Would converting MP3's to FLAC make sense?

[RussianVodka]

So, it's been brought to my attention that not only do MP3 files sacrifice quality for size when they are made, but apparently they also degrade over time. Due to lack of inbuilt error checking, i guess.

So I'm wondering, is it worth the time to take my music collection (mostly mp3's, some aac) and convert it to FLAC?

Questions:

What will happen to the size of the file if I convert it to FLAC? I don't want to re-compress an already compressed file, so I'll try to convert without compression. Will the file size stay the same? Will it increase?
Will audio quality suffer in the process of conversion? If so is it worth it in the long term?
I spent A LOT of time tagging my collection (with the help of Music Brainz). About half of my songs have Russian tags, and it was a pain getting the encoding right so the tags appeared on all music players. After converting to FLAC will the tags remain the same?
* Do songs lose quality when converted from .flac to .mp3, without compressing?


Edit: Woops, asked the same question twice, today is an off day...

Edit 2: Wait, no I didn't the second question was about converting in reverse... damn it...

[phrostbyte]

No, MP3 don't "degrade over time".

And no, MP3 -> FLAC is a pointless conversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcode

[dearingj]

I've never heard of MP3s degrading over time. Can you give us a link to where you read/heard that?

1- I'd guess that the file size will significantly increase.
2- If you're converting to FLAC, then the audio quality will be exactly the same as the mp3.
3- I don't know.
4- mp3 is a compressed format; it's impossible to convert anything to mp3 without recompressing. Whether there would be any noticeable quality loss is a different story. You can compress it with a very high bitrate, in which case the quality loss would be unnoticeable.

[Simon17]

MP3s do degrade over time in exactly the same way Windows degrades over time and requires reinstallation every 6 months.

[teKro]

Nope. This would be like taking an image that is 100 x 100 pixels and resizing it to 1000 x 1000.

[blueturtl]

Questions:

* What will happen to the size of the file if I convert it to FLAC? I don't want to re-compress an already compressed file, so I'll try to convert without compression. Will the file size stay the same? Will it increase?
* Will audio quality suffer in the process of conversion? If so is it worth it in the long term?
* I spent A LOT of time tagging my collection (with the help of Music Brainz). About half of my songs have Russian tags, and it was a pain getting the encoding right so the tags appeared on all music players. After converting to FLAC will the tags remain the same?
* Do songs lose quality when converted from .flac to .mp3, without compressing?

Answers:
1) The file size will probably increase.
2) The audio quality will not suffer in an MP3->FLAC conversion because FLAC is a lossless algorithm (means it doesn't lose any data over the original)
3) Don't know how FLAC handles tags, most probably your software knows how to convert tags should that be necessary
4) When converting from FLAC to MP3, the sound quality will degenerate because MP3 is a lossy compression method.

In short, it doesn't make sense to convert MP3s to FLAC. If you want to encode files into FLAC format, you should use original media so that the best possible quality is retained. When you want smaller files, converting from FLAC to lossy formats such as OGG or MP3 is as good as using the original CD (unless the FLAC was encoded from a bad source such as an MP3 file...).

As for the MP3s getting worse over time: this I believe is a misunderstanding. MP3s can't get worse over time, but converting a file using a lossy algorithm means that quality is lost each time a conversion is performed. Therefore if you rip a CD as MP3s and later decide to convert those MP3s to OGG (or different bitrate MP3s for example) the quality will be worse than had you made OGGs from the CD instead. Each lossy conversion along the way makes for worse quality sound. Using lossless conversion only makes sense as the first step because the quality will never improve over the original.

[cb951303]

MP3s do degrade over time in exactly the same way Windows degrades over time and requires reinstallation every 6 months.

I know you're kidding but people may actually believe this.

[RussianVodka]

Nope. This would be like taking an image that is 100 x 100 pixels and resizing it to 1000 x 1000.

