Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => General Audio => Topic started by: Porcus on 2018-08-30 11:04:51

Poll
Question: If I [ever am to] download files in lossless formats with overkill resolution, ...
Option 1: I keep the file I received, out of principle. (If I currently have compatibility issues, any conversion is "temporary" until I can replace by the original).
Option 2: I never change resolution. I possibly recompress to one favourite codec that supports it.
Option 3: Like 2, except that resolutions that are "already wrong" are not sacred. Who wants to keep a in 192/24 a digitized bootleg tape recorded in audience?
Option 4: I hardly change resolution, except when I must for compatibility.
Option 5: I usually downconvert to "something useful" (say, CD-resolution) in a lossless format
Option 6: I usually convert to a lossy format anyway. CDDA is also "overkill resolution".
Option 7: I also usually transcode overkill-bitrate lossies - like 320-kbps mp3s from Amazon - to a lower bitrate.
Title: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Porcus on 2018-08-30 11:04:51
Poll! About the files you keep in your sacred music archive - not about the subselection you encode at 48 kbps for the memory card you put in your car stereo, but that should be clear?

I do from time to time get files in resolutions above CDDA. I  keep the resolution, but recompress to FLAC if I can and WavPack if I must. Have not yet gotten any "lossless" file that does not fit WavPack. Except overkill analogue rips ... they sometimes get reduced on a "what idiocy!" basis. So I voted 3.
I've had cases where I mess up my "albumversion" tags, and then the format can tell me a bit about where the file came from (yes I know I mess up that by reducing analog rips ...). And keeping the resolution costs me about 1/1000 of the hard drive (which of course will annoy me when, at some time in the future, it becomes nearly full).

(I put this in General audio, because it is not about lossless compression methods.)
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: JabbaThePrawn on 2018-08-30 12:34:05
If it is 24/48k or less, I don't really bother about anything other than encoding as FLAC (if it isn't already). I could, and maybe should downconvert those files, but just can't be bothered.

Anything above that gets downconverted, because although storage is cheap, those files take up a ridiculous amount.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2018-08-30 12:42:38
I convert everything higher than 16/48 to 16/48 FLAC, because everything I own plays 48kHz audio without issues. If I need to convert to lossy, the Opus encoder won't have to resample the file a second time before encoding.

I've even gone to the trouble of writing a quick shell script that fires up SoX for the conversion and brings across all tags etc.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2018-08-30 22:50:37
I don't keep anything over 24/96. but I don't necessarily bother to convert that. And bats are not rare here: they might be listening!

As for the truly absurd higher sample rates: disk space is cheap but not free, and certainly not infinite. Especially if one keeps good backups.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: tehabe on 2018-08-30 23:26:02
I converted a 24/88.2 to 16/44.1 recently and the size went from over 100 MB to 32 MB. And since I don't care much for bats' entertainment and I don't think I have speakers with a response range of over 20 kHz (at least not according to the specs) I don't really see the point.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Wombat on 2018-08-31 00:57:03
CDDA rates for me and if purchased as HighBitrate i store it somewhere as backup. I don't suffer from the fear of ringing.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Nikaki on 2018-08-31 03:53:26
I keep them as-is. 3TB disks are dirt-cheap now. Not even out of "principle", but simply because I can't be bothered to convert them, as there's no reason to.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Chibisteven on 2018-08-31 05:50:07
Although rare in my library to have any highres I do keep the original sample rate and bit depth and number of channels including layout but converted to either FLAC or WavPack (when FLAC can't handle something).  Any sample rate conversions are done in real time on any PC I'm using while listening.

Lossy formats in high res maybe converted to a compatible format, but the original file is always kept and playback is always attempted with the original to see if it's working before doing any conversions.

The same could be said of formats that are low res (22,050 Hz, 8-bit for example) with the above that's followed for high res but with one exception that a compatibility conversion maybe done if a certain system did low quality resampling to a higher sample rate for a particular game (handled on a case-by-case basis).  This situation is a more common one I run across than the high res one.

For mobile devices, compatibility conversion maybe done to keep everything at one pictualer sample rate,  bit depth, number of channels, and compression format if it's needed to maintain a more consistent playback for that device (i.e. a device that handles sample rate changes poorly or a particular file format poorly, etc.)

Most files in my library are 44.1 KHz, 16-bit, Stereo from purchased CDs.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Porcus on 2018-08-31 07:40:13
I converted a 24/88.2 to 16/44.1 recently and the size went from over 100 MB to 32 MB.

Sounds reasonable. Just tested: Nine Inch Nails' "The Slip" (HA celebrity alert (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,63086.msg565179.html#msg565179)), the 24 bits / 96 kHz download.
Using a working HD + double backup, hard drive costs are about $100 per TB, and so I spend about 9 cents on keeping that album (artwork and all).
Cents saved by going CDDA: around 6.66, the number of the centibeast.


For comparison, with flac -8 as image, my bitrates are:
Original: 2926 kb/s
44.1/24: 1476 kb/s
96/16: 1391 kb/s
44.1/16: 773.
So by and large, there is one doubling for the bats and one doubling for the eight LSBs of noise.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: probedb on 2018-08-31 08:48:33
I'm also of the opinion disc space is not worth worrying about. If I continually bought lots and lots of music and hi-res downloads then maybe it'd be time to think again but all my music fits in 1TB currently so I also have 1 on-site backup in a fireproof safe and one off-site backup in a fireproof filing cabinet at my parents. And the originals are all in my sisters attic as I have no room :D
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2018-08-31 09:47:04
Oh yeah, another reason to convert to 16/48 for me; my DSP crossover/EQ's ADC/DAC setup works at 48KHz, so anything higher is obviously irrelevant for the final result in my case ;-)
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: magicgoose on 2018-08-31 11:18:54
> I usually downconvert to "something useful" (say, CD-resolution) in a lossless format

This. Because (if done right) this only throws away stuff that cannot be heard even in theory, and there is no rocket science involved. 
This is stored in lossless because there's enough disk space and because lossy codecs are improving with time so I'd like to be able to benefit from that; + sometimes I may need to re-convert anyway because I want to add some filters before encoding, etc.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: NetRanger on 2018-08-31 14:42:37
Always save my Hi-Res as it is. Harddrives is cheap so........

Why buy something in Hi-Res and then convert it into something else. Think ur better off to buy a digital download in CDDA quality at once then.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: tehabe on 2018-08-31 14:55:29
If you can chose between CD and high frequency files, yes. But sometimes you can't.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Wombat on 2018-08-31 15:06:48
If you can chose between CD and high frequency files, yes. But sometimes you can't.
At bandcamp the flac version is sometimes only HighBit for example.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: danadam on 2018-08-31 15:22:37
Why buy something in Hi-Res and then convert it into something else. Think ur better off to buy a digital download in CDDA quality at once then.
  • CDDA version may be not available
  • CDDA version may have different mastering than hi-res, for whatever reason. For example, I bought both versions of Pentatone's Tchaikovsky Violin concerto, Julia Fischer (https://www.pentatonemusic.com/tchaikovsky-violin-concerto-fischer-kreizberg) specifically to check that and they are different. I'm not saying though that I can hear that difference :-)
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Rollin on 2018-08-31 15:29:54
Downconvert everything to 16/44 lossless. Even if HDDs are cheap, physical space is not infinite.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Porcus on 2018-08-31 16:12:04
physical space is not infinite.
Still I don't throw my CDs away ...
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: soundping on 2018-08-31 16:19:37
"192/24" 🤣
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2018-08-31 18:19:25
Please, can everyone who thinks that hard-disk space is that cheap buy a spare one for me next time?

Yes, I remember needing to get purchase of a server disc at work authorised. Prices have fallen absurdly since those days, but still, each jump, each additional disk, is a very feel-able expense. My music collection is pretty-much fixed these days: now I'm filling space up with photographs.

If I was still digitising LPs, I wonder if I could bear to delete the original rip. Probably not <Blush>.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Case on 2018-08-31 19:53:35
I recompress all the lossless purchases I intend to listen to with my preferred codec and highest compression mode and strip away embedded album art to further reduce size. If sample rate was higher than 48 kHz I'd resample.

Some Bandcamp purchases are 24 bps and so far I have kept them that way. Their sample rate is 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz and the files haven't been too huge. But if I'll run into space problems I won't hesitate to convert them to 16 bps.

I keep some hi-rez and DSD files around for foobar2000 testing.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: leonsk on 2018-08-31 21:24:03
Am I the only one here who converts to a lossy format and doesn't keep the original ? o_0
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: tehabe on 2018-08-31 22:17:35
Am I the only one here who converts to a lossy format and doesn't keep the original ? o_0

Apparently.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Hotsoup on 2018-08-31 22:39:40
I convert them down to CD quality, but for some reason I keep the original files on a separate backup drive. Paranoia probably.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Porcus on 2018-09-01 00:45:33
Please, can everyone who thinks that hard-disk space is that cheap buy a spare one for me next time?
You could have one of the old ones I got when 250 GB were the cheapest per gigabyte ... except that it doesn't pay off to ship it? ;-)

On a more serious note, the "cents per gigabyte" thing is a bit artificial of course: either you need another drive, or you don't. I see that those files of > 48k and/or > 16 bit files make about a 0.3 percent increase assuming they will downconvert to average bitrate.
Of course that will be annoying when my hard drive is "between 100 and 100.3 percent full". I guess that is when those old 250 GBs will be used for a (bootlegs!) folder that I do not index in my usual fb2k setup.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2018-09-04 05:15:48
I actually upsample all my CDDA files to 24/192 PCM because it sou..

