Fear of FLAC (vs WAV) for compact disk conversion- decluttering

[RetMD21]

I have read some of the threads here. I want to get rid of the disks and minimize the chance of future regret. Although I am not sure I can hear the difference between WAV files and mp3 I think I want to keep a lossless version just in case. FLAV seems attractive since it is widely used, available in windows media player and lossless but yet the files are not so big. Is there a chance it will go away? Would conversion to WAV be safer? Opinions?

[ShokWaveRider]

FLAC is lossless. WAV is old, MP3 is OK. All our CD conversions were in mp3 variable bitrate. Now I only use FLAC. YMMV

[ERD50]

I agree with your decision to store your music as lossless. Regardless whether you can hear the difference or not. Lossless future-proofs you - converting from one compressed format to another adds more distortions, and that might be noticeable. And disk drive space is so cheap now, the savings between FLAC and high-rate mp3 aren't that great. I rip my CDs directly to FLAC, I see zero advantage to using WAV, and since WAV does take up more space, backing up my entire collection would take longer. Not a big deal, but since there is zero advantage to WAV that I can see, there is simply no reason to use it.

In the future, you could always use your lossless FLAC 'master' to create a compressed file for use on a portable player, or anywhere that space might be an issue.

IMO, FLAC will not go away in our lifetimes. But even if it did, there will be "one click" converters to convert it to some new lossless format. FYI, FLAC files are generally about 1/2 the size of WAV.

-ERD50

[Freedom56]

Consider that a CD is about 640MB uncompressed. A one terabyte portable hard drive is about $35-$40. If you do the math, that would be 1562 CDs store on a single terabyte hard drive without any compression. You can archive them as ISO images or WAV files without any loss. FLAC is another option. Avoid lossy compression such as MP3. Even at 320 BPS, there is too much loss in the quality. WAV is a standard for audio and video workstation software and will be around for a long time. I was considering ripping my CDs to FLAC (I have over 700 of them) but found that WAV would be much easier and more practical.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom56 ... I was considering ripping my CDs to FLAC (I have over 700 of them) but found that WAV would be much easier and more practical.

I'm curious why you feel WAV would be "much easier and more practical"?

"much easier"? I select the format on my ripping software, one is no more or less effort than the other, it's just a menu selection.

"more practical"?

-ERD50

[Freedom56]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I'm curious why you feel WAV would be "much easier and more practical"? "much easier"? I select the format on my ripping software, one is no more or less effort than the other, it's just a menu selection. "more practical"? -ERD50

You can do simple copying without compressing and it is much faster than ripping. Just about every network audio music player supports WAV format. Some are starting to support FLAC but with storage so cheap, it's not just not worth while. WAV is the defacto standard for Digital Audio Workstation software (for recording music) and also Video Editing Software.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom56 You can do simple copying without compressing and it is much faster than ripping. Just about every network audio music player supports WAV format. Some are starting to support FLAC but with storage so cheap, it's not just not worth while. WAV is the defacto standard for Digital Audio Workstation software (for recording music) and also Video Editing Software.

Thanks. It may depend on specific uses and software, but I don't think ripping/compressing takes significantly longer on my system than ripping alone. It does the compression in parallel with the read/write, and it seems to be able to do that faster than it reads from the CD, so almost no added time. IOW, the CD reading is the "weak link in the chain", plenty of time to do the compressing w/o impacting the total throughput. Even if it was a bit longer, I click and walk away, as it takes some time to read an entire CD. I'd be unlikely to notice anyhow.

If you have the need to convert from FLAC to WAV more than once in a blue moon, than sure, it's probably more practical to just stay in WAV. I occasionally convert my FLAC file (w/o changing the original, but making a copy) to mp3 for a player that doesn't support FLAC, and that does take more time than just a copy(*) - , but I do it rarely and it's just a click and come back later anyhow. But that would be the same going from WAV to mp3 for a portable player (if you were doing to save space)

(*) I got curious, tested on a double CD, 560MB FLAC, it copies HDD-HDD in ~ 16 seconds, copy/mp3 convert was 1:20.

