flac to mp3
Smooth Operator
Bear Bottoms
<murp...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Where can I find a free flac to mp3 converter? I've looked everywhere! :)
>
>
This is what my boys do:
You need:
1. Winamp http://www.winamp.com/player/free.php
2. the Flac with library support plug-in for Winamp
http://www.winamp.com/plugins/details.php?id=143614
3. iTunes http://www.apple.com/itunes/
Decode the .flac’s into .wav files with WinAmp.
Encode the .wav files into .mp3’s with iTunes.
They get very good quality.
--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website: http://bearbottoms1.com
jon
Smooth Operator wrote:
>Where can I find a free flac to mp3 converter?
Mediacoder
elaich
news:F8KdnQ5Dze3NuBHb...@insightbb.com:
> Where can I find a free flac to mp3 converter? I've looked everywhere!
> :)
You must not have looked very far.
--
A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
Bear Bottoms
> "Smooth Operator" <murp...@insightbb.com> wrote in
> news:F8KdnQ5Dze3NuBHb...@insightbb.com:
>
>> Where can I find a free flac to mp3 converter? I've looked everywhere!
>> :)
>
> You must not have looked very far.
>
Ah, elaich and Yrrah...top assholes of ACF.
Franklin
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:55:39 -0500, Smooth Operator
> <murp...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> Where can I find a free flac to mp3 converter? I've looked
>> everywhere! :)
>>
>>
> This is what my boys do:
>
> You need:
>
> 1. Winamp http://www.winamp.com/player/free.php
> 2. the Flac with library support plug-in for Winamp
> http://www.winamp.com/plugins/details.php?id=143614
> 3. iTunes http://www.apple.com/itunes/
>
> Decode the .flac’s into .wav files with WinAmp.
> Encode the .wav files into .mp3’s with iTunes.
>
> They get very good quality.
>
That sort of double transcoding is a recipe for lost quality. And it
takes two step when one would have done. Maybe your boys are too
young to know better.
This is more work and the result is poorer than direct transcoding.
You are, with respect, older and grayer and what you consider "very
good quality" may not be very good quality for those with younger and
more sensisitve ears and who seek a higher standard of fidelity.
Bear Bottoms
wrote:
> "Bear Bottoms" <bearbo...@gmai.com>:
>
>> top assholes
>
> Anal fixation.
>
> Yrrah
That's what I was thinking. You have a mirror attached to your shoe, the
bottom of your bathtub is mirrored, and you take a shit standing on your
head. Dang :) You could get your foot outta your mouth if your head wasn't
firmly up your ass ;)
Bear Bottoms
wrote:
> "Bear Bottoms" <bearbo...@gmai.com>:
>
>> 1. Winamp
>> 3. iTunes
>
> I see you like bloatware, some 55 MB for a simple flac to mp3
> conversion. Is it to compensate for your other problem?
> Let me see, I recommended CDex (2.3 MB, including the Lame mp3
> encoder) and in_flac.dll (100 KB) = 2.4 MB to do the same job, and do
> it well.
> Some 'freeware researcher' you are.
>
> http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/
> http://www.rarewares.org/lossless.php
>
> Yrrah
>
My boys have tried some of those. They claim they get better sound quality
their way.
Duddits
<murp...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>Where can I find a free flac to mp3 converter? I've looked everywhere! :)
>
Foobar2000
http://www.foobar2000.org/
regards
Dud
MAMEngineer
> You are, with respect, older and grayer and what you consider "very
> good quality" may not be very good quality for those with younger and
> more sensisitve ears and who seek a higher standard of fidelity.
If they are seeking a higher level of fidelity then why on earth would they
convert FLAC(Lossless, perfect clarity) to MP3(very lossy, dodgy clarity at
best)?????
Roger Hunt
out the words anyway.
--
Roger Hunt
Franklin
By "higher level of fidelity", I am saying that a higher level of
quality will be obtained in this example from a single transcoding
operation than from two transcoding operations.
Presumably someone is creating MP3 because their audio player can
recognise only a limited number of file types (eg. MP3 and not FLAC) or
has only a limited storage capacity and needs to use compressed audio
files.
Excellent as (lossless) FLAC is, (lossy) MP3 can achieve quite passable
results if the bitrate is kept high enough. Transcoding twice to get
the MP3 adds unnecessary artefacts.
Franklin
And sometimes not even the tune?
Heh!
Franklin
Your boys probably lack guidance in doing this properly or perhaps
they are too inexperienced to know what a decent level of quality
means.
If neither you nor your boys are recommending their method then it's
hard to see why you are posting it here.
You often make claims to research freeware so why haven't you
researched how transcoding freeware works before you posted?
dadiOH
> On 05 Jul 2007, Bear Bottoms <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:55:39 -0500, Smooth Operator
>> <murp...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Where can I find a free flac to mp3 converter? I've looked
>>> everywhere! :)
>>>
>>>
>> This is what my boys do:
>>
>> You need:
>>
>> 1. Winamp http://www.winamp.com/player/free.php
>> 2. the Flac with library support plug-in for Winamp
>> http://www.winamp.com/plugins/details.php?id=143614
>> 3. iTunes http://www.apple.com/itunes/
>>
>> Encode the .wav files into .mp3ā?Ts with iTunes.
>>
>> They get very good quality.
>>
>
> That sort of double transcoding is a recipe for lost quality. And
> it takes two step when one would have done.