Just kidding. I keep stuff the way I got it on my HDDs but always resample/dither hi res stuff for my media player and phone.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: ThaCrip on 2018-09-04 23:21:38
I avoid anything over the standard CDDA (i.e. 44/16) as it just wastes storage space. I know some say storage space is cheap, and they are right, but it's more of the thought of wasting the space to begin with and we are not talking a small bit either as they seem to be roughly double the size.

but since we are on the topic... say one has some audio files above the CDDA standard, how does one properly convert those back to standard CDDA?

@leonsk

Quote
Am I the only one here who converts to a lossy format and doesn't keep the original ? o_0

Well it is a good idea to keep your lossless files unless your pretty darn sure your not going to need to convert again.

plus, with storage space being cheap... it's even that much less reason to delete the lossless files especially if you ain't got some massive collection that's going to burn up a boatload of storage space.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Anakunda on 2018-09-05 07:04:28
No option, case by case there are only two variants, leave album in original resolution and encoding or convert to Apple's AAC downsampled by SoX to whole divisor of original sampling rate.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: leonsk on 2018-09-05 09:36:21
@ThaCrip

I don't see why you'd need the original FLAC after converting to a lossy format at high bitrates, at least I've never needed them.
As for the HDD space being cheap, you've answered yourself in the second sentence of your post.

Please, can everyone who thinks that hard-disk space is that cheap buy a spare one for me next time?

+1  :D
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: jaybeee on 2018-09-05 09:47:16
@ThaCrip

I don't see why you'd need the original FLAC after converting to a lossy format at high bitrates, at least I've never needed them.
As for the HDD space being cheap, you've answered yourself in the second sentence of your post.
Because you'll never need to re-rip the CD again if you've got them in FLAC and stored on a backup HDD (ideally two).

Also, for example, if you want to convert them to a different format for usage on a device that can't play high bitrate MP3s or any AAC or Opus formats.

If the HDD that has all the lossy files dies, you'll have to re-rip. If you've got the lossless files (I use FLAC) on another HDD (preferably at least two other HDDs) then you can transcode easily.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: soundping on 2018-09-05 10:31:07
Do you keep upsampled LP's.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: polemon on 2018-09-05 11:28:49
@ThaCrip

I don't see why you'd need the original FLAC after converting to a lossy format at high bitrates, at least I've never needed them.
As for the HDD space being cheap, you've answered yourself in the second sentence of your post.
Because you'll never need to re-rip the CD again if you've got them in FLAC and stored on a backup HDD (ideally two).

Also, for example, if you want to convert them to a different format for usage on a device that can't play high bitrate MP3s or any AAC or Opus formats.

If the HDD that has all the lossy files dies, you'll have to re-rip. If you've got the lossless files (I use FLAC) on another HDD (preferably at least two other HDDs) then you can transcode easily.
One other thing I'd like to add:
Some transport layers only work with lossless in a practical sense (like AptX via BlueTooth). However the conversion happens on-the-fly, using lossless sources for that is always preferable.
Furthermore, there are transparent conversion solutions available. For instance you keep your audio as FLAC files, and you can on-demand transcode them to MP3, which is then streamed, etc. This kinda saves the space you'd otherwise need for FLAC + MP3, so there's no need for file duplication. There are filesystem-level layers to do that, similar how transparent hard disk encryption works.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Porcus on 2018-09-05 12:20:42
There are filesystem-level layers to do that, similar how transparent hard disk encryption works.

Any good ones? Only I know is mp3fs ...
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2018-09-05 13:11:06
There are filesystem-level layers to do that, similar how transparent hard disk encryption works.

Any good ones? Only I know is mp3fs ...


There is also ffmpegfs, but I don't have any personal experience using it.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: polemon on 2018-09-05 13:24:23
There are filesystem-level layers to do that, similar how transparent hard disk encryption works.
Any good ones? Only I know is mp3fs ...
I'll have to check myself. The one I've used a couple years ago was essentially an NFS module. No idea how that works on Windows, though, I've only ever used it on Linux.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Zarggg on 2018-09-05 18:44:10
I'll generally keep downloaded files in the format they were originally presented, except in the case of uncompressed PCM (converting to FLAC) or when conversion is necessary for compatibility. Barring those conditions, any necessary down-sampling is handled on playback.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: leonsk on 2018-09-05 20:21:20
@jaybeee

Quote
Because you'll never need to re-rip the CD again if you've got them in FLAC and stored on a backup HDD (ideally two).

That falls in the same category, why re-rip them again ?
In the case of a HDD failure FLAC or lossy doesn't make a difference, a re-rip is in order.

Quote
Also, for example, if you want to convert them to a different format for usage on a device that can't play high bitrate MP3s or any AAC or Opus formats.

I also convert to a lower bitrate lossy format (from FLAC) for my portable devices so again there's no need to keep the FLACs.

Quote
If the HDD that has all the lossy files dies

In which case it'd make no difference for me because they both would be on the same HDD.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: tehabe on 2018-09-05 21:02:36
I also convert to a lower bitrate lossy format (from FLAC) for my portable devices so again there's no need to keep the FLACs.

I don't get this. If you convert from FLAC to a lossy format why throw away the FLAC file? It is essentially your backup. Also if you need the file in a different format, using the FLAC file is certainly better than using the lossy file.

