I see a few audio converters offering the possibility to convert mp3 music files to lossless.... is that actually possible, or will one end up simply having a bigger mp3 file of the same quality? Thanks
correct, you will just be increasing the size with 0 benefit in terms of quality. You cannot enhance the source file, only downgrade / compress it.
That's right. MP3 is by definition a lossy format, and when converting you should never go from lossy (MP3) to lossless (FLAC) -- only from lossless to lossy.
MP3 is lossy (sacrifices some quality for size). Where should the missing parts come from? The best would be to re-convert from the original source (WAV or similar uncompressed format). Never use MP3 if you don't have access to the original source, anymore. Converting between lossless formats is freely possible, without consequences.
Thank you all. I started collecting digital music a long while ago, and of course, then mp3 was great... Nowadays many any records are no longer available... Aaah! The curse of the expenisve headphones strikes again!
Hi, FLAC is a lossless audio file. It is similar to MP3 but the difference between these 2 formats is FLAC file compress the file size without changing the quality of audio. It can compress an audio file up to half of its original size using lossless compression algorithm. I had used Stellar Converter for Audio Video converts audio/video files into popular audio/Video format. The software converts MP4 to MP3 , MPG to MP3, FLV to MP3, etc. The converted files can be played on a range of audio players, without any compatibility problem.
I changed over a couple of years ago from mp3 to m4a (aac encoding). Aac is much newer than mp3, and consequently quite a bit better. Unless you have a really old device, the m4a (aac) files should play back just fine. Mind you, I have not reencoded all of my old mp3 files, as there would be a further loss. But when adding new material, I always use the Fraunhofer FDK AAC encoder, libfdk_aac.
I do not think so.... As others have repeated, whatever you do to an mp3 file, you can get nothing out, that is not in them in the first place. I asked the question because I wanted to make sure that my logic is not flawed. As it would be a lot simpler to convert files I already have, than find and get them from the internet again.
Technically it is possible to 'convert' a lossy format back to lossless. But it doesn't make sense. The contents that have been removed when you converted to lossy are lost anyway. They are just 'filled up'. The same happens when you 'convert' from a lower quality to a higher quality. For instance converting MP3 192 kbps CBR (constant bit rate) to MP3 320 kbps CBR. Or VBR (variable bit rate) to CBR. What also doesn't make sense is to convert from one lossy format (i.e. MP3) to another one (AAC). Each algorithm to save data is different. Mp3 uses another one than AAC for instance. By converting different lossy formats you even can get more disadvantages since the algorithms do not match. You always should start to convert by using a lossless format. What you could do is to convert the same lossy format from a higher quality to a lower quality. Anyway the result is still a bit different as when you'd convert directly from a lossless source. The reason is that the algo relates to a different source anyway. The source is analysed and the algo then 'decides' what can be saved. WAV / FLAC-->MP3 192 WAV / FLAC--->MP3 320---->MP3 192 And there are 'hires' shops out there which sell hires formats which were obtained by upsampling. Those are actually fake since the data is not original from the record studio. For instance they offer 24 bit 48 kHz FLAC, but it had been upsampled from 16 bit 44.1 kHz. To spot such fake you need to dig into the waveforms, takes a lot of efforts to spot the 'filled up bits'. A common audio CD is PCM 16 bit 44.1 kHz. Their 'rip' results to wav files. This is the quality you usually have. From there 'common' music sellers do convert. But there are also shops offering more and more real studio master quality. It's a quality 'above' common audio CD. At sites such as bandcamp you even can choose your favourite format once you have purchased the tracks. I am old school. I purchase CD audio if available. Then I rip them to FLAC using a decent freeware ripper. EAC (exact audio copy). Its configuration is advanced. But once you know how it works it delivers accurate rips.When ripping a CD audio many people are not aware that you can do some mistakes. CD-Audio is quite different than data files. It's a completely different format. CD-Audio is more like raw and a stream. Also error corrections play a role (scratches on CD).. I have embedded native mp3 and FLAC converters into EAC and convert to what I like (usually FLAC). Then I tag them accurately and add the front cover into the files.
Thank you, very interesting comment. I was totally unaware that CDs were again quite a different thing. The whole problem here in the thread was my fault, because my question was not very precise. What I did want to ask was of course: Does it make any sense to try to convert mp3 to flac. I did ask, because I had attempted to do that, and unsurprisingly, could not find any difference. So I wanted that confirmed... Thanks again to everyone...
In Windows 9x times, there was actually a patch to a Windows system file, allowing to show the tracks on Audio CDs, directly, so you could copy them to HDD. For ripping to FLAC I use also EAC. You have to scan your optical drive for its capabilities and overread (lead and tail) settings. For ripping to MP3 (if required), I found EAC in conjunction with the LAME encoder (VBR) working best. The number one reason for EAC is its feature to read out even badly scratched discs, getting the best out of it. Awesome results, together with a good Audio reader (I still have TEAC CD532EA, TEAC CD532EB, TEAC 540E and Plextor units, in case anyone remembers those). Edit: There are some later Audio CDs featuring copy and Rip protection (e. g. Cactus Audio Shield or Key2Audio, there are more). Some can be defeated with a simple Fineliner pen.
The question is if one can hear a difference at all. Let's assume you have a real FLAC. And a conversion to MP3 (320 CBR). If you can't hear a difference you also would not hear one when 'converting' the MP3 back to FLAC. It just blows up space. What's lost is lost. And if the difference doesn't matter before it doesn't matter after as well. And if there is a difference you can hear (original FLAC to MP3) then the difference will remain when converting back. The 'fake FLAC obtained from back-conversion' still would have the same attributes than the MP3. Lame and native FLAC encoder. Also here a decent drive (old LG) which is capable of accurate stream and C2 error correction.