Bottom line - the most important thing in my view is, use lossless for the master (and back them up!)! WAV/FLAC is a preference based on how you use it. I don't think you can go wrong choosing either.


-ERD50

[RunningBum]

I converted my CD collection over 15 years ago. I don't remember if mp3 was the only target freely available, or the most compatible with mp3 players of the time, or what, but whatever the reason is, I started with mp3, and it has served me well. As I bought digital music, it was either mp3 or wma, and later I had to convert those wma files to mp3. I've only bought a few actual CDs in the last 10 years.

I think I tried FLAC for comparison a few years ago and couldn't tell the difference--either my ears or my equipment to blame. But if I was to start converting now, I'd probably do it in that form. It occurs to me that I should go back and re-convert the top 20 or so CDs I still play a lot to FLAC. I need to see if my car, mp3 player, and Plex can play that format, since those are my main forms of listening.

[NoiseBoy]

The main disadvantage to using the Free Lossless Audio Codec is the lack of native support for it on all Apple products. Apple offers a competing lossless format, Apple Lossless, and so far they have resisted adding support for FLAC. If you want to play your ripped FLAC tunes on your iPhone, you'll have to add an app to do it.

When I started ripping CDs into iTunes 16 years ago, disk space was expensive and music players had tiny, by today's standards, capacities, so after some research I choose 224Kbps AAC files. I had to choose one of Apple's formats because otherwise I could not buy songs from iTunes and load them onto the same iPod. Meaning you could not load mp3s (without digital rights management) files and AAC purchased songs at the same time. Sheesh.

Fast forward 12 years or so and disk space became cheap and portable music devices and phones had much larger capacities, so I increased my bit rate to 320 VBR and that's where it stands today. I use Apple Lossless for any tracks that I might use for critical listening, but my use main case for portable music is as background to some other activity so absolute fidelity is not really required.

If I were just starting out today, I would probably choose a lossless format. But, at the same time, I am confident that I cannot tell the difference between 320 VBR and lossless. FWIW, per the LAME standard, there is no lowpass filter applied to MP3s ripped at 256Kbps and above. Apple Music is streamed at 256Kbps in AAC format, while Spotify uses the Ogg Vorbis format at 320Kbps. Kids today only listen to streamed content

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum .... I think I tried FLAC for comparison a few years ago and couldn't tell the difference--either my ears or my equipment to blame. ...

I don't think many will hear(*) a difference in a high-rate mp3 (or even a lower rate mp3) and lossless. That's not really the point IMO. It's about having a 'master', so that if you need to convert later, you are not adding artifacts to artifacts, at that point, it may become more noticeable.

But I apply a general concept here, that I try to apply in many areas of life - risk/reward/effort. It takes no real added effort and very little resources to keep a lossless master, and it may pay off someday, so I just do it.

(*) - Even on my fairly high end stereo, the difference in mp3 and lossless is not readily apparent. But we know that something has been removed from the music. I've tested this by doing a subtraction of the compressed and originals in an audio editing program. You can now hear what is missing - little details, transients, tails of the reverb, etc. These little things are not obvious in a short A vs B, the algorithms do a very good job, but...

I've made this analogy before. I'm sure we've all sat in a chair, or behind the wheel of a new car, and thought it was comfortable. Feels great, right? But take that car on a long drive, or sit through a long movie, and that same chair might start feeling terribly uncomfortable. I think this may be happening with compressed music. After a while, I find I sort of lose interest - I think all those little details, which are not obvious, begin to affect how much I enjoy the music. Something is missing (literally!), and over time, it just starts to sound rather dull and lifeless, compared to the original.

But again, the effort/resources to maintain lossless are so small, that I'll just do it, even if I'm just imagining the difference, just in case. It's cheap insurance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum .... It occurs to me that I should go back and re-convert the top 20 or so CDs I still play a lot to FLAC. I need to see if my car, mp3 player, and Plex can play that format, since those are my main forms of listening.