IIRC Vorbis had the ability to change bitrate of an existing file, but I never saw that it action.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: polemon on 2018-09-06 02:05:44
@jaybeee
Quote
Because you'll never need to re-rip the CD again if you've got them in FLAC and stored on a backup HDD (ideally two).
That falls in the same category, why re-rip them again ?
In the case of a HDD failure FLAC or lossy doesn't make a difference, a re-rip is in order.
Having the files as lossless, gives you much greater flexibility when handling them. You never need to touch your physical media again, ideally, no matter what you want to do with them. Ripping CDs or other media takes time, and you need to be able to get them from whatever storage, like a shelf or box or whatever, and handle them. With files, copying them takes essentially no time, converting them is also rather simple, and can often be done on-the-fly. Backing up a lossless file: no problem, backing up physical media: Well, that's the lossless file, isn't it? Or do you want to duplicate your physical media using M-Disc or possibly something better? Well, that sounds like a waste of time and money to me…

Furthermore: When is the last time you used optical drives for the last time? I almost never use them as handling files over networks is just so much more convenient. I only have one optical drive right now, which is a USB-3 external BD recorder, and combo drive. It lives in a drawer and comes out every blue moon if I have to read from optical media or record on one.

Also, tbh, my time is much to valuable to re-rip optical media each time I need a different format. I rather spend the tiny amount extra on a couple of TB more to keep my FLAC files, and convert them either on-the-fly, or through a streaming solution whenever I need them.
Also, since space is so valuable to you, then why not use transparent compression by default? It'll surely save you a TB or two.

Quote
Also, for example, if you want to convert them to a different format for usage on a device that can't play high bitrate MP3s or any AAC or Opus formats.
I also convert to a lower bitrate lossy format (from FLAC) for my portable devices so again there's no need to keep the FLACs.
Except if you have a new device which can handle higher bitrates. Then it's back to ripping instead of a quick transcode from lossless, or simply using the lossless file itself?

Quote
If the HDD that has all the lossy files dies
In which case it'd make no difference for me because they both would be on the same HDD.
Depends on how you use storage. In my case it's much more likely that the physical media - in most cases CDs - will perish before the files.

Btw. Just for clarity:
Many people confuse high-availability solutions with backups anyway.
Backups are by definition not alterable. If you can change or delete a file from whatever drive or alter it, it's not a backup. If we're talking about something like a RAID, that's a high-availability solution. In most cases, it's perfectly adequate for things like music, etc.
Proper backups is something I don't even trust myself with, for that I have a company that does that for me. And they better be insured, because should they ever lose my stuff, the collateral would be killer.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Teddy_the_barber on 2018-09-07 17:31:48
It's funny how many people here aren't able to tell the difference between a decent lossy encode at smth like aac at 160 kbps and uncompressed and still they keep purchasing lossless or even hires files just for "the peace of mind". Any newcomer's decision to encode their music with some insane settings like 320 kbps AAC for their "peace of mind" is highly criticised, though.
I guess, the real question should not be "whether you keep your hirez downloads", but rather "why do you even consider buying those files in the first place?". Especially after so many spears been broken, spicy jokes made, thousands of pages on the internet and numerous tests and reports that prove "hires' audio doesn't have any audible benefit. Oh, the peace of mind...
I find it a little hypocritical.
Now that we know that NOONE here actually trusts their music collection with lossy encoding (with no lossless backup) it's a lot more fun to read some threads about lossy audio, especially the so-called "advice section".
PS I download my music from iTunes, yeah.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: ThaCrip on 2018-09-08 00:48:02
It's funny how many people here aren't able to tell the difference between a decent lossy encode at smth like aac at 160 kbps and uncompressed and still they keep purchasing lossless or even hires files just for "the peace of mind". Any newcomer's decision to encode their music with some insane settings like 320 kbps AAC for their "peace of mind" is highly criticised, though. Oh, the peace of mind...
I find it a little hypocritical.

PS I download my music from iTunes, yeah.

Well I figure if one is going to buy music, it's always best to go lossless as this way you can convert it to whatever lossy format you want in the future without worrying about loss of quality and still have the lossless file for archiving. like it's always a good thing to have a lossless file to fall back on for future re-ripping as it future proofs you.

so while AAC has been quite mature for years now, unless one is pretty darn sure they are not going to need another lossy audio format it's best to have the lossless file to guarantee you will be future-proofed if lossy audio formats change etc.

also, I can easily see why someone would criticize someone ripping to say 320kbps AAC as it's clearly overkill for a lossy file. hell, I think even iTunes uses something like 256kbps CVBR which is already a little overkill. that's why I would rather just have a lossless file and then make your own lossy file to something more reasonable like 96-160kbps as if one ever needs to change bit rate or formats they can easily do it with the lossless file otherwise your forced to convert from one lossy format to another which is generally best avoided if possible as it's not the proper way to rip things and can lower sound quality further etc.

so I think that's why people criticize someone using super high bit rate lossy files as it defeats the purpose if lossy files in the first place which is to basically get the smallest possible file size at a transparent or near transparent level of sound quality or thereabouts.

p.s. I avoid anything over standard CDDA since it's a total waste of space as even though storage space is cheap, it's the thought of wasting storage space with zero benefits.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: jaybeee on 2018-09-08 15:38:29
@jaybeee

Quote
Because you'll never need to re-rip the CD again if you've got them in FLAC and stored on a backup HDD (ideally two).

