Skip to main content

Poll

If I [ever am to] download files in lossless formats with overkill resolution, ...

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).
I never change resolution. I possibly recompress to one favourite codec that supports it.
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?
I hardly change resolution, except when I must for compatibility.
I usually downconvert to "something useful" (say, CD-resolution) in a lossless format
I usually convert to a lossy format anyway. CDDA is also "overkill resolution".
I also usually transcode overkill-bitrate lossies - like 320-kbps mp3s from Amazon - to a lower bitrate.
Topic: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert? (Read 3602 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #50
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.

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #51
Space is so cheap theres no reason to downsize anything except for portable players/USB sticks in cars etc.
Hi-Fi: Audio Technica AT-LP5 Turntable | Cambridge Audio CXC CD Transport | 851N DAC/Streamer | 851W Pre-amp | 840W Power-amp | Cerwin Vega XLS215 Speakers

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #52
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?
“It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.”
- Donald Trump, May 2017

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #53
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.

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #54
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.)
“It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.”
- Donald Trump, May 2017

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #55
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.

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #56
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.

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #57
+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.
Listen to the music, not the media.

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #58
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

 

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #59
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

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #60
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.)

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #61
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.

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #62
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 and lossy mean.
Lossless: flac --best --verify
Lossy: opusenc --bitrate 160

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #63
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 and 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.

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #64
Of course that would be lossless. RAR doesn't alter the sound file at all.

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #65
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...

Re: Do you keep "hi-rez" downloads as hi-rez, or do you convert?

Reply #66
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 © 2008-2018