Wave is the lingua franca of digital music...transcoding *always* goes
from format #1 to wave to format #2.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
dadiOH
> On 05 Jul 2007, MAMEngineer <a...@ndrecei.ve> wrote:
>
>> Franklin wrote:
>>
>>> You are, with respect, older and grayer and what you consider
>>> "very good quality" may not be very good quality for those with
>>> younger and more sensisitve ears and who seek a higher standard of
>>> fidelity.
>>
>> If they are seeking a higher level of fidelity then why on earth
>> would they convert FLAC(Lossless, perfect clarity) to MP3(very
>> lossy, dodgy clarity at best)?????
>>
>
> By "higher level of fidelity", I am saying that a higher level of
> quality will be obtained in this example from a single transcoding
> operation than from two transcoding operations.
By "two" do you mean FLAC > wave > MP3? If so, you are incorrect
because that is the way it is *always* done. When using the soft you
suggested - in_flac & CDex - the in_flac is a decoder...it decodes the
FLAC to wave and that wave is then encoded to whatever format has been
selected.
People don't seem to realize that compressed music files are analogous
to zip files...zip files have to be unzipped to interact with the
previously zipped contents and music files are the same except they
have to be decoded to wave. No decoding, no interaction...no
encoding, no playing, no nothin'. Compressed music files are a
"shorthand" representation of a wave.
dadiOH
> "dadiOH" <dad...@guesswhere.com>:
>
>> People don't seem to realize that compressed music files are
>> analogous to zip files...
>
In my context, it applies to *any* "compressed" music files. MP3, for
example is a shortened and shorthand representation of the wave from
which it was made...to do anything with a wave, it must first be
decoded to a wave, extrapolating the parts that were discarded during
encoding.
Bear Bottoms
wrote:
> Duddits <Dud...@Dreamcatcher.net>:
>
>> >Where can I find a free flac to mp3 converter? I've looked everywhere!
>> :)
>> >
>> Foobar2000
>> http://www.foobar2000.org/
>
> I have Foobar2000, but mp3 compression settings are almost absent;
> it's a lousy interface for Lame. CDex provides a much better and much
> more versatile GUI for Lame.
>
> Yrrah
I list Foobar on my website as a good player. There are better quality
ways to convert.
Bear Bottoms
wrote:
> "dadiOH" <dad...@guesswhere.com>:
>
>> >> People don't seem to realize that compressed music files are
>> >> analogous to zip files...
>> >
>> > The analogy applies to lossless compression.
>>
>> In my context, it applies to *any* "compressed" music files. MP3, for
>> example is a shortened and shorthand representation of the wave from
>> which it was made...to do anything with a wave, it must first be
>> decoded to a wave, extrapolating the parts that were discarded during
>> encoding.
>
> Fundamentally wrong. ZIP and FLAC leave the information content
> unaltered, MP3 compression removes a lot of information. That
> knowledge is particularly important when someone wants to convert from
> one lossy format to another (unwise!), which leads to double loss off
> information and thus to reduced sound quality.
>
> Yrrah
>
So what do you think produces the best FLAC to MP3 conversion?
Franklin
Hello Dadioh,
I think you are getting me mixed up with someone else as I have not
recommended nor have I mentioned "in_flac" and "CDex".
I do understand that an audio editor will use its own intermediate
representation of the music. An audio converter (transcoder) should not
but may do so for commonality between audio formats.
You will know as well as I do that the term "WAV" can be interpreted too
quickly as "WAVE PCD" when there are several variants of WAVE
(incuding the unusual WAV-MP3 which replays surprisingly well!
http://wavemp3.videoripper.org/)
F
Franklin
> Yrrah wrote:
>> "dadiOH" <dad...@guesswhere.com>:
>>
>>> People don't seem to realize that compressed music files are
>>> analogous to zip files...
>>
>> The analogy applies to lossless compression.
>
> In my context, it applies to *any* "compressed" music files. MP3, for
> example is a shortened and shorthand representation of the wave from
> which it was made...to do anything with a wave, it must first be
> decoded to a wave, extrapolating the parts that were discarded during
> encoding.
>
>
I am a bit puzzled when you say, "To do anything with a wave, it must
first be decoded to a wave, extrapolating the parts that were discarded
during encoding".
Perhaps you are referring to WAVE IMA-ADPCM or WAVE MS-ADPCM which are
slightly compressed formats as opposed to WAVE-PCM which is
uncompressed.
dadiOH
> "dadiOH" <dad...@guesswhere.com>:
>
>>>> People don't seem to realize that compressed music files are
>>>> analogous to zip files...
>>>
>>> The analogy applies to lossless compression.
>>
>> In my context, it applies to *any* "compressed" music files. MP3,
>> for example is a shortened and shorthand representation of the
>> wave from which it was made...to do anything with a wave, it must
>> first be decoded to a wave, extrapolating the parts that were
>> discarded during encoding.
>
No, not at all.
____________
> ZIP and FLAC leave the information content unaltered,
Yes, I know. Ditto for any other non-lossy format such as LPAC, SHN,
etc.
________________
> MP3 compression removes a lot of information.
I know that too.
_________________
> That knowledge is particularly important when someone wants to
convert
> from one lossy format to another (unwise!), which leads to double
> loss off information and thus to reduced sound quality.
And that.
___________________
The whole point of my post was to point out that the conversion of one
format - lossy or not - requires that the format being converted be
decoded to wave before/during conversion.
