title
Products            Buy            Support Forum            Professional            About            Codec Central
 
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Why the 'Uncompressed' Lossless Encoding level?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    3

    Why the 'Uncompressed' Lossless Encoding level?

    Hi,
    Just wondering why there is an option, when ripping CDs, to have the lossless encoding level set at 'Uncompressed'? I have ripped many thousands of CDs with this set as such in the mistaken, as it turns it from reading around, assumption that I am archiving my collection at the best possible lossless setting. Why, if it is only a matter of file size and all FLAC settings are uncompressed, is there an option to essentially save an unnecessarily large file? Is there ANY benefit in using this setting?

    Thanks,
    Tim

  2. #2
    dBpoweramp Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,483

    Re: Why the 'Uncompressed' Lossless Encoding level?

    IMO it is only an option which is relevant for systems with less performance.


    Dat Ei

  3. #3
    dBpoweramp Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    5,074

    Re: Why the 'Uncompressed' Lossless Encoding level?

    I think Spoon added it to address the wishes of a small minority of OCD audiophiles who fell for the incorrect myths on the internet surrounding WAV vs FLAC files. WAV files are of course "uncompressed" and FLAC files historically were compressed (anywhere from level 0 or 1 to level 8 (the most compressed). Of course, compression here is not the same as in a lossy context (such as mp3). Compression here ONLY relates to file size. In the very olden days, there were some servers/players that struggled to decode a FLAC file at "8" (for example, a decade ago my Squeezebox Transporter struggled with a FLAC at 8, until they fixed it with a firmware update). But these days any decent server/player can decode a FLAC at "8" with no issue. The default is "5" in dbpa (which is what I've always used out of habit).

    Back to the audiophools. The idea was that a WAV sounds better (nonsense of course). But the problem became, WAV files have no standard tagging method, and it was chaos in trying to make sure players/servers could read tags from WAV files. But for this crowd, even FLAC at "0" or "1" was still compressed (and wasn't lifting those veils!), so they didn't like this. So that they could have their cake and eat it too, Spoon created (I'm guessing only) an uncompressed FLAC. This is essentially a WAV file in a FLAC container with zero compression. But since it's a FLAC container, it uses standard FLAC tagging and almost every server/player can read the tags just fine.

    p.s. Another myth of FLAC and compression, is that the extra "work" a server does to decode a FLAC "8" file creates more server noise that then propagates into the audio chain. But the truth is, the work to decode a FLAC file (whether an 8 or a 1) is essentially identical. There is no extra "work". The ENCODER does work a bit harder when ripping the CD to create a FLAC "8" as compared to a FLAC "1", but that's a one time thing and has little or nothing to do with the ultimate DECODING of the FLAC when playing the file.

    (Again, I"m only guessing about Spoon's motives here.)

    And to be crystal clear, in my opinion there is zero benefit to using the "uncompressed" setting.
    Last edited by garym; 03-24-2021 at 12:45 PM.

  4. #4
    dBpoweramp Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    5,074

    Re: Why the 'Uncompressed' Lossless Encoding level?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dat Ei View Post
    IMO it is only an option which is relevant for systems with less performance.


    Dat Ei
    Even my 13 year old Squeezebox TRANSPORTER, which in the old days had trouble with FLAC files compressed at level 8, was perfectly OK with FLAC files at level 5 or 6. And even the level "8" problem was fixed 10 years ago with a firmware update to the Transporter.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    3

    Re: Why the 'Uncompressed' Lossless Encoding level?

    Thanks Gary, that makes perfect sense... so 5 it is from now on, but I won't be re-ripping the thousands done 'Uncompressed' just to save a bit of space! Cheers, Tim

  6. #6
    dBpoweramp Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    5,074

    Re: Why the 'Uncompressed' Lossless Encoding level?

    Quote Originally Posted by timh View Post
    Thanks Gary, that makes perfect sense... so 5 it is from now on, but I won't be re-ripping the thousands done 'Uncompressed' just to save a bit of space! Cheers, Tim
    Tim, No need to rerip. You can use dbpa to convert FLAC to FLAC (5), with the tags and naming copying over automatically. A few mouse clicks, run overnight and done! Because all is lossless, FLAC to FLAC doesn't lose anything in the process.
    Last edited by garym; 03-24-2021 at 02:08 PM.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    3

    Re: Why the 'Uncompressed' Lossless Encoding level?

    Quote Originally Posted by garym View Post
    Tim, No need to rerip. You can use dbpa to convert FLAC to FLAC (5), with the tags and naming copying over automatically. A few mouse clicks, run overnight and done! Because all is lossless, FLAC to FLAC doesn't lose anything in the process.
    Thanks Gary, yes, I realised that after I posted... have freed up a lot of disk space!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •