Convert MP3 to Flac...anyone seen this?

I went to convert an .mp3 tune to Flac with SoundKonverter, and I get this in the terminal:

Code:

# Now converting: /home/john/Dropbox/Music/02. Ameno.mp3 

# MP3 to FLAC only increases filesize. I won't do this.

Nuts...LOL....anyone see this before?

 

Haha awesome. I haven't seen this message before, but then again, I only use good programs... lol

 

MP3 to FLAC is a waste of time, space, effort, computing power, etc, and does absolutely nothing to the file. Compressed audio is compressed audio, no amount of format monkeying will restore what the MP3 compression has removed. Leave it MP3.

 

such as? enlighten me.

 

sure......so maybe the program isn't so stupid after all.....lol

just testing it as I didn't know I had that right click ability in KDE4.4.1 I'm using.. I'm assuming it's because of SoundKonverter which I found in /usr/bin/. I have no menu entry for it.

Right Click on .mp3 file: Actions>Convert>(list of different formats like ogg, etc)

 

This is awsome! Finally Zoid, your box is developing AI !! Be nice to him, while it's so young

 

LOL....I've been watching Caprica, which really makes this creepy.....

 

.MP3 --> .FLAC

MP3 is Lossy, here is quality gone.... You pay a toll of quality for a smaller file size.

.FLAC is Lossless, it keeps the same quality as the original..... You pay a toll of larger file size.

That conversion is basically the most backwards arsed thing you could do, because you would be shooting yourself in the foot twice. Larger file size, less compatible, and no gains in quality.


Here is a little somthin somthin I wrote up you may find a good read and educational: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=443311

The reverse conversion, there is a good reason to do this like you have the FLAC on your desktop and want a smaller copy on your laptop, or you need to convert it for compatibility with a device. Its also a good introduction to AAC, the newer more advanced version of MP3.

 

ViciousXUSMC is spot-on. Just to make it a little clearer:

mp3 has already been compressed via a lossy (it loses data) process. You cannot, no matter what you do, add that data back in. FLAC is the Free LOSSLESS Audio Codec. Being as you already lost the data, there's no point to using FLAC. The only way to make a proper FLAC file is to start with a WAV or some other full audio format file. FLAC is like zipping... it compresses without losing anything. mp3 is like resizing an image from 1000x1000 down to 100x100. You can never get those pixels back, even if you re-expand the 100x100 image to 1000x1000. Try it in Paint or something if you need to You can still tell what the image mostly looked like but it'll never be the complete image again. Just like mp3... it's mostly like the original music file, but you can't ever get back to the original quality.

 

Also regarding the quality - the sound of the music depends on how well it was recorded. For most mainstream pop/hip hop music (in my experience), it does not matter if you play it back at 128kbps or 320kbps . . . the recording quality is so poor and clipped that higher bitrates do nothing for it.

Even using some of the best-recorded music in my collection, I have yet to be able to tell a difference between a properly-encoded 320kbps MP3 file and a .FLAC file ripped from the same CD. And yes, I have very high grade equipment. If there is a difference, it is so small I do not notice it. Go over to the Head-Fi forums, where there are tons of audiophiles (insane ones at that) - even they have trouble telling a difference.

MP3 is a very proven technology.

 

Excellent description/analogy of lossy and lossless Pita.

There's likely a good case, (probably due to compression) why someone would want to convert a file from a lossless uncompressed PCM (WAV) format, to a lossless compressed PCM (FLAC) format, but I think that FLAC really becomes valuable when simply doing initial rips of audio CDs. For example, I rip all of my audio CDs into flac files with Audex, and then put them away. Whenever I want to convert to a popular lossy format like MP3, I simply convert the FLAC file to an MP3 one, with the script from this thread.

Good Luck..

 

all my files are mp3's and m4a's because they were 'copied' that way to my computer I don't do any ripping, not yet anyway. In that case I think I will use .flac as it seems to be a consensus.

 

WAV/PCM, all the same stuff. I was simply using WAV as an example of uncompressed audio. FLAC will shave about half the disk space off of the uncompressed audio... so a 700MB CD will go to about a 350MB FLAC. That said, mp3 will compress to about 10-20% of the initial size, so that same 700MB CD will become 70-140MB worth of mp3's depending on the compression scheme. Using a system like yours is a great idea if you want anything in FLAC.

I personally don't have many systems that are that capable of recreating great audio, so just rip most things to 192kbps+ mp3s and call it good. Unless you're listening in a well-soundproofed room on premium speakers with nothing else going on, you won't be able to tell much of a difference. Kick it up to 320kbps, and it'll only be marginally apparent when you listen to certain classical music and jazz and stuff that really uses a lot of dynamic range and varied layers.

 

You're right Pita..