The person to whom I was replying seemed to feel that decoding
something to wave and then re-encoding it resulted in a worse
re-encoding than "doing it in one step". He said...
"By "higher level of fidelity", I am saying that a higher level of
quality will be obtained in this example from a single transcoding
operation than from two transcoding operations."
and that simply is not correct since he was talking about going to
wave as the first operation, to lossy format as the second.
dadiOH
> On 05 Jul 2007, dadiOH <dad...@guesswhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Yrrah wrote:
>>> "dadiOH" <dad...@guesswhere.com>:
>>>
>>>> People don't seem to realize that compressed music files are
>>>> analogous to zip files...
>>>
>>> The analogy applies to lossless compression.
>>
>> In my context, it applies to *any* "compressed" music files. MP3,
>> for example is a shortened and shorthand representation of the
>> wave from which it was made...to do anything with a wave, it must
>> first be decoded to a wave, extrapolating the parts that were
>> discarded during encoding.
>>
>>
>
> I am a bit puzzled when you say, "To do anything with a wave, it
> must first be decoded to a wave, extrapolating the parts that were
> discarded during encoding".
I can understand your confusion...it was a case on non-coordinated
mind and fingers, should read (in context) "To do anything with an
*MP3*...". The same applies to any non- wave file.
Bear Bottoms
wrote:
> "Bear Bottoms" <bearbo...@gmai.com>:
>
>> So what do you think produces the best FLAC to MP3 conversion?
>
> I think most people would be happy with CDex. It uses the Lame encoder
> (already included in the CDex package) and the WinAmp in_flac.dll
> decoder. CDex can do the conversion in one go (for the user). I have
> not looked into it, but it may even transfer tag information iirc.
> If you have very specific and relatively unusual requirements you may
> want to chose something else.
>
> Yrrah
You, er haven't looked into it?
dadiOH
Yes, I did.
____________
> I do understand that an audio editor will use its own intermediate
> representation of the music. An audio converter (transcoder)
> should not but may do so for commonality between audio formats.
In reference to digital music, *anything* must first decode whatever
format to standard wave (PCM, which is Window's standard).
Franklin
> Franklin wrote:
>
> I can understand your confusion...it was a case on non-coordinated
> mind and fingers,
You get that too? I thought it was just me. Heh!
Franklin
Dadioh, what you say is in principle perfectly correct but in
practise it does not always seem to work out so straightforwardly.
I've just posted to someone in ACF about Audacity and referene a
thread which discusses how using Audacity on an incoming WAV and then
saving the WAV can result in a material change to the WAV on account
of "side-issues" when the sample rate gets changed.
See http://tinyurl.com/2t6p39 Odd huh?
dadiOH
> Dadioh, what you say is in principle perfectly correct but in
> practise it does not always seem to work out so straightforwardly.
I don't know what you mean. All I'm saying is that to
re-encode/transpose/manipulate/play/etc. a music file, that file is
first decoded to wave (if it is not already wave).
________________
> I've just posted to someone in ACF about Audacity and referene a
> thread which discusses how using Audacity on an incoming WAV and
> then saving the WAV can result in a material change to the WAV on
> account of "side-issues" when the sample rate gets changed.
>
> See http://tinyurl.com/2t6p39 Odd huh?
I have no comment except that the vast majority of problems with
anything are attributable to user error.
MAMEngineer
> There are valid questions to ask why go from Flac to MP3 (maybe
> he wants to produce CDs to play in the car?)
You'll get complete lossless hi-fidelity sound going from FLAC to CD. You
can't do the same going from MP3 to CD.
> but it's not true to say that MP3 is "very lossy, dodgy clarity at best".
It is very true.
> That's more of a technical argument than anything else.
Yes. Technically, FLAC is LOSSLESS. MP3 is LOSSY. Any conversion to MP3
results in loss of sonic quality. To some peoples ears, that loss is
meaningless. To others, it can ruin a song.
> Lame produces HQ VBR files which sound virtually indistinguishable
> from the original wavs
Not possible.
> in fact very often they are better than the commercial CD quality.
Not possible.
> It all depends on the quality of the wav you start with and it takes
> time to clean and adjust etc before encoding.
WAV quality has some weight, but an MP3 will not sound as good as the WAV
it's generated from, and in no way will ever sound better.
Franklin
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:54:04 +0100 'Franklin' posted this onto
> alt.comp.freeware:
>
>>On 05 Jul 2007, dadiOH <dad...@guesswhere.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> The whole point of my post was to point out that the conversion
>>> of one format - lossy or not - requires that the format being
>>> converted be decoded to wave before/during conversion.
>>>
>>> The person to whom I was replying seemed to feel that decoding
>>> something to wave and then re-encoding it resulted in a worse
>>> re-encoding than "doing it in one step". He said...
>>>
>>> "By "higher level of fidelity", I am saying that a higher level
>>> of quality will be obtained in this example from a single
>>> transcoding operation than from two transcoding operations."
>>>
>>> and that simply is not correct since he was talking about going
>>> to wave as the first operation, to lossy format as the second.
>>>
>
>>Dadioh, what you say is in principle perfectly correct but in
>>practise it does not always seem to work out so straightforwardly.
>>
>>I've just posted to someone in ACF about Audacity and referene a
>>thread which discusses how using Audacity on an incoming WAV and
>>then saving the WAV can result in a material change to the WAV on
>>account of "side-issues" when the sample rate gets changed.
