one to post.
> 
> Nothing you said answers the question, why do you feel that acquiring copyrighted music is not immoral (if you are a moralist) or should not be considered theft?
> 
> ...


 

 I feel that acquiring copyrighted music is not immoral for the exact reason that I do not consider it theft. Simply that I feel that stealing involves removing the original piece or work, and not simply copying it. I would have not bought much of the music that I have downloaded (frankly I wouldn't have the money to), and I really don't understand how me possessing a *copy* of something that I wouldn't have bought in the first place harms anyone.  Walking into a shop and taking a album would be steeling because you would be removing the physical copy from the story, however you could download a copy of that same album, and the one in the store would still be there untouched.
   
  That is my view on the matter anyway. Props to you and your collection BTW, Physical collections are definitely cool, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 while I do buy some albums (mostly on vinyl), I simply don't have enough money to buy them all.... (unfortunately lol) =D


----------



## Snag1e

Sorry, I just realized that you don't understand what I am referring to when I say "compression" I am not referring to lossy compression such as MPEG etc....Audio CDs are limited at 80 minuets anyway, regardless how small in size the audio you are putting on them is. In almost every studio audio is recorded at at least 24/96, then dithered and resampled to redbook 16/44.1 for production. This is not what I am talking about, and this is just fine... according to the Nyquist Shannon sampling theorem the difference is inaudible for playback.
   
  I am referring to dynamic range compression and limiting. Many new albums are compressed to having less than 4 db of dynamic range, which is quite frankly unacceptable. Sorry for the confusion, I guess I should have made that more clear......
   
  Quote:


kyuuketsuki said:


> Granted, I'm sure more than a few studios compress more than they need to, but that tends to happen MORE with indie labels, because they want to put more on one CD to launch their respective artists.


----------



## danroche

Sorry to drag this back up, but I just saw how my last post started this thread off on a discussion of the morality of music piracy. Below I will have my say and then step back off the soapbox:
   
  In simple terms, it goes absolutely without argument that piracy is having a significant and detrimental effect on the music industry. One can always drag up contrary evidence in small, tailored pieces, like one would due to dismiss global warming, but the evidence is damning.
   
  Below are some common excuses/defenses of piracy I normally see, and what I say when I hear them:
   
  1. "I only download what I wouldn't normally buy, or just want to try out"
   
  Let's assume for a second that you, miraculously, can handle your heroin. Do you think this is how the majority or even a significant number of downloaders think or operate? Also, how do you know any of the CDs you downloaded you wouldn't have at some point bought? Maybe you were "trying out" a new artist or album, but shouldn't that be something you would pay for? If I "try out" a new dish at a restaurant, I need to pay the bill regardless of whether I like what I ordered or eat the whole plate. The same should go for music.
   
  2. "I'm not taking physical product, so it's not stealing."
   
  I could make photocopies of a new book to distribute, and while I'm not stealing paper, I'm directly reducing the number of copies of that book that WOULD HAVE BEEN purchased. The supply/demand curve for CDs is not defined by limits in the supply of cheap, circular pieces of sand and plastic.
   
  3. "Artists don't get a huge percentage of what I'm paying, so they shouldn't care anyway."
   
  Since the beginning of time, cost models of the major labels have been built to offset sunk costs or losses from failed groups or CDs with the profits of successful ones. Every copy of "Nevermind" we purchased in 1991 was used, at least in some part, to offset losses from other CDs that year that DIDN'T sell, covering recording and promotion costs that would not otherwise be recouped. When labels lose the ability to hedge these bets, they SIGN FEWER ARTISTS and take fewer chances on new talent. They instead go for the 10,000th remastering of some retread classic rock catalog or the safest music one could imagine. Music gets boring.  Artists that WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN SIGNED are left in the club scene, so yes, they are impacted.
   