That falls in the same category, why re-rip them again ?
In the case of a HDD failure FLAC or lossy doesn't make a difference, a re-rip is in order.
That's why you need them stored in at least two places  ;)

I think you simply need to choose the download that suits you. I personally go for FLAC at CD quality. If the download is only available in a "higher res", say 24-bit or 48kHz, then I'll keep it like that. I play most of my music via my PC. Any portable devices will get a lossy encoded downsampled (if appropriate) version.

@jaybeee
Quote
Also, for example, if you want to convert them to a different format for usage on a device that can't play high bitrate MP3s or any AAC or Opus formats.

I also convert to a lower bitrate lossy format (from FLAC) for my portable devices so again there's no need to keep the FLACs.
You're ignoring what I said. If a new device doesn't support the lossy format you originally chose or you want to use a different format like Opus to cram even more onto a device (like a mobile phone) then you've got the lossless files to transcode to. But sure, if you use mp3s then you'll be safe enough.

@jaybeee
Quote
If the HDD that has all the lossy files dies
In which case it'd make no difference for me because they both would be on the same HDD.
 
which is why I said at least two HDDs.

Obviously you can and will do as you please. You asked the question so there are my opinions as well as others.

Those of us that have lossless and lossy files are in a minority now, since most people just stream music via the various services (Spotify being the big one). No issues with HDDs failing etc. The only issue is if the service were to disappear. Maybe that's an option for you?

Good luck
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Porcus on 2018-09-09 17:20:09
I guess, the real question should not be "whether you keep your hirez downloads", but rather "why do you even consider buying those files in the first place?".

Because they contain music. 

That is the answer to the question you asked. I suppose you intended to ask "why do you choose to get the same music, same mastering, in a hirez format?" which is a different question that does not apply equally often.

Myself, I prefer (not in order of priority)
- to get a checksummed format with inherent gaplessness, not just as a hack that is "usually" supported
- not to pay royalties for the format (rather, I want to pay to the artist)
- not to deal with certain applications (iTunes is one)
- not to get a too stupid resolution
- not to tamper with the audio I actually got from the artist, if applicable - I know this is "kinda as irrational as buying a litho", but heck ...
- to get a compatible, future-proof format. (DRM-freeness is part of that.) One will never get rid of MP3/AAC anyway, I guess - but I doubt that MQA will be around forever.

Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Teddy_the_barber on 2018-09-10 14:32:39
By saying "those files" I meant hires files. I thought it was obvious.
- you get gapless playback with aac, it's supported on everything released for the last decade. How it works "under the hood" doesn't really matter.
- no royalties for the format, but paying a fat extra for the "resolution" is no problem.
- you can use iTunes for purchasing only. After that you can do whatever you want with your files.
- agree
- not sure if I get this one, but you don't need to tamper with anything. Everything's been already done for you (24/44.1 > aac 256), you just touch the screen and there you go. Does it get any easier than that?
- you get an ultracompatible and as futureproof a format as it can be. (DRM-freeness is part of that).
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Porcus on 2018-09-10 17:28:01
By saying "those files" I meant hires files. I thought it was obvious. [...] but paying a fat extra for the "resolution"

And you did not mean "those files chosen over other files at a fat extra cost without getting any audible difference"? Because it certainly looks like that, don't you agree?
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Teddy_the_barber on 2018-09-14 12:39:31
Porcus, is there an audible difference between hires and  iTunes' aac? Honestly, do you hear any?
Regarding the OP, if one has already bought hires files, he already paid the extra for inaudible ultrasonics so he might wanna keep them (looks pointless to me, but whatever). Converting them down to something audibly transparent but more manageable (stripping away the inaudible ultrasonics and reducing word length, chopping off the precious content below -100 dbFS) kills the purpose of buying hires music.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Porcus on 2018-09-14 15:22:20
Porcus, is there an audible difference between hires and  iTunes' aac? Honestly, do you hear any?

Have a look at https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,98199.msg866222.html#msg866222 .  The record company requested two low dynamic-range masters, one for CD (dr = 6) and one even lower (dr = 5) for iTunes.
Swanö included on the CD the iTunes master as mp3@192, as well as the full dynamic range (dr = 11) master as mp3@320.
* The latter is closest to what the artist intended, so - everything else equal - that would be the "best version" of the work. It has a downside: an inferior file format (note, "file format" is not the same as codec) - and unless I love .mka, I cannot really get rid of it.
* There is no reason to rank the "iTunes" master above the CDDA, is there? Worse corporate-policy mangling with the signal, and lesser format. (I would most likely not be able to ABX the mp3@192 files from iTunes' delivery format, but that is a question of what is lowest rank - not what is highest.)