>>
>>See http://tinyurl.com/2t6p39 Odd huh?
>
> Nothing odd about it Franco, it's probably a straightforward
> malfunction within Audacity when it changes the sample rate of a
> wav file. I don't have that problem when I use Cool Edit - but
> that's a payware program.
>
>
> From the debate you linked to (dated Jan/2006):
>
> "The key appears to be the way that Audacity converts from one
> sample rate to another."
>
> I'd agree with that comment at first pass.
>
> But none of that changes what dadiOH says that there is no such
> thing as a one-step conversion from Flac to MP3 ...you have to go
> thru wav en route even though it might appear transparent to the
> end user.
>
There is a difference between:
(a) converting from flac to WAV and then taking the WAV and converting
it to MP3
(b) converting from flac to MP3.
(a1) The sampling rate and bit depth of the WAV may be mismatched with
respect to the sampling rate and the bit depth specified for the flac.
And similarly, the sampling rate and bit depth of the WAV may be
mismatched with respect to the sampling rate and the bit depth specified
for the MP3.
http://extra.benchmarkmedia.com/wiki/index.php/Sample-rate shows
distortion (from quantisation errors) caused by sample rate conversion.
(a2) When one says WAV then one usually means PCM which is, of course,
an uncompressed format. However WAV can very often contain ADPCM rather
than PCM and ADPCM is a compressed format, albeit only very slightly
compressed. Assumptions about the PCM encoding scheme inside the
created WAV may not be true because many people consider ADPCM WAVs to
be good enough to be a top class WAV. For ex. MP3 players which record
often create ACPCM encoded audio which they glibly call WAV. That idea
wouldn't work here.
(b1) Of course (b) uses an intermediate internal representation of the
audio but this representation would be consistent with the input and
output in a way that (a1) or (a2) is not.
As for the OP's question in this thread, it seems the extra time is a
glitch in Audacity. I too don't get that result in my $$$ware audio
editors.
MAMEngineer
> (b) converting from flac to MP3.
There is no such thing as conversion from FLAC to MP3. The FLAC *has* to be
expanded to WAV before it can be reduced to MP3.
Franklin
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 23:00:22 +0100 'Franklin'
> Only in the sense that (a) would be a visible two-step process and
> (b) might *look like* one-step process but is still two-steps in
> reality.
>
>
> I repeat:
> In both cases, you have to go through .wav first; there's no
> alternative. Some programs *make it look* like a one-step process
> eg AudioGrabber and many others.
>
>>(a1) The sampling rate and bit depth of the WAV may be mismatched
>>with respect to the sampling rate and the bit depth specified for
>>the flac. And similarly, the sampling rate and bit depth of the
>>WAV may be mismatched with respect to the sampling rate and the bit
>>depth specified for the MP3.
>
> That comment has little to do with converting from Flac to MP3 per
> se. Is this your 'Random Rubbish Generator' at work again Franco?
>
>>http://extra.benchmarkmedia.com/wiki/index.php/Sample-rate shows
>>distortion (from quantisation errors) caused by sample rate
>>conversion.
>
> Glory Be! Another of your distractions...
> That link refers to the general process of sample rate conversion
> and the technical issues involved, *not* conversion from Flac to
> MP3 which is what this debate is about and what you are blathering
> about.
>
>>(a2) When one says WAV then one usually means PCM which is, of
>>course, an uncompressed format. However WAV can very often contain
>>ADPCM rather than PCM and ADPCM is a compressed format, albeit only
>>very slightly compressed. Assumptions about the PCM encoding
>>scheme inside the created WAV may not be true because many people
>>consider ADPCM WAVs to be good enough to be a top class WAV. For
>>ex. MP3 players which record often create ACPCM encoded audio which
>>they glibly call WAV. That idea wouldn't work here.
>
> Yet more...
>
>>(b1) Of course (b) uses an intermediate internal representation of
>>the audio but this representation would be consistent with the
>>input and output in a way that (a1) or (a2) is not.
>
> Glory Be! ...still more
>
It is very gratifying to receive your denigration. It shows you have no
technical argument to use instead. Or perhaps you have found a way to
(a) make all WAVs have the same format or (b) avoid any quantisation
distortion (that would be a real breakthrough in audio theory).
You seem firmly attached to the notion that the output WAV of one
conversion must be in the same format and with the same sample rate and
same bit rate as the intended MP3 which will come out of the second
conversion.
>>As for the OP's question in this thread, it seems the extra time is
>>a glitch in Audacity. I too don't get that result in my $$$ware
>>audio editors.
>
> ho ho. Is that not what I posted earlier???
All you have done is make a comments that some non-freeware did not do
it. Wel we all know that because it only happens in Audacity because of
a glitch. It makes no difference even if you somehow seem impelled to
talk about your $$$ware.
>
> How nice that you've tucked away your agreement with me at the end
> where you hope others might not see it!
>
And there I was thinking that the end of a bottom-posting is the bit
which stands out. Maybe you are used to top posting?
> The issue that you raised in your previous post to deflect
> attention away from the small fact that you appear to know
> little/nothing about digital audio, is most likely a fault with
> Audacity, *not* an inherent consequence of sample rate conversion.
There are two topics here and you seem to be struggling to keep them
apart in your head.
If you know as much about digital audio as you do about pixel dimensions
then I can see I am wasting my time trying to grind any theory into you.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
>
> As I said I don't get that problem using (payware) Cool Edit.