  4. "<introducing misinterpreted data to suggest downloading is helping music sales>"
   
  There's no shortage of people who will gladly mistake correlation for causation in making the case that downloading is having no effect on music sales. There was a study last year out of Scandinavia that suggested people who downloaded music were more likely to purchase music than people who didn't. People jumped all over this, using it as "evidence" for their cause.  The only problem is that the most likely explanation for the study was that people who liked music were more likely to buy AND download music than people who didn't listen to it altogether. There was nothing in the research that suggested that one behavior influenced the other, or that, in the absence of downloading, music listeners would suddenly stop paying for music altogether.
   
  5. "It's all about the quality of music being churned out today!"
   
  First off, let's look at self-fulfilling prophecies from item #3. Then, look at other data factors. If this were the case, we'd be seeing a drop in concert revenues exactly proportionate to the drop in CD sales. Also, one can't make the case, outside of normal "get off my lawn" curmudgeonliness, that music today is SO MUCH WORSE than at any point in the last 40 years that would justify the multi-year collapse we've been witnessing.
   
  6. "It's all about the loudness war!"
   
  Oh please. Ask any non internet audiophile what the loudness war even is and they can't tell you. To US the loudness war is destroying fidelity. To the average listener, I would wager to say it's a way they can hear music more clearly through their ear buds on a crowded subway. It's not the cause. I know we hate to think it, but the AVERAGE listener is going to want their music  loud. People like us on the forums aren't the average listener. Find me a collection of college students who have turned their back on the industry because of the limited dynamic range of modern recordings, and I'll eat my hat.


----------



## Permagrin

^^ Well put.


----------



## kyuuketsuki

Quote: 





permagrin said:


> ^^ Well put.


 

 I concur.


----------



## TheDreamthinker

what about:
  I am simply to stingy to spend xxx$ on CDs. You think mainstream artists like Lil Wayne, Jay-Z, Beyonce, still need my financial support?
  I know many people spend 100+ $ on music CDs. AudiophileCDs of course shouldn't/can't be downloaded.
   
  In my case, there is no point in buying CDs as once on my computer, they start to dust in my room.
   
  Buying indie-label musician albums is supporting careers, which i can understand.


----------



## kyuuketsuki

You are supporting careers no matter what. More money for the industry means everyone wins. More bands can be signed, more cds can be produced and some of those indie artists can be signed to major labels and brought out into the open.
   
  I'm not a fan of piracy anymore. As I said, as much as I used to download, I stopped (though not entirely), and I try to buy more. The industry needs people to start buying again. Whether it be physical CDs, or simply digital music from amazon, iTunes or other sites. The collapse of the music industry is not an option, and trying to support the labels as well as the artists should be natural. Because even if you aren't supporting the artists directly, what about the sound engineers who help them record. Or their mastering engineers who prepare the tracks for distrobution. Or what of the arrangers (not every band arranges their own music). There are usually teams of people who help bring you the music you enjoy. The money from CDs has to be split several ways in order to support everyone. If Sony music went under, then they have 15 individual labels underthem that would cease to exist, or fall into financial strife. And then a lot of musicians would be SOL. If any of the big 4 went down it would be disasterous.
  
  Quote: 





thedreamthinker said:


> what about:
> I am simply to stingy to spend xxx$ on CDs. You think mainstream artists like Lil Wayne, Jay-Z, Beyonce, still need my financial support?
> I know many people spend 100+ $ on music CDs. AudiophileCDs of course shouldn't/can't be downloaded.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheDreamthinker

Quote: 





kyuuketsuki said:


> You are supporting careers no matter what. More money for the industry means everyone wins. More bands can be signed, more cds can be produced and some of those indie artists can be signed to major labels and brought out into the open.
> 
> I'm not a fan of piracy anymore. As I said, as much as I used to download, I stopped (though not entirely), and I try to buy more. The industry needs people to start buying again. Whether it be physical CDs, or simply digital music from amazon, iTunes or other sites. The collapse of the music industry is not an option, and trying to support the labels as well as the artists should be natural. Because even if you aren't supporting the artists directly, what about the sound engineers who help them record. Or their mastering engineers who prepare the tracks for distrobution. Or what of the arrangers (not every band arranges their own music). There are usually teams of people who help bring you the music you enjoy. The money from CDs has to be split several ways in order to support everyone. If Sony music went under, then they have 15 individual labels underthem that would cease to exist, or fall into financial strife. And then a lot of musicians would be SOL. If any of the big 4 went down it would be disasterous.