Your reasoning is flawed unless you can always buy from iTunes the same mastering at lower price as what you can get "CDDA or above" for.


Regarding the OP, if one has already bought hires files, he already paid the extra for inaudible ultrasonics

Have I? Or have I maybe already gotten the available version? The poll is not about "how much would you pay extra for a hirez version over an otherwise identical CDDA/AAC assuming the latter exists at a lower price", it is about what you (would) do if and when a hirez file for whatever reason finds its way to your hard drive.
Among my higher-than 16/48k files, you find
* A 24/96k purchased from Nine Inch Nails. That was what the artist offered, and I keep the resolution.
* Bandcamp downloads (Bandcamp caveat here (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,108139.msg959843.html#msg959843), I haven't bought much there since) - the price is the same for all formats, and sometimes the artist has uploaded hirez. Again, I just keep the resolution.
* 32-bit floating-point .wav files that the artist uploaded to Soundcloud. For whatever reason. Downloaded for free. Kept as 32-bit floating-point.
* 32-bit floating-point and DSD files from http://www.2l.no/hires/ . Well I admit that downloading more than one format is more because I was curious, but if 32-bit floating-point were the only thing they offered for download - then I wouldn't bother to downconvert.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Teddy_the_barber on 2018-09-16 08:47:50
* 32-bit floating-point and DSD files...
* 32-bit floating-point .wav files that the artist uploaded to Soundcloud. For whatever reason...
For whatever reason besides audio quality. I guess, if artist uploaded it as 384/32, you'd keep it that way. It's also worth nothing to mention that artist probably just doesn't have a damn clue and uploads "straight outta DAW" as is, cause "why bother?".
That also reminded me of:
- to get a compatible (DSD???), future-proof format.
- not to get a too stupid resolution!
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Porcus on 2018-09-16 13:49:08
That also reminded me of:
- to get a compatible (DSD???), future-proof format.
- not to get a too stupid resolution!

Yes. Conflicting priorities. Life is full of them.
I prefer to stick to the signal I got (MP3? I have a bias against lossy transcoding. 24/48k? I have a bias against lossy transcoding, but I can store as losslessly as FLAC. DSD? I have have a bias against lossy transcoding, but I can store as WavPack (... I think!). Real Audio/Cook? I have a bias against lossy transcoding.)
I prefer certain file formats over others. (MP3? Not a good file format, though there are worse on this list, and remuxing won't help much. 24/48k ALAC in MP4? Convert to FLAC. DSD? Not good. WavPack. RA/Cook? Loathsome, consider remuxing.)
I prefer compatibility. (MP3? More compatible as .mp3 than remuxed into a container. 24/48k ALAC in MP4? 24/48k FLAC is IMHO not only better, but also so compatible that I need not consider 24/48k WAV. DSD-ISO? Bad, even in WavPack. RA/Cook? Hate it, at least better in .mka where I can tag it.)
I prefer reasonable not too unreasonable resolutions. (MP3 at 32 kbit/sec? Sucks, but there is no way to improve it. 24/48k? Reasonable. DSD? Overkill, certainly. RA/Cook? Grrrrrr.)

Now for the "what to choose", you have to weigh pro et contra. Requires the ability to think twice.
What I actually do? MP3? I keep it. (Should be said, I have experimented with repacking just for fun, and I have never encountered a free-format in the wild.) PCMs up to 96/24? Convert losslessly to FLAC and delete the original.

(DSD???),

"because I was curious".
By the way, the Kielland/Sergej Osadchuk file, which was not uploaded as CDDA, the smallest DSD (as WavPack) is "only" 25 percent larger than the  smallest PCM (as FLAC).


I guess [...] you'd

Going from making claims based on ignorance to making guesses based on ignorance - please keep on improving.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: bdunham7 on 2018-09-19 02:12:13
I see a lot of derision for high bitrates and "peace of mind" thinking.  OK, I accept the consensus that 96K AAC with a good encoder is "good enough".  However, I have more storage than time and I have no need to economize on space, within reason.  I see no reason not to retain higher bitrates, especially for lossy--even that 320kbps MP3 doesn't cost me much space.  I archive everything as it is received or recorded, whether that is MP3, FLAC, DSD or the 24/96 "needle drop".  Then I typically convert to FLAC of one sort or another for convenience and true gapless playback. 
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Fairy on 2018-09-19 10:35:02
I have downsampled hires files before to 44/16 FLAC and couldn't notice any difference. Nowadays I keep the original file in FLAC format. Just because I have no space issues and the rest is maybe just for peace of mind I don't know. I'll have to do some ABXing sometime with 192KHz files against 44.1 upsampled to 192KHz files to see if I notice any difference. I think I cannot.