> I've done many many sample rate conversions in CE w/o problems.
>
Good for you. Not do I get the problem as I have said. I do not use
out of date $$$ware but the current Audition.
> Franco, some people here know about digital audio - dadiOH does
> for sure, myself and doubtless others. Sadly you have lots to
> learn. I suggest you float away, do some research and stop
> blustering.
DadiOh has always know a lot about digital audio. You seem to have an
interest but no real knowledge.
Franklin
> Franklin wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
> There is no such thing as conversion from FLAC to MP3. The FLAC
> *has* to be expanded to WAV before it can be reduced to MP3.
>
>
WAV? Do you mean PCM?
In fact, there are several choices for the uncompressed internal
audio representation in a converter application. For example, AIFF
(apple), BWF (Euro broadcast) or AU (Sun) or whatever the designer
wishes.
---
Here is a recent posting by an NCH Switch developer talking about
WAVEPAD:
"WavePad automatically converts any audio file you open to our own
internal uncompressed audio format, so doing this conversion yourself
is not needed. If you know you are going to work on a file again you
should save it in an uncompressed (lossless) format"
Just so you don't miss it I will point out, "WavePad automatically
converts any audio file you open to our own internal uncompressed
audio format".
This is a WAV editor but it does not work on WAV internally.
Similarly a transcoder/converter can use its own internal
uncompressed format.
flac...@1step.com
> Franklin wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
> There is no such thing as conversion from FLAC to MP3. The FLAC
> *has* to be expanded to WAV before it can be reduced to MP3.
>
>
Your reply implies at some point a wave file exist in the process. Not sure what software you use,
but never once in my converting of flac to mp3 have I ever had a wav file as a result.
Input = Flac, Output = MP3 and never a wav file exist on my PC.
I am not sayin there is not software that allows you to do it two distinct steps, just that
when I convert, never does a wave file exist nor any temp file of any sort. If you can go from wave to mp3,
there is no technical reason you can't go from flac to mp3.
--
--------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v3.8 Final
Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
------------------- ----- ---- -- -
flac...@1step.com
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> The whole point of my post was to point out that the conversion
>>>> of one format - lossy or not - requires that the format being
>>>> converted be decoded to wave before/during conversion.
>>>>
Do you think that when a player plays a flac file it decodes it to wave file before it can play it? No,
it decodes it in memory and the same thing can be and is done converting any lossless format to a MP3.
MAMEngineer
> Input = Flac, Output = MP3 and never a wav file exist on my PC.
What software do you use?
Franklin
> Technical argument for what?
> Converting Flac to MP3 is not a technical issue per se Franco.
>
> Just get yourself a program or two and do it ...and stop saying
> that it's a one-step process because it isn't.
>
>>Or perhaps you have found a way to
>>(a) make all WAVs have the same format or (b) avoid any
>>quantisation distortion (that would be a real breakthrough in audio
>>theory).
>
>
> If you reduce the s/rate, samples are thrown away.
> If you increase the s/rate, new samples must be added in.
>
You can quite easily get quantisation errors especially if up or doen-
sampling is not done in multiples. Quantisation errors are heard as
distortion.
All this reminds me how you couldn't understand dimensionaility with
respect to jpegs. I even linked to you a school information website
where it was explain at a level for 14 year olds. You still didn't
understand.
Resizing jpegs too can introduce quantisation errors. But don't you get
inolved in that. The math is too hard. Stick to getting a better
understanding of dimensions of units.
You are so know-it-all that mere facts seem unable penetrate your
defenses.
> Is it noticeable to the human ear? Probably not depending on
> what s/w is used and what the source/target files are.
>
You are now old and if you cannot hear distortion which younger ears
others can then that does not mean the distortion is not audible. It
just means that an old man like you can not hear it.
>>You seem firmly attached to the notion that the output WAV of one
>>conversion must be in the same format and with the same sample rate
>>and same bit rate as the intended MP3 which will come out of the
>>second conversion.
>
> I have never said that. But my guess is that a Flac decoded back to
> .wav will most likely end up as 44.1 PCM s/rate-ie a standard
> wavfile.
>
A 44.1kHz sample rate PCM is not a standard wave file. This is a rate
used for CDs but there is nothing at all about CD audio encoding which
makes such a standard also into a standard for the internals of PC
application.
You seem to be confusing the fact that some forms of PCM are
uncompressed and therefore, you seem to think, it simply must be PCM
which is used to represent audio inside an audio transcoder. That is
just crap.
In fact I posted info about this in ACF only a day or two ago. I quoted
from a recent posting by an NCH Switch developer who was explaining
about WAVEPAD:
"WavePad automatically converts any audio file you
open to our own internal uncompressed audio format,
so doing this conversion yourself is not needed.
Hummingbird, you don't miss it I will point out that: "WavePad
automatically converts any audio file you open to our own internal
uncompressed audio format".
So this is a WAV editor but it does *not* use WAV-PCM internally.
Similarly an audio transcoder/converter does not have to use WAV-PCM
internally.
It can use its own internal uncompressed format and in fact there are
many choices for uncompressed internal audio in a format converter.
For instance: AIFF (originally Apple), BWF originally Euro broadcast) or
AU (originally Sun) or indeed whatever the designer wishes.
>>>>As for the OP's question in this thread, it seems the extra time
>>>>is a glitch in Audacity. I too don't get that result in my
>>>>$$$ware audio editors.
