What about transcoding w/ Lossless formats?

[JoeRip]

I've read the FAQ Question "What is transcoding and why is it bad?"

I understand the principle, and I recognize that your best quality encoding will come if you re-rip the original source and take it to your new format.

However - what if you start with a Lossless format? Let's say you archive your whole CD collection in a format like WMA Lossless. Then you transcode WMA Lossless to Apple Lossless. Is there really a loss in quality?

My plan of action so far has been to rip all 1100 of my CD's to WMA Lossless, as my archival format. Then I'll box the CD's and stick them in storage. I'll play WMA Lossless directly from my PC, but when I need smaller formats (AAC 192 for my iPod, Mp3 for car audio, WMA Variable for streaming audio, etc) I'll just "extrude" those formats from the archive.

The first case (WMA Lossless to AAC Apple Lossless) is the least likely, but it's possible. The second set of cases is very likely.

So - any obvious flaws with that plan? Even in the first case, would I really detect any difference?

[ChristinaS]

Re: What about transcoding w/ Lossless formats?

I've read the FAQ Question "What is transcoding and why is it bad?"

I understand the principle, and I recognize that your best quality encoding will come if you re-rip the original source and take it to your new format.

However - what if you start with a Lossless format? Let's say you archive your whole CD collection in a format like WMA Lossless. Then you transcode WMA Lossless to Apple Lossless. Is there really a loss in quality?

My plan of action so far has been to rip all 1100 of my CD's to WMA Lossless, as my archival format. Then I'll box the CD's and stick them in storage. I'll play WMA Lossless directly from my PC, but when I need smaller formats (AAC 192 for my iPod, Mp3 for car audio, WMA Variable for streaming audio, etc) I'll just "extrude" those formats from the archive.

The first case (WMA Lossless to AAC Apple Lossless) is the least likely, but it's possible. The second set of cases is very likely.

So - any obvious flaws with that plan? Even in the first case, would I really detect any difference?

Your WMA lossless format is safe as long as Windows Media Player continues to support it through further releases, or you contiue to have a version that can handle them, including dMC or other such program.

Keep in mind that there isn't a lot of space saved with WMA lossless, maybe 30% if that. It's nothing very dramatic like any of even the highest quality lossy formats. Since you will still have your original cd's, keeping wma lossless on your pc may be overkill, in my opinion. You might as well have a hi-fi lossy format for playing on the pc, you'll likely never notice the difference - but you'll have to judge for yourself. These same formats can be transferred to your portable player, without further conversions, as long as you picked carefully the best all purpose hi-fi lossy format. Your ears are the only judge. I hear no difference in quality above 128KBPS mp3 or wma - but then I don't have such a keen hearing myself.

I have never used AAC Apple lossless, since I've never had any need for it,l so I cannot comment on it. It strikes me a slightly in danger of losing popularity (or it may be just my impression since I have no need for it), so I'd not count too much on this format. It might become an orphan. Or not.

[JoeRip]

Re: What about transcoding w/ Lossless formats?

I may have wandered in my question here. What I specifically want to know is: is there a problem with transcoding from a lossless format to another format, the way there is when transcoding from a lossy format to another format?

In other words, I have three choices here:

1. when I need a song in a "new" format, always break out the CD and re-rip to that format. Disadvantage: re-ripping every time.
2. the first time I rip a CD, just copy the AIFF file (or rip to WAV), and store that. Whenever I need a song in a "new" format, I use dmc to convert from AIFF (or WAV) to that new format. Disadvantage: storage of AIFF/WAV is about 30% larger than a lossless but compressed format.
3. the first time I rip a CD, I rip to a Lossless format (WMA or AAC, etc). Whenever I need a song in a "new" format, I use dmc to convert from the Lossless format to the desired format. Advantage: 30% saving in storage.

The only question here is: am I losing sound quality when going from a Lossless but still "specific" format (like WMA Lossless) to a different format (like MP3) rather than re-ripping to the new format (like MP3)?

Thanks,

Joe

[ChristinaS]

Re: What about transcoding w/ Lossless formats?

I may have wandered in my question here. What I specifically want to know is: is there a problem with transcoding from a lossless format to another format, the way there is when transcoding from a lossy format to another format?

In other words, I have three choices here:

1. when I need a song in a "new" format, always break out the CD and re-rip to that format. Disadvantage: re-ripping every time.
2. the first time I rip a CD, just copy the AIFF file (or rip to WAV), and store that. Whenever I need a song in a "new" format, I use dmc to convert from AIFF (or WAV) to that new format. Disadvantage: storage of AIFF/WAV is about 30% larger than a lossless but compressed format.
3. the first time I rip a CD, I rip to a Lossless format (WMA or AAC, etc). Whenever I need a song in a "new" format, I use dmc to convert from the Lossless format to the desired format. Advantage: 30% saving in storage.

The only question here is: am I losing sound quality when going from a Lossless but still "specific" format (like WMA Lossless) to a different format (like MP3) rather than re-ripping to the new format (like MP3)?

Thanks,

Joe

LOL! I will have to say that lossless is just that: lossless. So the VBR Qaulity 100 44KHz 2-channel 16-bit wma lossless (which is what you should rip the audio cd to) is totally equivalent to the 16-bit 44.1KHz 2-channel stereo pcm wav, with the possible exception of the presence of a tag in the wma file which is not available in the wav file and which you may set yourself.

Thus any conversion from either the wma lossless or from the wav ought to give the same result at least as far as the file segment dealing with audio - the tags may be different, since the mp3 converted from the wma lossless will inherit the tag of the wma itself.

[JoeRip]

Re: What about transcoding w/ Lossless formats?

Thanks, that's what I was hoping to hear. So I will finish ripping all my CD's to WMA Lossless, and use that as the source for all subsequent conversions.

Good, then I can finally box up all of these CD's and get them out of the way...

[jdcpar5]

Re: What about transcoding w/ Lossless formats?

Sorry, this is slightly OT, but I poured over the FAQ's and found lots of conflicting info.

I ripped lots of my CD's onto my PC in ogg format (.8 quality, I think) and then traded the actual CD with a friend, so I no longer have them.

I know there will be a loss in quality if I "transcode" to MP3.... BUT, I'm wondering what is the best possible way to convert from ogg to MP3 with dmc?

TIA for ANY advice!

[LtData]

Re: What about transcoding w/ Lossless formats?

I know there will be a loss in quality if I "transcode" to MP3.... BUT, I'm wondering what is the best possible way to convert from ogg to MP3 with dmc?

You can transcode directly if you keep the frequency and number of channels the same, or you can use wav as an intermediate step. Either way, the results will be the same.

[MikeCerm]

Re: What about transcoding w/ Lossless formats?

However - what if you start with a Lossless format? Let's say you archive your whole CD collection in a format like WMA Lossless. Then you transcode WMA Lossless to Apple Lossless. Is there really a loss in quality?

You don't lose any quality converting from lossless to lossless, as other have said. Tip: After your finished archiving to WMA Lossless, you should bulk convert your whole archive to Monkey's Audio and save another 5-10% more space. You won't lose any quality in that conversion.