I only downsample if it is needed. I've had a 64KHz album once that just doesn't play on any hardware I own. That was a very strange (non-standard?) spec. After conversion to 16/44 it worked perfectly.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: tomstephens89 on 2018-09-19 13:19:12
Space is so cheap theres no reason to downsize anything except for portable players/USB sticks in cars etc.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Porcus on 2018-09-21 14:20:58
So here is a reason to keep 32-bit floating-point unless you know way better than the average Joe what you and your software are doing.

"Original": A WAV file that I downloaded from an artist's soundcloud site.
Turns out: it was a 32-bit floating-point file.

(I) Converted it to 24-bit FLAC using foobar2000. foobar2000 does not warn that this operation isn't lossless, and indeed it is very far from:
Code: [Select]
Comparing:
"D:\tmp\Danse Macabre.wv"
"D:\tmp\Danse Macabre_fb2k2flac.flac"
Compared 11871270 samples.
Differences found: 22135695 values, starting at 0:00.000000, peak: 0.2820419 at 2:10.922472, 2ch
Channel difference peaks: 0.2587259 0.2820419
File #1 peaks: 1.2587258 1.2820418
File #2 peaks: 1.0000000 1.0000000
Detected offset as 0 samples.
Difference is 0.2820419, giving you the impression that (nearly) the first two bits are accurate. But no: The WavPack file has a peak of 1.2820419, more than +2 dB, and the conversion brickwalls away this.
(Who said "lossless is lossless"?)

(II) Converted the original using wavpack.exe -b23.9 . That reduces bit-depth to 24 bits. Compare:
Code: [Select]
Comparing:
"D:\tmp\Danse Macabre.wv"
"D:\tmp\Danse Macabre_wavpack2wavpack.wv"
Compared 11871270 samples.
Differences found: 21259118 values, starting at 0:00.000000, peak: 0.0000002 at 2:10.858481, 1ch
Channel difference peaks: 0.0000002 0.0000002
File #1 peaks: 1.2587258 1.2820418
File #2 peaks: 1.2587256 1.2820418
Detected offset as 0 samples.
The conversion is lossy - and wavpack rightfully warns me - but it is accurate to the bit-depth.
(However it is still a 32-bit floating-point file!)

(III) If I use foobar2000 to convert 32-bit WavPack to 32-bit WavPack with volume normalization through ReplayGain (limit according to peak), I get a file which I can convert to 24-bits at 24 bit accuracy.

But who the hell knows that if they download a .wav, they might have to do (III) before converting to a supposedly "lossless" format, in order to avoid clipping?
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: j7n on 2018-09-21 15:28:38
I downsample high resolution audio to 48 kHz and always normalize by scanning the resampled whole disc image for peak level. Sometimes I perform other edits before dowsampling, such as declipping or moving the track cues slightly. I've never encountered any music downloads with positive peak levels, although they may occur during my processing. It could be a good way to preserve fidelity compared to hard clipping, which commonly occurs today.

The bitrate of "hi-rez" is unreasonable even when half of the bandwith is practically silent. While disk space is plentiful today, transferring the large files over network to another computer still takes noticeably longer. I also don't like seeing albums of equal value occupy wildly dissimilar space. I considered WavPack Lossy, as an alternative form of bit reduction, but at high rate it consumes too much CPU, slowing down replaygain scanning or causing stuttering when starting playback while playing a game, for example.

I keep a few examples or hi-res albums on hand for experiments.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Porcus on 2018-09-22 00:41:16
I've never encountered any music downloads with positive peak levels

Only +0.04 dB, but still downloadable for free from the publisher: http://timeisdivine.com/soz/soz-014.php

(I went there for Magna Carta Cartel, the band that Tobias Forge and Martin Persner had before the infamous Ghost.)
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: lvqcl on 2018-09-22 15:06:28
Only +0.04 dB, but still downloadable for free from the publisher: http://timeisdivine.com/soz/soz-014.php

You mean Treha_Sekori-MBAS_OST-WAV-SOZ.zip download?
It's funny... probably it was first brickwalled and then downsampled to 44100 Hz.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: ThisInstruction on 2018-10-09 22:47:49
No i just keep them as is, i just convert them to 256k AAC with down to 44.1k or Flac 16/44 for my DAP's.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: includemeout on 2018-10-10 03:12:54
+1 to downsampling them to good down-to-earth CDDA res. (FLAC/Wavpack)

Further down the road, at  a personal level, I proceed to using that as my source for both my car stereo (LAME VBR) and portable use (85kpbs Opus) and... move on with my life.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: jsdyson on 2018-10-10 05:06:59
I get a big selection of material -- some loaned to me for testing, some for listening -- all kinds of sample rates, various kinds of encoding (mostly DolbyA encoded stuff because of my current project.)
Whenever I get 192k/24bit or 96k/24bit master tapes, I stash them away onto a couple of disks where I keep proprietary materials.  Then, locally for my normal testing purposes, I keep 96k/24bit or 96k/32bitfp copies, sometimes even 48k versions simply because I upconvert, and there is no audible difference once it is up converted.  I also keep those in a squestered proprietary area -- simply to avoid mistaken uploads or something like that.