>>>
>>> ho ho. Is that not what I posted earlier???
>>
>>All you have done is make a comments that some non-freeware did not
>>do it. Wel we all know that because it only happens in Audacity
>>because of a glitch. It makes no difference even if you somehow
>>seem impelled to talk about your $$$ware.
>
> Your Random Rubbish Generator is hard at work again.
All I have to say is this:
Jpeg
Non-dimensionality of pixels.
Schoolchild understanding.
Hummingbird perplexed.
>>> How nice that you've tucked away your agreement with me at the
>>> end where you hope others might not see it!
>>>
>>
>>And there I was thinking that the end of a bottom-posting is the
>>bit which stands out. Maybe you are used to top posting?
>
> No. But it's amusing that after posting yards of stuff, you slipped
> in a comment about Audacity as though it was your own opinion, when
> in fact you were just agreeing with my own earlier comments.
> Cunning or what?
>
What a twat.
There, that's at the end of thisposting and according to your theory
neither you nor anyone else will be inclined to read it as it is so far
down the posting.
What an idiot.
dadiOH
> On 08 Jul 2007, MAMEngineer <a...@ndrecei.ve> wrote:
>
>> Franklin wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> There is no such thing as conversion from FLAC to MP3. The FLAC
>> *has* to be expanded to WAV before it can be reduced to MP3.
>>
>>
>
> Your reply implies at some point a wave file exist in the process.
> Not sure what software you use,
> but never once in my converting of flac to mp3 have I ever had a
> wav file as a result.
>
> Input = Flac, Output = MP3 and never a wav file exist on my PC.
>
> I am not sayin there is not software that allows you to do it two
> distinct steps, just that
> when I convert, never does a wave file exist nor any temp file of
> any sort. If you can go from wave to mp3, there is no technical
> reason you can't go from flac to mp3.
You can't play your flac without a decoder. The decoder expands the
data to wave. No wave file need be created.
The same is true when making an MP3...the flac is decoded to wave.
There is no need to create a wave *file* during that process either.
dadiOH
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> The whole point of my post was to point out that the conversion
>>>>> of one format - lossy or not - requires that the format being
>>>>> converted be decoded to wave before/during conversion.
>>>>>
> IT must be decoded sure enough, but why do you think the decoding
> must be to a wave file?
Where does what you quoted say *FILE*? Sheesh!
Franklin
> flac...@1step.com wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>> The whole point of my post was to point out that the
>>>>>> conversion
>>>>>> of one format - lossy or not - requires that the format being
>>>>>> converted be decoded to wave before/during conversion.
>>>>>>
>>
>> IT must be decoded sure enough, but why do you think the decoding
>> must be to a wave file?
>
> Where does what you quoted say *FILE*? Sheesh!
>
DadiOh, I think we know what flac2mp3 means, don't we? I do.
If the internal representation of the audio data is kept in the
system's memory and played from there then it probably aids
understanding to call it a file.
If that data were stored onto a hard drive then it would actually be
a file.
At the moment Hummingbird is having a bit of difficulty with some
basic audio theory and to bring in concepts about computer memory are
likely to occupy most of his attention as he starts to argue about
virtual storage paging or something like that.
You are a good audio man. Do you have any references to the types of
lossless formats used internally. ISTR that a lot of this depends on
the interal audio data format which a DLL chooses and uses. For
example lossless LPAC's DLL uses a 20-bit scheme (and up to 32-bits)
based on MPEG-4 ALS.
Franklin
> flac...@1step.com wrote:
>> On 08 Jul 2007, MAMEngineer <a...@ndrecei.ve> wrote:
>>
>>> Franklin wrote:
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as conversion from FLAC to MP3. The FLAC
>>> *has* to be expanded to WAV before it can be reduced to MP3.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Your reply implies at some point a wave file exist in the process.
>> Not sure what software you use, but never once in my converting of
>> flac to mp3 have I ever had a wav file as a result.
>>
>> Input = Flac, Output = MP3 and never a wav file exist on my PC.
>>
>> I am not sayin there is not software that allows you to do it two
>> distinct steps, just that when I convert, never does a wave file
>> exist nor any temp file of any sort. If you can go from wave to
>> mp3, there is no technical reason you can't go from flac to mp3.
>
> You can't play your flac without a decoder. The decoder expands
> the data to wave. No wave file need be created.
"The decoder expands the data to wave" is inaccurate. Maybe you mean
PCM instead of WAV. But which PCM? And what are it's defining
parameters?
OTOH if a WAV is actually created (as was originally suggested in this
thread) then conversion to that file could quite easily introduct
quantisation errors. Going from that file to the target MP3 is going to
introduce its own set of quantisation errors.
There is nothing special about WAV-PCM. It seems that the standard
audio CD is what many people see as reference quality ~ even though CD
audio is far from true hi-fi. The red book on CDDA defines the
technical parameters of an audio CD but that does not make such a
standard the best there is.
Of course although the PC can extract/rip from a CD and then create WAV
files, the audio on the CD itself is not stored as a WAV file but
something closer to Apple's AIFF.
>
> The same is true when making an MP3...the flac is decoded to wave.
> There is no need to create a wave *file* during that process
> either.
