Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha (Read 9164 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Hello!

So, I have a really strange issue. I downloaded from the internet an album in flac and then I converted it to mp3@320 with the latest version of dbpoweramp. What happened is that the mp3s that resulted after the conversion we're larger than the original flac. For exemple track 1.flac was 20MB and the resulted track 1.mp3 was 28MB. I even converted all the flacs to wav and then back to mp3 but I still got all the mp3s larger than the flacs. I have done this before many times. This is the first time when it happens.

Did anybody around here experience this issue?

Thanks a lot!

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Reply #1 –
Hi.

If you mean that you're encoding to MP3 in CBR at 320Kbps then the tracks will be around 2.3MB per minute. How long are these tracks in terms of playback duration?

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Reply #2 –
It's an album with Rachmaninoff so the tracks are quite long. Track 1 has 12 minutes and 9 seconds.

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Reply #3 –
I agree with slipstreem, we need to know the length of the tracks.  Also, what bitrate are the FLAC files using?  Are the songs comprised of silence?  If the FLAC files use a bitrate less than 320kbps (it looks like it) then they may not in fact be lossless.  Then again, the songs could be complete silence (or close to that).

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Reply #4 –
12 minutes 9 seconds at 2.3MB per minute = 28MB. It's exactly the size you'd expect it to be at 320Kbps in CBR.

Have you considered using LAME in VBR mode at -V3 instead? The files will end up much smaller but I very much doubt if you'll hear any difference. If you do hear a difference then try -V2.

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Reply #5 –
It is possible, but not probable, that the FLACs compress the music down to less than 320kb/s.

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Reply #6 –
I've personally seen some extreme scenarios of Lossless being extremely efficient.  I know in testing, I saw WMA Lossless with 16-bit/44Khz CD content go down below 320 kbps in at least 100 cases.  I'd expect FLAC to have similar rare big win scenarios, too.

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Reply #7 –
I've seen this once with an Opera album. But it was mono. 16-bits mono speech may also compress below 320 kBit/s.

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Reply #8 –
Would it be accurate to say that music that's highly compressible in FLAC is also likely to be highly compressible in LAME VBR? My limited knowledge says "yes", but I'm keen to learn.

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Reply #9 –
Music that can be highly compressed using FLAC has the potential to be highly compressed with Lame VBR.  I say it has the potential because that is not always the case.  I have my library backed up to Apple lossless so I can kind of draw a comparison.  The average bitrate in my library is about 1100kbps.  I have a song that comes out to ~160kbps VBR when using Lame mp3 3.97 at -V 2 --vbr-new.  That same song encoded in Apple lossless (from the source CD) takes up about 1000kbps.  Lossless formats use different compression techniques over lossy formats.  However, if a lossless file comes out to below 320kbps, I think it is safe to say that a Lame VBR mp3 file at -V 2 or lower would come out at a very low bitrate.

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Reply #10 –
OK... So, it says in the propreties that the flac file has an bitrate of 1411kbps. I've tried to convert it to mp3@VBR V0 "extreme" and I got from 20MB (flac file) to 12.4MB for the mp3. So flac encodes are VBR? I have also uploaded track 1.flac so you may check it up to see what you discover.

Thanks!

Moderation: Links removed (TOS #9)

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Reply #11 –
a) FLAC encodes (as well as other lossless encodes) are VBR.

b) It happened rarely (and only with classical music), but I too have run upon tracks which losslessly encoded yielded a bitrate around 300 kbps.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Reply #12 –
That FLAC's bitrate is 227 kbps and it seems pretty silent and mono, so it's normal to have so low bitrate and you should use VBR with MP3.

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Reply #13 –
Not only that flac files are VBR, flac also uses something similar to joint stereo. So it can compress classical music with a lot of silent parts and with very little difference between channels very efficient. That's why you got smaller files with flac as with LAME. Try using VBR LAME, don't force it to use 320kbps if it's not needed...

All in all, CBR shoul nowadays ONLY be used for compatibility reasons for use on some really old hardware players. In all other scenarios VBR should be used!
lame -V 0

Conversion with dbpoweramp from flac to mp3@320 got the mp3 larger tha

Reply #14 –
How can I find out the actual bitrate of a FLAC? Thank you all for helping me out!