I NEVER archive mp3/opus unless it is my only copy.  I don't normally use mp3/opus for test input, but happily listen to it when I am recreationally listening.

When working on my project, I cannot waste any time because of a difference in the sound of an mp3 or opus (yes, these formats do have troubles with certain kinds of complex sounds.)  So, I never trust test results when using mp3 or opus as input.  MP3 or OPUS are great for demos, however.

So, I very seldom test directly using 192k material -- it is a waste of CPU.  The only limitation of 96k is when there is acutually a signal above 45k, and that is seldom true (unless recording tape bias, and even 192k isn't good enoough for that.)  My software is designed to pass everything up to just below Nyquist no matter the sample rate (I usually use 0.46 * sample rate.)

SO, for testing purposes and for quick access,  I usually keep 48k or 96k around, always 24bit or 32bit floating point.  Never 16bits -- unless that is all I have,  and never lossless compressed for testing purposes.


John
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: jsdyson on 2018-10-10 12:58:42
and never lossless compressed for testing purposes.

I hope that it was pretty clear that I made a mistake in the statement above.  I meant:
"and never lossy compressed for testing purposes."

I think that MP3, OPUS & friends are great, but not always perfect for every application!!!

john
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: benenator on 2018-10-12 01:03:12
I keep every file in the format I downloaded it... which causes headaches whenever I run a "du -h" on my podcast directory, or want to swap out some older podcasts for new ones. STOP USING MP3s, I DON'T CARE THAT IT'S UNIVERSAL. Sheesh.

...what? I don't have reliable internet to re-download them later. :P

For playback on the go -- my only real option, as I live in an apartment -- I convert any FLAC to OGG Vorbis q5-q7 or Speex, as appropriate. (Opus isn't an option, sadly.)
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: dragut on 2018-10-15 12:07:34
Code: [Select]
If I download files in lossless formats
First of all, there no format as lossless format or, if you prefer, each file format is lossless format.
IF...
if (or when) you compress / archive your file into some container (flac, ape, aac...) that, new one will become losy (can't recover original data with the origin quality) or lossless (zip, 7z, flac, ape, MLP, ww,...). When above become absolutely clear -- everything is much easier.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: blurry_light on 2018-10-15 13:46:11
Code: [Select]
If I download files in lossless formats
First of all, there no format as lossless format or, if you prefer, each file format is lossless format.
IF...
if (or when) you compress / archive your file into some container (flac, ape, aac...) that, new one will become losy (can't recover original data with the origin quality) or lossless (zip, 7z, flac, ape, MLP, ww,...). When above become absolutely clear -- everything is much easier.
That is absolutely, incredibly incorrect. Please review what lossless (https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Lossless) and lossy (https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Lossy) mean.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: dragut on 2018-10-15 14:51:54
Code: [Select]
If I download files in lossless formats
First of all, there no format as lossless format or, if you prefer, each file format is lossless format.
IF...
if (or when) you compress / archive your file into some container (flac, ape, aac...) that, new one will become losy (can't recover original data with the origin quality) or lossless (zip, 7z, flac, ape, MLP, ww,...). When above become absolutely clear -- everything is much easier.
That is absolutely, incredibly incorrect. Please review what lossless (https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Lossless) and lossy (https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Lossy) mean.

You simple don't understand. What is container and what is audio file. You can put WAV to rar and play from it. Is the RAR music lossless file? Not of course...

Both, lossless and losy are TYPES OF COMPRESSION. You read your links.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: Case on 2018-10-15 16:05:28
Of course that would be lossless. RAR doesn't alter the sound file at all.
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: dragut on 2018-10-15 18:44:57
Of course that would be lossless. RAR doesn't alter the sound file at all.
It can't "WOULD BE". Rar IS archivator which use lossless compression algorithm. That programs can't be changed in dependence of what file type they did archive (WAV or MP3). Flac can archive images. And use lossless compression algorithm too. AAC use losy compression algorithm. Etc etc...
By the way, Rar CAN archive wav. Compression will be very small and size of source file will not be much better but anyway: it can.
The key here (and many many years ago) is that lossless does NOT mean file type (or high quality file type) but just describe the container which you used. They can hold anything -- poor mp3 files, decoded to WAV MP3 files (which will not become better only because they are now in Flac) and HD WAV files too... And, WAV is container too. With lossless compress-algorithm. Raw files are PCM and LPCM. ... Simple, wrong terminology makes wrong minds and just generate many problems in understanding of what's really going on...
Title: Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?
Post by: lvqcl on 2018-10-15 19:35:29
The key here (and many many years ago) is that lossless does NOT mean file type (or high quality file type) but just describe the container which you used.

but, in computer terms, each lossless codec is also container (as it is MP4 or MKV for example). It will play anything what you put-in and will never take care about it's quality. Flac can decode PCM on the fly but loss in sound quality is enormous: nearly twice!

Why suddenly so much nonsense from you?
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019