Batch convert albums

[Oggy]

Re: Batch convert albums

No point at all in converting, save yourself the time and space.

They will sound the same.

[garym]

Re: Batch convert albums

This is confusing I'm lost with your instructions. Is there really any point converting the compressed FLAC files to totally uncompressed ? Will they sound any better ? If not then I can save myself the hassle of trying to convert them and keep the naming and folders the same.

No there is absolutely no reason to convert these FLAC files. FLAC files are lossless. Lossless=Lossless. Any compression level of a FLAC file is still decoded by the server/player to the same bitperfect PCM file (equivalent to the original CD). Don't confuse lossless file compression (as with a FLAC) to *Iossy* compression (creating an mp3 or m4a file). With lossy files, information is lost forever. But with lossless (like FLAC). there is no loss of info. That's why these files are labeled lossless.

There are many "audiophile" websites that don't understand digital music and files. They have bizarre stories about how a file produced on a windows machine sounds better than one produced on a Mac. Or copying a file can change the sound. This tends to be a function of many "audiophiles" coming from the analog days where many things could make a difference. But these principles don't relate to most digital music issues. And much of the misinformation is designed to extract money from the wallet of an audiophile that "wants to believe" these things can matter (expensive cables, etc.).

Bottom line, there will be no sound quality difference between any FLAC file (no matter whether the FLAC files is "uncompressed" or level 0, 1, ..., 8). I repeat NONE. In fact, one misconception is that a more uncompressed FLAC will sound better has to do with the myth of a server/player "working harder" to decode the FLAC file for playback. The "work" that happens is in the *encoding* of the FLAC file. The computer when ripping/converting the file to FLAC works a bit harder to make the FLAC a "8" level compression than a "0" or uncompressed. But this all happens one time (when ripping). And by the way, by working harder, I mean really, really trivial difference on any computer newer than 10 years old. On playback, the "work" done to decode the FLAC file is essentially the same whether the FLAC file is uncompressed versus "8" level (maximum compression).

If a FLAC uncompressed sounds any different from a FLAC "8" on your player, then something is very broken with your system or you are hallucinating. ;-)

[Dat Ei]

Re: Batch convert albums

Sound is the same. It's just all about file size. You can convert different compression levels back and forth with no losd or improvement at all.


Dat Ei

[Tommygun2000]

Re: Batch convert albums

No there is absolutely no reason to convert these FLAC files. FLAC files are lossless. Lossless=Lossless. Any compression level of a FLAC file is still decoded by the server/player to the same bitperfect PCM file (equivalent to the original CD). Don't confuse lossless file compression (as with a FLAC) to *Iossy* compression (creating an mp3 or m4a file). With lossy files, information is lost forever. But with lossless (like FLAC). there is no loss of info. That's why these files are labeled lossless.

There are many "audiophile" websites that don't understand digital music and files. They have bizarre stories about how a file produced on a windows machine sounds better than one produced on a Mac. Or copying a file can change the sound. This tends to be a function of many "audiophiles" coming from the analog days where many things could make a difference. But these principles don't relate to most digital music issues. And much of the misinformation is designed to extract money from the wallet of an audiophile that "wants to believe" these things can matter (expensive cables, etc.).

Bottom line, there will be no sound quality difference between any FLAC file (no matter whether the FLAC files is "uncompressed" or level 0, 1, ..., 8). I repeat NONE. In fact, one misconception is that a more uncompressed FLAC will sound better has to do with the myth of a server/player "working harder" to decode the FLAC file for playback. The "work" that happens is in the *encoding* of the FLAC file. The computer when ripping/converting the file to FLAC works a bit harder to make the FLAC a "8" level compression than a "0" or uncompressed. But this all happens one time (when ripping). And by the way, by working harder, I mean really, really trivial difference on any computer newer than 10 years old. On playback, the "work" done to decode the FLAC file is essentially the same whether the FLAC file is uncompressed versus "8" level (maximum compression).

If a FLAC uncompressed sounds any different from a FLAC "8" on your player, then something is very broken with your system or you are hallucinating. ;-)

Thank you for taking the time to clarify that for me. I was under the impression that a uncompressed lossless Flac file will sound better as there will be no extra work required to decode it compared to a compressed Lossless Flac file.

I will just copy all my compressed Flac files to the SSD of my new digital media player and enjoy my music.

Thanks Again

[garym]

Re: Batch convert albums

Thank you for taking the time to clarify that for me. I was under the impression that a uncompressed lossless Flac file will sound better as there will be no extra work required to decode it compared to a compressed Lossless Flac file.

I will just copy all my compressed Flac files to the SSD of my new digital media player and enjoy my music.

Thanks Again

Happy to help. Not your fault as this is a very common (but patently untrue) assumption.