My car doesn't support FLAC (boo-hiss!), but that means I can go to my masters, and make a "first-generation" mp3, of any size/bit rate I feel is adequate for the purpose. So I still want FLAC masters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoiseBoy The main disadvantage to using the Free Lossless Audio Codec is the lack of native support for it on all Apple products. ...

As much as I can, I try to support companies that support open formats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoiseBoy ... If I were just starting out today, I would probably choose a lossless format. But, at the same time, I am confident that I cannot tell the difference between 320 VBR and lossless. .... Kids today only listen to streamed content

See above for my views on listening. And I think it is weird that kids and young adults today have such advanced technology, yet, they mostly settle for sound that is often of far lesser quality than we had back in the day. I don't know any young people that have decent speakers/amp. None. And speakers can easily make a bigger difference than mp3 vs lossless.

Kids these days!

-ERD50

[Focus]

I'll just share my experience, for what it's worth.

After deciding to get rid of all my CDs, I ripped them and uploaded them to Google Play Music (now YouTube Music). Music is a passion and I had collected CDs since their inception, so it was no small task. That was about a year ago. Know how often I have accessed those files? Very few times.

I think many of us who collected in the past have retained our scarcity mindset. It's a different world, one with easy access to digital entertainment via numerous channels. That said, I still care about sound quality, which is I've retained my concert Blu-rays.

[RunningBum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I don't think many will hear(*) a difference in a high-rate mp3 (or even a lower rate mp3) and lossless. That's not really the point IMO. It's about having a 'master', so that if you need to convert later, you are not adding artifacts to artifacts, at that point, it may become more noticeable.

Well, I still have almost all of the CDs, so I do have the masters. Right now they are taking one shelf in my living room bookcase. If I had a better use for that shelf I'd put them in a box. At some point in life, the box will take up more space than it's worse, but I doubt I'll care then either. I think you've convinced me to hold onto the CDs, at least the one I know I care about, unless I make a lossless master of it.

Quote:

But I apply a general concept here, that I try to apply in many areas of life - risk/reward/effort. It takes no real added effort and very little resources to keep a lossless master, and it may pay off someday, so I just do it.

I don't agree about "no real effort". Swapping in and out hundreds of CDs alone is effort, and wear on my laptop. Maybe everything is properly tagged now, but when I first went to mp3 I had to fix some naming errors and even type in track names of more obscure CDs. And then I have inconsistently put in various naming conventions. I don't even remember all of the reasons but I know my Subaru only looks at the first X characters, which I found out when "The Wall" was played in random order, which makes for a confusing listen.

I do agree about "very little resources". 15 years ago it took significant disk space to store all of my music, but that space is trivial now.

[RunningBum]

If I was really concerned with physical space, I would get some CD sleeves and get rid of the jewel cases. Likewise for my DVDs, which I've digitalized as well.

[11522914]

I had well over 600 cds. Thought about saving them to hard drive.

Ended up selling them at our garage sale.

Got Spotify. It's on the TV, computer and mobile. It is $14.99 per month for 4 of us.

I would say most of the cds I had are on there. What I love is it makes song suggestions based on the music you listen to. I have found so many new artists and songs.

Love Spotify.

[RetMD21]

Thanks all. Going through the CDs I found music that I had forgotten about. It will be more accessible when digital. Since we will be downsizing and moving I want to get rid of the physical disks. If rip Io a lossless format I haven't really lost anything.

[Major Tom]

I was struggling with a collection of 10,000 CD's about 10 years ago. I have been moving to smaller and smaller spaces and, with every move, cursed the 70+ boxes it took to move the collection. As of today, I am down to about 4,000 CD's at a very rough estimate. I will probably keep many of these but eventually, all of them will be stored on HD, whether I own the original CD or not.

Oh, the point of this post? Everything is archived in FLAC. It is a compression codec that has been widely adopted, and is open-source. I think this bodes well for the next few decades after which, I will probably be dead.