I was thinking it would be more like taking a "picture" that is 100x100 and adding error checking to it. So that when the "picture" is moved around, and I move my "pictures" around a lot, bits that are improperly transfered in the process are detected and repaired.

Again, to clarify, I'm asking about preventing long term degradation from moving files around, not about magically increasing sound quality by making bigger files.

[RussianVodka]

As for the MP3s getting worse over time: this I believe is a misunderstanding. MP3s can't get worse over time, but converting a file using a lossy algorithm means that quality is lost each time a conversion is performed. Therefore if you rip a CD as MP3s and later decide to convert those MP3s to OGG (or different bitrate MP3s for example) the quality will be worse than had you made OGGs from the CD instead. Each lossy conversion along the way makes for worse quality sound. Using lossless conversion only makes sense as the first step because the quality will never improve over the original.

Ah, I see, for some reason as I was reading about the degradation I was thinking about bit error being caused by noise as it was traveling over a network. And somehow those two ideas got mixed together, which caused me to remember how many times I've moved my music between the 'puter and the external hard drive and how that can't possibly be good for it.

Now that I'm thinking about it, bit error checking would in most cases not be the job of the file being transfered.

[Post Monkeh]

MP3s do degrade over time in exactly the same way Windows degrades over time and requires reinstallation every 6 months.
surely you don't believe that?

[NightwishFan]

Sure if you want the exact quality and need a free format. Do not need a free format? Then nope.

[ALIENDUDE5300]

If you care about quality, music degrades in quality when converted to MP3, but not after that. It doesn't suddenly lose quality, but if you convert music to FLAC from a source, it will be in the SAME quality as the source, such as an Audio CD. Converting from a lossy format to a lossless format is useless, as the missing data will not magically appear, it's just not there.

[chriswyatt]

It's surprising how many people think transcoding will magically 'improve' sound quality. I'm sure I was talking to someone about this once (ages ago) and they thought that converting MP3s to WMAs would improve sound quality and I had a hard time trying to explain that it wouldn't.

[RussianVodka]

It's surprising how many people think transcoding will magically 'improve' sound quality. I'm sure I was talking to someone about this once (ages ago) and they thought that converting MP3s to WMAs would improve sound quality and I had a hard time trying to explain that it wouldn't.

It surprised me how many people keep repeating that when it clearly has nothing to do with the question.

[mips]

It surprised me how many people keep repeating that when it clearly has nothing to do with the question.

It has everything to do with the question.

Would converting MP3's to FLAC make sense?

[HangukMiguk]

If you are a fan of MP3 quality, but not a fan have having more free disk space, then transcoding from MP3 to FLAC is a good idea. Honestly, all you'll see is the same sound quality as MP3, but FLAC takes up more storage space.

Ripping CDs to FLAC makes sense. Even encoding a raw, uncompressed format to FLAC would make sense. encoding MP3's into FLAC? Not so much.

[pickboy87]

I'm going to throw in my 2 cents since reading this thread has a lot of misinformation thrown around. Some people are correct, but lack a half decent explanation.

Converting mp3 to flac is entirely pointless. You won't be gaining sound quality. The post talking about taking a 100x100 picture and saving it as 1000x1000 is fairly accurate. It won't make it any better just because it's bigger in size. To get a proper 1000x1000 picture, you need an original raw source instead of a compressed image. Same goes for sound. Starting out as flac then going to mp3 makes sense, but the other way around is exactly like the analogy.


To answer your questions though:

1. The size of the file will increase probably 3-10 times the size of your current mp3 files depending on the bitrate. It is re-encoding it to flac by converting your mp3 to wav then back to flac.

2. Audio quality _shouldn't_ decrease, but you won't gain ANY increase in quality. You would need to start fresh if you want to get a perfect lossless quality encode.

3. Depends on how you converted them. I've never had that great of luck converting files and keeping tags, but I know in Windows using the FLAC frontend, there is an option to keep tags. I can't promise they will keep the proper tagging though.