 
   
  You do have a point.

 1) would you really _buy_ a 50Cent album?
  2) would you really support APPLE (at least i wouldn't)


----------



## danroche

Quote: 





thedreamthinker said:


> what about:
> I am simply to stingy to spend xxx$ on CDs. You think mainstream artists like Lil Wayne, Jay-Z, Beyonce, still need my financial support?
> I know many people spend 100+ $ on music CDs. AudiophileCDs of course shouldn't/can't be downloaded.
> 
> ...


 

 But let's assume that Jay-Z and co. don't need your support - that's probably correct. When you purchase their albums, you are subsidizing artists across the label. When a major label has a stream of safe cash coming in the door from Kid Rock and Beyonce sales, they can go for more home run hits by signing new talent. More cash coming in the door leads to albums taking more chances, signing MORE new talent, and even if most of them flop (which is always the case, dating back decades) those that hit will continue to support additional investments.  And as a nice side-benefit, some of those albums that "flop" contain REALLY GOOD MUSIC, and end up, over time, being the next Big Stars, Velvet Undergrounds, etc.  In a world where labels can take these risks, some of these "flops" or small-market attractions may be allowed to take another shot at the basket.  A "Bleach" may lead to a "Nevermind" for example.   When the steady cash flow from the Lil Wayne discs dries up, labels need to become more conservative. Less new talent is signed.  More box sets of "sure hit" artists are churned out.
   
  And let's not change the argument and make this about CDs.  It's about music.  If you buy albums on iTunes or Amazon, you are paying for music, and that's alright with everybody. I agree that CDs are a dying media.  That doesn't mean my only recourse is to go download music for free.


----------



## kyuuketsuki

I do not enjoy rap, so no, but I'm sure there are plenty of people that would. I always buy DT, ATB, Steve Vai and the B'z. 
   
  I do not like iTunes, but I do respect that they are trying to correct the music industry's huge mistake of not fighting Napster, and instead take it over and make it a paid service back when they had a chance to use the internet to distribute earlier. They missed their chance, and now they have this mess.
   
  Honestly, I prefer Amazon, because really... that whole cloud player is a brilliant idea. I hope Google can measure up. Also Amazon is 100% online based. I also prefer other online distribution like HDTracks. There are a lot of choices. 
  
  Quote: 





thedreamthinker said:


> You do have a point.
> 
> 1) would you really _buy_ a 50Cent album?
> 2) would you really support APPLE (at least i wouldn't)


----------



## TheDreamthinker

even if the music industry works like that, i won't start buying 50cent & co. just to support the development of new artists. I would rather buy there indie-albums, to a point where the great music-labels notice the musicians potential and sign him.
   
  P.S.: Sadly it is not about the music anymore, it's about the money. Musicians in great labels mostly are no longer artists, but money-makers.


----------



## kyuuketsuki

But if the artist doesn't continue to sell, the artist will be dropped from the label. And there are other artists on the same label of 50Cent. 
   
  And think of all the artists out there on major labels... under Sony there are 15 labels, Universal, and Warner probably have just as many individual labels. Consider the amount of artists there are. Are you suggesting all of them are money-machines? That's impossible. And yet not buying the music of those other artists have just as much impact as not buying mainstream artists, because revenue is dependent on the bottom line of the company, which involves all of their assets.
  
  Quote: 





thedreamthinker said:


> even if the music industry works like that, i won't start buying 50cent & co. just to support the development of new artists. I would rather buy there indie-albums, to a point where the great music-labels notice the musicians potential and sign him.
> 
> P.S.: Sadly it is not about the music anymore, it's about the money. Musicians in great labels mostly are no longer artists, but money-machines.