>
Saying "the flac is decoded to wave" is incorrect as internal formats
are not necessarily PCM (Wave).
dadiOH
> On 09 Jul 2007, dadiOH <dad...@guesswhere.com> wrote:
>
>> flac...@1step.com wrote:
>>> On 08 Jul 2007, MAMEngineer <a...@ndrecei.ve> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Franklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as conversion from FLAC to MP3. The FLAC
>>>> *has* to be expanded to WAV before it can be reduced to MP3.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your reply implies at some point a wave file exist in the process.
>>> Not sure what software you use, but never once in my converting of
>>> flac to mp3 have I ever had a wav file as a result.
>>>
>>> Input = Flac, Output = MP3 and never a wav file exist on my PC.
>>>
>>> I am not sayin there is not software that allows you to do it two
>>> distinct steps, just that when I convert, never does a wave file
>>> exist nor any temp file of any sort. If you can go from wave to
>>> mp3, there is no technical reason you can't go from flac to mp3.
>>
>> You can't play your flac without a decoder. The decoder expands
>> the data to wave. No wave file need be created.
>
> "The decoder expands the data to wave" is inaccurate. Maybe you
> mean PCM instead of WAV. But which PCM? And what are it's defining
> parameters?
Good grief! Pedantic, aren't you. Know what? I really don't give a
flying fuck *what* the defining parameters are.
_________________
> There is nothing special about WAV-PCM. It seems that the standard
> audio CD is what many people see as reference quality ~ even though
> CD audio is far from true hi-fi. The red book on CDDA defines the
> technical parameters of an audio CD but that does not make such a
> standard the best there is.
It makes it what we have.
____________
> Of course although the PC can extract/rip from a CD and then create
> WAV files, the audio on the CD itself is not stored as a WAV file
> but something closer to Apple's AIFF.
Which is Apple's version of MS wav.
Ya basta de esto!
flac...@1step.com
<I don't know of any program which can go directly from flac to
<MP3 in one-step w/o decoding the source file first. If you know of
<any program which explicitly claims to do this I'd be interested to
<know about it.
I'm not saying there is or isnt. What I am saying is from a users standpoint.. if the input
is flac and the output is mp3, only one program was used and never did a wave file physically exist, it's one step.
It's one program /one step regardless of the mumber of "logical" processes within the program.
If your going to say the program has inernal steps, then from a programming standpoint each
instruction executed in the program is a frigging step and now your talking 1000's of steps.
How far do you wish to break it down?
Think of it like converting a document of words from one language to another. There might be several processes
involved, translation, sorting.. what have you. But there is one program, one input and one output, it's
correct to think of it or refer to it as one step regardless of the # of internal processes.
To me it seemed the implication was in "some" of the threads adressing this is that a wave file existed
at some point and thus two steps. Hey.. I could have misinterped.
I guess it comed down to how you define a step. For me one program... one step.
I push one button to go from flac to mp3, it's one step for me:)
flac...@1step.com
posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>><snip>
>>
>><I don't know of any program which can go directly from flac to
>><MP3 in one-step w/o decoding the source file first. If you know of
>><any program which explicitly claims to do this I'd be interested to
>><know about it.
>>I'm not saying there is or isnt.
>Ah!.
>>What I am saying is from a users standpoint.. if the input
>>is flac and the output is mp3, only one program was used and never did a wave file physically exist, it's one step.
>Yes it may appear like that but it's still (very) likely that the
>program you use creates a temp working file somewhere which you
>wouldn't see and it would be dumped and cleaned up when the program
>finishes. That's what good programs do.
As a user, I would still view it as one step even if the one program create 15 files. One program / one step.
Look at it another way. If you asked me to reduce 12/24 to its LCD and I scratch out on paper..
12/24 = 6/12 and 6/12 = 1/2 thats two steps for me. However, when I give you my answer from your perspective it's
one step as you have no knowledge of the process I used. I may have reduced in one step or two. It's no different
going from lossless to lossy. For me its all about persective. As a user one step. As a programmer wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
more than two steps.
BTW.. how refreshing to have a conversation on USENET with no flames:)
Have a good one!
Franklin
>>
>>> Franklin wrote:
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as conversion from FLAC to MP3. The FLAC
>>> *has* to be expanded to WAV before it can be reduced to MP3.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Your reply implies at some point a wave file exist in the process.
>>Not sure what software you use, but never once in my converting of
>>flac to mp3 have I ever had a wav file as a result.
>>
>>Input = Flac, Output = MP3 and never a wav file exist on my PC.
>>
>>I am not sayin there is not software that allows you to do it two
>>distinct steps, just that when I convert, never does a wave file
>>exist nor any temp file of any sort. If you can go from wave to
>>mp3, there is no technical reason you can't go from flac to mp3.
>
> I know of no MP3 encoder which doesn't expect wav format input.
> Try loading a flac into Lame and see what happens...
>
You completely miss the point. Maybe it's deliberate. Your comment
has no relevance at all to the poster's points.
Franklin
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:43:55 GMT 'flac...@1step.com'
> posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>> The whole point of my post was to point out that the
>>>>>> conversion of one format - lossy or not - requires that the
>>>>>> format being converted be decoded to wave before/during
>>>>>> conversion.
>>>>>>
>>IT must be decoded sure enough, but why do you think the decoding
>>must be to a wave file?
>>
>>Do you think that when a player plays a flac file it decodes it to
>>wave file before it can play it? No, it decodes it in memory and
>>the same thing can be and is done converting any lossless format to
>>a MP3.