4. Converting from mp3 -> flac -> mp3 _WILL_ sound worse then your original mp3. It's trying to renencode your song again from flac which over time will degrade the quality of your mp3 to noticeable differences.


Oh, and your mp3's won't degrade over time. I think you're getting mixed up with reencoding them. If you burn those mp3's to a CD, then rerip them back to your computer as mp3 it will over time (sooner then you think) have a massive decrease in sound quality and you WILL notice it. I'll repeat it once again for added effect. Start fresh for flac. As for moving the files around between drives and having them degrade...won't happen. A file should be exactly the same bit for bit as long as the copying goes smoothly. If the file is interrupted while copying/transferring or your computer is shutdown abruptly you may end up with corrupted files. This would effect flac as well as mp3 (basically any file for that matter).

tl;dr I HIGHLY SUGGEST STARTING FRESH. PLEASE DON'T TRANSCODE TO FLAC.

Note: I would also look into reading about Transcoding on Wikipedia, or at least skimming through it.

[Post Monkeh]

i think people keep missing the point here.

he doesn't expect to get better quality, he is under the impression that mp3 quality will degrade over time through moving the files around (NOT through re-encoding) and that flac will not do this.

i've no idea if the mp3 thing is true. i've never heard of it but then i haven't heard of lots of stuff. but people need to answer his question and not tell him something he already knows (that doing this will not, under any circumstances, give him a better quality file to listen to)

[RussianVodka]

i think people keep missing the point here.

he doesn't expect to get better quality, he is under the impression that mp3 quality will degrade over time through moving the files around (NOT through re-encoding) and that flac will not do this.

i've no idea if the mp3 thing is true. i've never heard of it but then i haven't heard of lots of stuff. but people need to answer his question and not tell him something he already knows (that doing this will not, under any circumstances, give him a better quality file to listen to)

Thank you.

[szymon_g]

MP3s do degrade over time in exactly the same way Windows degrades over time and requires reinstallation every 6 months.

bu*****te.

[MadCow108]

it has been said before.
There is no degradation due to moving a file around.
File copying is very safe, it only fails on very rare occasions with faulty hardware or bad network connections. Often the copy process will even be able to inform you about failure.
And in that case FLAC won't help you either. No audio format has a mean of recovering lost data from corrupt files (although some may be able to still play them) neither should they.
You need special data recovery software and/or hardware for that and even that may fail depending on the reason of corruption.

If you want to make sure your files stay untouched use checksums (md5sum or sha1sum in terminal).

[wsonar]

you loose quality when you convert down wav, flac, ogg to mp3

when you convert back mp3 to wav, flac, ogg you don't gain quality back

[corney91]

I'm going to throw in my 2 cents since reading this thread has a lot of misinformation thrown around. Some people are correct, but lack a half decent explanation.

Converting mp3 to flac is entirely pointless. You won't be gaining sound quality. The post talking about taking a 100x100 picture and saving it as 1000x1000 is fairly accurate. It won't make it any better just because it's bigger in size. To get a proper 1000x1000 picture, you need an original raw source instead of a compressed image. Same goes for sound. Starting out as flac then going to mp3 makes sense, but the other way around is exactly like the analogy.


To answer your questions though:

1. The size of the file will increase probably 3-10 times the size of your current mp3 files depending on the bitrate. It is re-encoding it to flac by converting your mp3 to wav then back to flac.

2. Audio quality _shouldn't_ decrease, but you won't gain ANY increase in quality. You would need to start fresh if you want to get a perfect lossless quality encode.

3. Depends on how you converted them. I've never had that great of luck converting files and keeping tags, but I know in Windows using the FLAC frontend, there is an option to keep tags. I can't promise they will keep the proper tagging though.

4. Converting from mp3 -> flac -> mp3 _WILL_ sound worse then your original mp3. It's trying to renencode your song again from flac which over time will degrade the quality of your mp3 to noticeable differences.