----------



## TheDreamthinker

They are bound to become money-makers.
  If they don't make their music according label-guidelines, the song/album won't be released.


----------



## Snag1e

Quote:


thedreamthinker said:


> even if the music industry works like that, i won't start buying 50cent & co. just to support the development of new artists. I would rather buy there indie-albums, to a point where the great music-labels notice the musicians potential and sign him.
> 
> P.S.: Sadly it is not about the music anymore, it's about the money. Musicians in great labels mostly are no longer artists, but money-makers.


 

 This.


----------



## Permagrin

thedreamthinker said:


> even if the music industry works like that, i won't start buying 50cent & co. just to support the development of new artists. I would rather buy there indie-albums, to a point where the great music-labels notice the musicians potential and sign him.
> 
> P.S.: Sadly it is not about the music anymore, it's about the money. Musicians in great labels mostly are no longer artists, but money-makers.




What great music-labels? No one gave them any money so they all folded.


----------



## rroseperry

thedreamthinker said:


> They are bound to become money-makers.
> If they don't make their music according label-guidelines, the song/album won't be released.




When has it not been about the money? If people hadn't been able to _sell _those 45s (yeah, I'm that old), there would never have been any classic R&B, soul, blues, rock and any other genre of music.

I think you must be mistaking this for some other universe were there's this pure flow from artist to audience. 'Cause it's never happened on this earth.


----------



## matbhuvi

Quote: 





loremipsum said:


> Converting from .mp3 to .flac would be like resizing an 800x600 .jpeg image saved at 50% quality (i.e, artifacts everywhere) to 1920x1080 and saving it as a .png file. (just straight resizing, no actual editing involved). The 1920x1080 .png file would be a lossless, high resolution reproduction, but it would be a high-res reproduction of 800x600 pixels worth of artifacts.
> 
> Unless you're a CSI character, that is.


 
   
  This thread has derailed to a diff topic of piracy..coming back to the original question...Let's take the same example above of an image..there are lots of software available now to do great upscaling. I know the image quality will be nowhere near 1920x1080. But, it definitely improves the image quality may be by using some predictive algorithms which are beyond me. My question is, why can't be the same thing applied on music.
  btw, a 128 kbps mp3 sounds pathetic in my Zune, average in my HM-601 and nice in my iPhone 3GS. I don't know why, but i prefer my iPhone when i want to listen to my 128kbps collection from 70s and 80s. I use my HM-601 for 320kbps and lossless music.


----------



## matbhuvi

well..i googled around and found an article answering my question.
   
  quote from it...
   
   
  Quote: 





> But, perhaps partly as a result of this magazine's positive coverage of the dCS upsampler, a veritable slew of products has appeared offering that "96kHz" magic bullet. Like the Bel Canto DAC 1 reviewed by Robert Deutsch in this issue (p.143), or the MSB LinkDAC III chosen by _Stereophile_'s scribes as our "Budget Component of 2000" (p.69), many of these products use Crystal's new CS8420 sample-rate converter chip to produce a high-sample-rate datastream from CD data. Others, such as the dCS 972, use a digital filter with several choices of topology and noise-shaping behavior.
> 
> Now I _am_ sure.
> 
> ...


----------



## bcasey25raptor

It is a bad idea. A low quality mp3 is still a low quality mp3 after the conversion to flac. You cannot convert something to sound better. That is unless you want flac for archiving purposes. Then I see no problem with it but don't expect sound improvements.


----------



## xnor

matbhuvi, there is software available to reduce noise, clicks, pops, hum, repair clipping, drop outs and so on.. similar to what is available for image processing.
   
  The problem with low bitrate mp3's is the lowpass filter that virtually eliminates high-frequency information. In the image analogy this would be like a very strong blur effect.


----------



## RuthlessVermin

Quote:


bcasey25raptor said:


> It is a bad idea. A low quality mp3 is still a low quality mp3 after the conversion to flac. You cannot convert something to sound better. That is unless you want flac for archiving purposes. Then I see no problem with it but don't expect sound improvements.