The part of my archiving project that near-killed me though, was my insistence that, before getting rid of a CD, I had to have full resolution scans of all the artwork - every page of the booklet, the front and back covers, and even the CD itself. For 6,000 CD's, that took up a large portion of my retired life that I can never get back. I don't think I have the energy to adopt that same approach with the remaining part of my collection.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major Tom I was struggling with a collection of 10,000 CD's about 10 years ago. I have been moving to smaller and smaller spaces and, with every move, cursed the 70+ boxes it took to move the collection. As of today, I am down to about 4,000 CD's at a very rough estimate. I will probably keep many of these but eventually, all of them will be stored on HD, whether I own the original CD or not. Oh, the point of this post? Everything is archived in FLAC. It is a compression codec that has been widely adopted, and is open-source. I think this bodes well for the next few decades after which, I will probably be dead. The part of my archiving project that near-killed me though, was my insistence that, before getting rid of a CD, I had to have full resolution scans of all the artwork - every page of the booklet, the front and back covers, and even the CD itself. For 6,000 CD's, that took up a large portion of my retired life that I can never get back. I don't think I have the energy to adopt that same approach with the remaining part of my collection.

I recall you mentioning these numbers of CDs. I can't imagine! I have maybe 300? Never counted.

I have scanned some artwork, but mostly from the albums I've digitized, but that brings me to another issue/opportunity - I think I'll start a new thread, back in a minute...

here it is:

https://www.early-retirement.org/for...ml#post2500128


-ERD50

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum .... I don't agree about "no real effort". Swapping in and out hundreds of CDs alone is effort, and wear on my laptop. Maybe everything is properly tagged now, but when I first went to mp3 I had to fix some naming errors and even type in track names of more obscure CDs. ....

I guess I wasn't clear. I only meant that ripping to FLAC was no extra effort over WAV or mp3. The ripping process itself does take some effort, and re-ripping would be an effort. And I always go "NO!" when some CD I have has no on-line data base entries. Oh the horror of typing in track names! We get spoiled pretty quickly.

While I still lean towards owning rather than streaming, I have to admit I buy very few CDs anymore. When I see to have a desire for something old I never got around to buying, I find it on youtube usually, and even though the sound quality isn't so good, it seems to satisfy my hunger.

-ERD50

[RunningBum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I guess I wasn't clear. I only meant that ripping to FLAC was no extra effort over WAV or mp3. The ripping process itself does take some effort, and re-ripping would be an effort. And I always go "NO!" when some CD I have has no on-line data base entries. Oh the horror of typing in track names! We get spoiled pretty quickly.

My fault, I was considering my own situation which would involve re-ripping the CDs in a different format. Of course you are talking about ripping for the first time, that FLAC takes little or no extra effort or time over mp3.

Quote:

While I still lean towards owning rather than streaming, I have to admit I buy very few CDs anymore. When I see to have a desire for something old I never got around to buying, I find it on youtube usually, and even though the sound quality isn't so good, it seems to satisfy my hunger. -ERD50

Same here on youtube. If I decide I like it enough, then I'll buy and download the mp3. If I like the whole CD, sometimes it's cheaper to buy that than download the whole CD. And often on Amazon I can download the mp3 if I've bought the physical disk, which doesn't make sense for them to sell cheaper but I've seen it.

[Music Lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 11522914 I had well over 600 cds. Thought about saving them to hard drive. Ended up selling them at our garage sale. Got Spotify. It's on the TV, computer and mobile. It is $14.99 per month for 4 of us. I would say most of the cds I had are on there. What I love is it makes song suggestions based on the music you listen to. I have found so many new artists and songs. Love Spotify.

I sometimes use Spotify and really like the song suggestions. It's handy if you're having a few people over, but it is inferior compressed sound and some people may find it lacking. I'll use it on the deck or around the firepit but when I'm sitting in my recliner I prefer to listen to CD's or WAV/flac music.