Oh, and your mp3's won't degrade over time. I think you're getting mixed up with reencoding them. If you burn those mp3's to a CD, then rerip them back to your computer as mp3 it will over time (sooner then you think) have a massive decrease in sound quality and you WILL notice it. I'll repeat it once again for added effect. Start fresh for flac. As for moving the files around between drives and having them degrade...won't happen. A file should be exactly the same bit for bit as long as the copying goes smoothly. If the file is interrupted while copying/transferring or your computer is shutdown abruptly you may end up with corrupted files. This would effect flac as well as mp3 (basically any file for that matter).

tl;dr I HIGHLY SUGGEST STARTING FRESH. PLEASE DON'T TRANSCODE TO FLAC.

Note: I would also look into reading about Transcoding on Wikipedia, or at least skimming through it.
Well said :D
RussianVodka, this answers your question and more :)

i think people keep missing the point here.

he doesn't expect to get better quality, he is under the impression that mp3 quality will degrade over time through moving the files around (NOT through re-encoding) and that flac will not do this.

i've no idea if the mp3 thing is true. i've never heard of it but then i haven't heard of lots of stuff. but people need to answer his question and not tell him something he already knows (that doing this will not, under any circumstances, give him a better quality file to listen to)
The bit I've put in bold in pickboy's post answers this ;)

[Post Monkeh]

Well said :D
RussianVodka, this answers your question and more :)

The bit I've put in bold in pickboy's post answers this ;)

it only went into his post after i'd made mine ;)

[corney91]

it only went into his post after i'd made mine ;)

Oh, haha, now I see :D

[Mike'sHardLinux]

I would argue that you're better off keeping the MP3s as-is. Conversion processes can sometimes introduce audible artifacts into the finished file, so your FLAC file could potentially be worse than the source MP3.

[NightwishFan]

I do not think flac would, because it checksums the input file. It will fail if the checksums do not match.

[FuturePilot]

you loose quality when you convert down wav, flac, ogg to mp3

when you convert back mp3 to wav, flac, ogg you don't gain quality back

ogg is lossy.

[cascade9]

tl;dr I HIGHLY SUGGEST STARTING FRESH. PLEASE DON'T TRANSCODE TO FLAC.

+1 to your whole post pickboy...and +1,000,000 to 'please dont transcode'.


ogg is lossy.

Ogg is a container format. You can put a flac into an ogg container (an 'ogg-flac') but I've never seen one in 'the wild' so to speak.

Ogg vorbis, which is what most people mean when they say 'ogg' is lossy though...so near enough.

[mister_pink]

I think I actually understand what you're saying. I have some very old audio files on my computer that have been transferred around numerous times between disks etc and have got slightly corrupted so that there are now artifacts in them. I have some image files with the same issue so I think at some point they have been kept on a failing drive.

However I don't think flac will help with this, it has error checking when it is streamed but not usually.

If you're really that concerned take checksums and use them before and after you move things around. And keep a backup too.

[cascade9]

However I don't think flac will help with this, it has error checking when it is streamed but not usually.

If you're really that concerned take checksums and use them before and after you move things around. And keep a backup too.

Flac might not error check on playing, but it always has an internal checksum that has tool for checking it with windows, macOS and linux. Its one the great strenghts of teh .flac format IMO. I really wish that .ogg vorbis would put a similar system into place. Not that I use .ogg vorbis much, but it would be a worthwhile feature that would only take up a few extra bytes of space.

[koleoptero]

Mp3s have had checksums for some time now (lame enc).

[cascade9]

Mp3s have had checksums for some time now (lame enc).

As an option, not as part of the original specification. Also the MP3s must have been ripped with LAME, it wont work with MP3s ripped with oterh tools (which are still pretty common) As far as I know, the checksuming on MP3s is not as easy to test as .flac checksums as well.