 
   
  In what situation could one possibly want FLAC for archival purposes when said FLAC is converted from MP3?  There is absolutely no benefit in so doing, and there are many detriments.
   
  Let's say I'm going on a hike in the desert.  I bring along one gallon of water in a one gallon jug.  When I arrive at the hiking destination, I note that other hikers are carrying five gallon jugs of water.  Converting MP3 to FLAC is like buying a five gallon jug, dumping in the one gallon of water I already have, and filling it up the rest of the way with motor oil.  I am in absolutely no better position in terms of water quantity (audio data), and am unnecessarily lugging along excess weight in motor oil (wasted hard drive space with FLAC).  Further, I'll undoubtedly lose some water if I try to filter out the oil so I can drink just clean water later (converting lossy-sourced FLAC to lossy again), putting me in a worse position than I was in to start with.  Any rational person is going to either just take the one gallon jug of water (just keep the MP3), or buy the five gallon jug and fill it all the way up with water (archive straight from lossless>FLAC).


----------



## kiteki

Hey snag1e, your replies were entertaining to read and you seem well-informed in your own way, and if you find that article that said Piracy is increasing CD sales can you please link it here? I'm interested in reading it.
   
  I don't think people that have collected CD's for a long time should be bitter at some kid with a 1TB harddrive of discographies Lol, I mean it's totally different, I don't get excited when a torrent has reached 99%, but I do get excited from a parcel in the mail with a CD and booklet and smell and physical touch.
   
  It's a bit like "pirated books", I mean where is the whole pirated books debate? Why doesn't anyone care about the pirated books!!
   
  Try downloading a comic book and reading it on your computer, it's a horrible experience, compared to reading the real comic book.
   
  However there are a lot of people that will buy a CD, convert it to .m4a, and dispose of the CD.
   
  Then there are also a lot of people now that will never buy a CD in their life and think they belong in the 90's along with discmans.
   
  These two groups of people confuse the issue for me, since group 1 is not partaking in piracy, and also not caring about the physical media or sound fidelity, either, group 2 is partaking in piracy, and not caring about physical media and most likely not the sound fidelity.
   
  __________________
   
  As for the *thread title*, users that prefer Flac are either going to be purists, or on a hi-fi quest.
   
  Converting a CD to mp3 and then to Flac, is like taking Coke, converting it to Diet Coke, then adding some sugar and putting it back in the Coke bottle.  So that's why you were getting repetetive violent reactions to your idea, from the coke lovers. ;]
   
  I don't actually understand why converting mp3 to Flac results in a different file-size though, does it become much larger? I mean if you change .ZIP to .RAR they're pretty much the same size and information just different compression methods.


----------



## matbhuvi

Quote: 





xnor said:


> matbhuvi, there is software available to reduce noise, clicks, pops, hum, repair clipping, drop outs and so on.. similar to what is available for image processing.
> 
> The problem with low bitrate mp3's is the lowpass filter that virtually eliminates high-frequency information. In the image analogy this would be like a very strong blur effect.


 

  
  Can you recommend any good software (preferably a one click solution 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





). I have a lot of my favorite songs from 50s to 80s in 128kbps. Songs from vintage tamil movies(South indian). They were available in cassettes  at that time. Now these low bit mp3s are my only source.


----------



## xnor

What I was trying to say is that with the low pass a lot of high-frequency information is irreversibly lost. Sharpening a very blurry image also will get you nowhere near the original.
   
  There are a lot of products that can repair audio, I've heard good things about iZotope RX for example. But this won't fix low bitrate mp3's.. because there's not much left to fix.


----------



## kiteki

yeah coz only teenagers, dogs and bats can hear above 16kHz anyway what's that about? My as well throw all that HF data in the garbage bin right away.


----------



## 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

kraken2109 said:


> This thread is from 2011....


 
 and the statement is also not true


----------