It certainly seems like those that know better than I, agree with your point in that ripping Audio CDs losslessly, doesn't buy you any significant listening value. (Or even ripping them at higher bitrates, like 320k) I could certainly save on disk space if I ripped to something lossy, but it's just that I like the notion of having my audio ripped lossless, and accessible online. That way if I every need a lossless version of anything for any reason, I don't have to dig the original CD out, etc. Something one can afford to do, provided you have the disk space I guess..

Thanks..

 

To each his own I use my disk space on high-def movies instead of audio files because my main server is a media center with a 3TB array hooked up to our 61" TV and surround sound

 

That sounds like a winner to me What distro are you using these days? Did you ever leave the Kubuntu LTS 8.04 as I recall?

 

Yup. Upgraded the media center to Medibuntu 9.10 (Nvidia 210GT in it for VDPAU, waiting for the day I can use the integrated Radeon 3200 on the mobo for HD acceleration). But that's the media center... the work laptop was running Kubuntu LTS but I was forced to change that because my company got bought by Oracle and now I'm an Oracle consultant.

 

That's cool....Will you use Oracle's Unbreakable Linux? (RHEL spin)? Can you get a free sub to it? I'm a business user on one machine so I like that enterprise distros

 

I use FLAC only on true lossless files. FLAC is like .zip or .tar for audio. That is the purpose of FLAC. To reduce size while keeping it lossless. 99.9% of the time, the original source is much bigger than FLAC. Here you're going from small to big (mp3 to FLAC), which is quite strange. You're only wasting more space on your hard disk with absolutely no benefits.

OT: In regards to 320kbps vs lossless, I can't tell the difference just as many people can't. However, there's only one application for it when 320kbps and lossless does matter (very noticeable). I can explain where it's useful if anyone is interested, but I don't think it's practical for the general public.

 

I'm one big ear here. And wonder why it's so secret?

 

What is Medibuntu? I know it's a repository but I've never seen it used in the distro name sense.

 

I get a free sub, but Unbreakable is basically RHEL5.4, same as CentOS, and generally just unusable as a desktop machine for real use. It's not functionally any different than RHEL from what I have seen... heck, there's no issue adding any RHEL rpm to it.

It's just Ubuntu with some automatic package selections for MythTV and so on, as well as a custom splash screen, has xfce configured instead of any heavier DEs, stuff like that.

 

Hmm...link?

 

link for medibuntu?
herez:
http://www.medibuntu.org/

 

Pita,

Over the years, I messed around with a couple of different HTPCs, rolling my own MythTV box, and then even buying a prebuilt MythTV system, but I ended up getting frustrated with; my overall lack of expertise/ability with the MythTV software, the invariable HW/SW compatibility issues, and the final straw, the inability to handle encrypted HD channels, (like ESPN or HBO). I was also frustrated with the size and noise of the HTPC, once it went into my TV room.

So I gave in and ended up putting one Tivo, and one Dune HD player, at each of the 2 main TV locations, and one ioBox 100HD NMT at 2 minor TV locations, and then wired the house with GB ethernet. I then built a 12tb Gentoo fileserver, and ripped all of my DVDs to ISOs, with k9copy, (uncompressed of course). If I'm going to tinker, I'll tinker with other things.

I now use the Tivos for just the cable television, and the file server for all other content. This also lets me keep the server in another part of the house, and allow me to playback any audio (CD) or video (DVD) to any NMT, by just connecting it to the ethernet, (wired or wireless), here. Finally, I also found it helpful to separate the video playing device, from the video file storage device, in case either end needs working on.

Anyway..

 

I know about the repository. Pita was referring to the distribution(which I have not heard of).

 

If the only thing you're going to do is listen to your music then it has no real purpose, as majority of people do. The only use for it is if you intend on extracting the vocals for use in remixes if you're a musician.

Here's a tutorial that explains how. How to extract vocals

"The instrumental and the regular version must be identical in quality"
This means lossless. I've tried it in 320kbps and what would happen is that some of the high frequency would bleed through. A lossless file on the otherhand does a good job preventing this.

Also I'll take it a step further with that tutorial. 44.1khz vs 192khz sample rate. Again, not many people can hear the differences between those two let alone anything higher than 44.1khz. The samples in 192khz is divided into much smaller sections than 44.1khz. You would only need to move the tracks by about 2 samples to the left or right to notice the background bleeding through. 2 samples! Imagine that with 44.1khz. It would take only 1 sample to the right or left for it to really bleed through, and even at this sample rate it's not perfect.

Unless you're a musician planning on making a remix or just out of curiosity what the singer's voice sounds like alone (whether it be crappy or awesome), this has no practical purpose for the majority of the population. Go try it if you're curious (download audacity).

 

Thanks for your extensive explanation, will have a look on it - just out of sheer curiosity

 

It's all the same thing.