Tool to Batch-convert FLAC to MP3?

P

Patton

n00b
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
21
I recently had to format, and lost the vast majority of the music I had on my computer (4000+ songs :mad: ) Fortunately for me, I was planning on re-ripping a lot of it to a lossless format anyways, so the format kinda forced my hand.

So, after running all these CDs through EAC for the last two days, I'm finally done ripping all these songs to FLAC. Thing is, I want to be able to listen to all these songs on my iPod as well. What I want to do is make copies from the FLAC files and have them encoded as 192 kbps mp3s, or AAC, something that won't eat too much room AND can be played by the player without custom firmware. Is there a program out there that will let me do this all at once?
 
another vote for foobar

if you are going to convert to MP3 make sure its VBR but for AAC try 195 ABR
 
192kbps is a pretty high bitrate for iPod playback. Unless you have some pretty decent earbuds/IEMs, you may not even be able to discern 96kbps AAC from 192kbps MP3 (let's assume you'd encode with LAME 3.97). With AAC, 96kbps and below is where you really begin to start compromising between SQ and file size, and 128kbps should be sufficient and "safe" for most music.
 
phide said:
192kbps is a pretty high bitrate for iPod playback. Unless you have some pretty decent earbuds/IEMs, you may not even be able to discern 96kbps AAC from 192kbps MP3 (let's assume you'd encode with LAME 3.97). With AAC, 96kbps and below is where you really begin to start compromising between SQ and file size, and 128kbps should be sufficient and "safe" for most music.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

128k MP3 is plenty for most peoples setup and you cannot tell the difference with anything higher. I rip all my music at 192k MP3 as I have some higher end headphones and equipment I play my stuff on and I cannot tell a big improvement going any higher for the amount of space the files start to take up.
 
Hmm, I guess 192 kbps is a bit overkill for an ipod, so I'll re-encode them lower. I was going to use VBR anyways, but I should be able to fit everything on my ipod now.

On the other hand, I feel like a moron for never really looking at the right-click menu in foobar. I've been using that as my primary player for years, and never realized it could re-encode music. Oops. Anyways, thanks for the help guys.
 
the only time i can tell the difference in >192kbps is in bits that have breathing, rain or leaves moving in the wind. i dont know how to explain it but i can hear noise. with music 192 and up sounds the same on my eim's.

good luck with the convert.
 
Patton said:
Hmm, I guess 192 kbps is a bit overkill for an ipod, so I'll re-encode them lower. I was going to use VBR anyways, but I should be able to fit everything on my ipod now.

On the other hand, I feel like a moron for never really looking at the right-click menu in foobar. I've been using that as my primary player for years, and never realized it could re-encode music. Oops. Anyways, thanks for the help guys.
Click to expand...

Pfft don't listen to those fools! :p

I encoded my music collection to VBR ~255k AAC because you can never be too careful! Is it overkill? Yes. Am I proud that it's overkill? Yes. Does it help me get with the ladies? I like to think so.* :cool:


*In reality no. :(
 
Wow, you guys must have bad ears or something. I can tell a difference between 256k and 320k mp3s pretty easy. Cymbals usually give it away everytime.

I do use monitors though.
 
I need at least 192 or I hear distortion I can't explain it. Also the highs just sound flat and the lows aren't there. I just use cheap headphones with my MP3 with nice ones I can really tell.
 
phide said:
Show us some ABX logs then ;)
Click to expand...

ABX logs ?? Sorry, guess I'm a noob in this forum. I'll go google...

If it makes you feel better, in 5th grade we had to test our ears for pitch before entering band. I was the first to get a perfect 120/120.
:p
 
Take a FLAC file, encode it at various bitrates and YOU the OP choose which sounds best to you, then stick with it.

Foobar2000 is probably one of the easiest to use converters, actually. Load some FLAC files, select them, right-click, choose Convert, choose the format, point it to where the mp3 encoder is (LAME is obviously the preferred one) and that's about it.

No one can tell you what will sound best to your ears, you have to figure that out on your own.

'Nuff typed.
 
SpaceHonkey said:
ABX logs ?? Sorry, guess I'm a noob in this forum. I'll go google...
Click to expand...
You can do ABX tests with foobar2000 (the most recent stable version, and make sure you pay a bit of attention to some of the installer's panes, as some of the extensions need to be checked). Fairly easy process, really -- you'll determine which file is which by 'matching' them via four buttons, the buttons will then be randomized, and you'll repeat this 10 to 20 times. It calculates the probability that you're guessing, and that's about all there is to it.

If you can discern between 256k and 320k, you could be quite an asset to codec developers, actually.

If you want to learn more, check out Hydrogenaudio.org.
 
I did some testing myself to see if I really was full of it. I used Wavelab and ripped a wav of The Grudge from Tool/Lateralus, and made 256, 320, and max VBR mp3 versions of it. Blind listening between the mp3s I really didn't notice any difference. I could tell differences, but I couldn't pick which was which. I even (not blindly) studied specific sections and each time I would notice a difference, I would hone in on it only to find out I couldn't replicate the perceived difference.

I was able to tell a difference between the mp3s and the wave fairly easily. I suspected and was able to prove that the dynamics were most different. Actually it kind of discussted me how different they where. Seems like it the codec compresses it (think compressor, not file compression) a bit before it before compression. Wow, that still sounds confusing - you engineers will know what I mean. But you've gotta cut bits somewhere right?

Sorry if I offended anyone by claiming to have good ears. Seems to be a bit touchy around these parts...
 
For me, Metallica's Sad But True has always been able to highlight the differences between LAME 320 vs lossless. Especially the cymbals, like someone mentioned earlier. This one song is not even remotely hard to tell the difference. You could probably spot it drunk. I guess its more complex then most music. Whatever the reason, you should try it.
Even if you think 128 bit is good enough, you should try to keep lossless for archival purposes, as you will probably one day wish to buy better stereo equipment, etc. Plus you can train your ears over time, and may come to tire of mp3s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top