>
> There was no mention of wavFILE just that a flac or MP3 is decoded
> to wav when played.
>
It MAY be decoded to a PCM (rather than a WAV) but it is not always so.
> And when you convert from flac to MP3, the intermediate step is to
> go to wav, even though the program you use might hide this step and
> might not actually produce a .wav file depending on the program
> being used).
This is not true. You need to read what people are posting rather than
think you know what they are saying and not read any of it.
> IOW you input flac and output MP3 w/o seeing what's
> going on in the background, but the decoding step still happens and
> cannot be by-passed. Encoding into MP3 requires wav format to begin
> with.
>
> I don't know of any program which can go directly from flac to
> MP3 in one-step w/o decoding the source file first. If you know of
> any program which explicitly claims to do this I'd be interested to
> know about it.
True. But the intermediate representation is not WAV and even if it
were, by expoerting a WAV and then impoting it you will introduce
distortion unless you have been very lucky in your choice of parameters.
>
> Technical stuff about encoding: http://www.mp3-tech.org/
>
> Since MP3 encoders are freely available (eg Lame) to incorporate
> into other products, I can see no reason why any programmer would
> wish to write complex code to convert flac to mp3 in one step, when
> the alternative is simply to use existing decoders/encoders.
It is not complex. Libraries of code for intermediate audio
represention exist.
>
> (a similar thing exists when I convert from zip to cab - the
> program decodes the zip *before* creating the cab and the two-step
> process is largely transparent to the user - but it still happens)
>
Franklin
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:43:55 GMT 'flac...@1step.com' posted this
> onto alt.comp.freeware:
>
>>IT must be decoded sure enough, but why do you think the decoding
>>must be to a wave file?
>>
>>Do you think that when a player plays a flac file it decodes it to
>>wave file before it can play it? No, it decodes it in memory and
>>the same thing can be and is done converting any lossless format to
>>a MP3.
>
> Some stuff here:
> http://www.simplehelp.net/2006/08/14/how-to-convert-flac-files-
> to-mp3-using-windows/
>
The page author is showing the reader how to do a bodge job.
> Here's one flac>MP3 converter which claims to do it w/o
> intermediate wavfiles (IOW does it 'on the fly') but some say it
> doesn't work well:
> http://www.mymusictools.com/audio_converters_4/all_to_mp3
> _converter_961.htm
>
Franklin
Not at all pedanctic. Two common forms of WAV are not lossless. One
is.
You don't seem to know your audio file formats. You seem to think
internal representation is too detailed for you to understand but
that is exactly where the distortion is created.
>
>> There is nothing special about WAV-PCM. It seems that the
>> standard audio CD is what many people see as reference quality ~
>> even though CD audio is far from true hi-fi. The red book on CDDA
>> defines the technical parameters of an audio CD but that does not
>> make such a standard the best there is.
>
> It makes it what we have.
>
You mean, "Used to have".
>>
>> Of course although the PC can extract/rip from a CD and then
>> create WAV files, the audio on the CD itself is not stored as
>> a WAV file but something closer to Apple's AIFF.
>
> Which is Apple's version of MS wav.
>
> Ya basta de esto!
>
Probably too complicated for you.
Franklin
On 09 Jul 2007, hummingbird <hummi...@2die4.com> wrote:
>
> Switch off your *Random Rubbish Generator* Franco.
>
The translation of what you write is:
"Hummingbird is unable to counter any of these factual points".
Franklin
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:21:01 +0100 'Franklin' posted this onto
> alt.comp.freeware:
> A L E R T: Franklin's *Random Rubbish Generator* is hard at work
> again.
>
Here is a translation of:
"A L E R T: Franklin's *Random Rubbish Generator* is hard at work
again"
"Hummingbird, has no idea what to write because he is unable to
sustain his argument any further. He must have the last word so he
posts something inane and tries to use it to divert attention away
from the lost argument."
Tenha um bom dia, doido!
Franklin
On 11 Jul 2007, hummingbird <hummi...@2die4.com> wrote:
>
> hummingbird has no interest in wading through tripe churned out by
> your Random Rubbish Generator, designed to deflect attention away
> from the plain fact that you know nothing, absolutely nothing and
> spend your time here blustering and waffling.
>
> You're an idiot. Get used to it. Live with it. Make the most of it.
> Write a book about it. Make jokes about it. Rotfl about it...
Hummingbird, you don't seem to be able to understand basic math for,
quite litrerally, 13 year olds even after I clarified it for you many
times. File formats are more difficut and I guess you got lost in the
theory although have tried to keep it at your level.
The interesting thing is how dogmatic you are even when wrong. You seem
so convinced of your own correctness and completeness that you seem to
no longer need to read what other people (who may know a great deal more
than you) might tell you.
This seems to be a chcracteristic of yours and we noticed it very early
on and it led to big arguments. It perists even now as you try to
wrongly redefine the meaning of "split infinitive" in another thread in
order to win some trivial argument.
Message-ID Susan: <news:5fajdgF...@mid.individual.net>
Message-ID jon: <news:e2cba571b8a1f4d564508eeacbfd31eanp@mcdaddums.3>
Message-ID Franklin: <news:Xns99687EE...@127.0.0.1>
Message-ID Franklin: <news:Xns9966F2B...@127.0.0.1>
That is how you came to be such an outsider in ACF.
You kept on arguing with increasing bad grace and with your hands over
your ears even after it was clear to everyone esle that you were wrong.