Topic: Conversion Proposal... (Read 7169 times)

Matt · « **on:** March 15, 2019, 01:19:17 pm »

[Edit by JimH -- This change was discussed and then reversed.]

Hi everyone,

We're proposing turning off conversion from lossy formats to lossless formats.

Here's a screenshot:

Does this seem reasonable? We can't think of any reason to allow it, and can think of a few reasons it could be bad (pollution of our online music service for example).

Thanks.

Awesome Donkey · « **Reply #1 on:** March 15, 2019, 01:27:07 pm »

Personally, I agree with this. But I'm sure there's some poor, misguided soul out there that actually wants to do this (WHY?!?!) and they'll probably end up complaining at some point. Maybe having an option to allow it hidden somewhere in the options would be a good compromise... even though I believe doing such things are blasphemous! Honestly, I'd just do it and see if anyone eventually complains about it on the forums so we can help guide the misguided soul.

SamuriHL · « **Reply #2 on:** March 15, 2019, 01:34:37 pm »

Good god people do this?? Yea, it's a terrible idea so I'm on board with turning that off.

jmone · « **Reply #3 on:** March 15, 2019, 03:17:20 pm »

Actually, what would be better is if MC warned users on Import/Analysing if you have such dodgy audio files. These guys have written some papers and even released an app that will scan your files (a work in progress). http://losslessaudiochecker.com/#workinprogress

Detection algorithms
Upscaling
Upsampling
AAC-SIN Transcoding: AAC tracks, encoded using sine windows, transcoded to a lossless format

Work in progress
AAC-KBD Transcoding: AAC tracks, encoded using KBD windows (e.g., Nero AAC), transcoded to a lossless format
MP3 Transcoding: MP3 tracks transcoded to a lossless format

AndrewFG · « **Reply #4 on:** March 15, 2019, 03:26:51 pm »

Theres always going to be someone who claims that converting their MP3s to 256kHz 24bit or 4x DSD will improve the sound..

SamuriHL · « **Reply #5 on:** March 15, 2019, 03:28:39 pm »

You can't create something that's not there. Good lord!

AndrewFG · « **Reply #6 on:** March 15, 2019, 03:37:24 pm »

I am not going to be lead into commenting on their state of mind. Merely mentioning that this change will result in threadfuls of posts from such people, and similar responses as yours. Personally I wouldn’t go there..

SamuriHL · « **Reply #7 on:** March 15, 2019, 03:40:40 pm »

Then perhaps its an opportunity to educate such people...

Awesome Donkey · « **Reply #8 on:** March 15, 2019, 03:42:07 pm »

Yep, I have to agree with Andrew here.

Maybe instead of straight out preventing such conversions, it'll a) pop up a warning for the user informing them it's not a good idea to convert lossy to lossless (and give a brief reason why) with a "are you sure" type of button in case they wish to proceed and b) maybe add some tag to the converted file noting it's a lossy to lossless conversion? Though the sticking point there is probably adding a tag like that, since such users will likely try to remove it.

But... I also like Nathan's idea too regarding detecting files that are lossy to lossless conversions during import/analysis. I can see how such a thing could really come in handy.

JimH · « **Reply #9 on:** March 15, 2019, 03:42:20 pm »

Quote from: AndrewFG on March 15, 2019, 03:26:51 pm

Theres always going to be someone who claims that converting their MP3s to 256kHz 24bit or 4x DSD will improve the sound..

That's very true. The question is whether we should be their unwitting accomplice. I personally would like to just say we don't do that.

You can blame it on Inflateablemouse's question about quality:
https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,119839.msg828519.html#msg828519

Awesome Donkey · « **Reply #10 on:** March 15, 2019, 03:44:06 pm »

Quote from: SamuriHL on March 15, 2019, 03:40:40 pm

Then perhaps its an opportunity to educate such people...

Well, people like that (as misguided as they may be) can be pretty stubborn and just want to do it anyways. It's really a no-win situation, even though I support the idea.

SamuriHL · « **Reply #11 on:** March 15, 2019, 03:49:23 pm »

So the choice is letting them live with their ignorance and belief that they are "improving" the quality vs irritating them by not "letting them" "increase quality" by disabling this functionality? Delightful.

InflatableMouse · « **Reply #12 on:** March 15, 2019, 03:49:38 pm »

Quote from: SamuriHL on March 15, 2019, 03:28:39 pm

Well they're idiots then. You can't create something that's not there. Good lord!

Actually you can, its called distortion. And some people think that makes it sound better.

InflatableMouse · « **Reply #13 on:** March 15, 2019, 03:50:45 pm »

Quote from: jmone on March 15, 2019, 03:17:20 pm

Actually, what would be better is if MC warned users on Import/Analysing if you have such dodgy audio files. These guys have written some papers and even released an app that will scan your files (a work in progress). http://losslessaudiochecker.com/#workinprogress

Detection algorithms
Upscaling
Upsampling
AAC-SIN Transcoding: AAC tracks, encoded using sine windows, transcoded to a lossless format

Work in progress
AAC-KBD Transcoding: AAC tracks, encoded using KBD windows (e.g., Nero AAC), transcoded to a lossless format
MP3 Transcoding: MP3 tracks transcoded to a lossless format

I would love to see this in MC too.

SamuriHL · « **Reply #14 on:** March 15, 2019, 03:50:55 pm »

Quote from: InflatableMouse on March 15, 2019, 03:49:38 pm

Actually you can, its called distortion. And some people think that makes it sound better.

Well, ok, yes you can corrupt the data. If people think that makes it "sound better" there's very little hope for the world. LOL

dtc · « **Reply #15 on:** March 15, 2019, 04:01:20 pm »

Well, there is at least one situation where some people feel it is quite reasonable to convert a lossy file to a lossless format. Some people believe that at least some DSD DACs sound better than comparable PCM only DACs. And those people sometimes buy DSD only DACs. Therefore, they will want to convert not only PCM files to DSD, but also mp3 files to DSD. The issue is not creating something out of nothing. The issue is that the very process of playing DSD files is different than playing PCM files and some people find that sound more pleasing. So, a PCM file converted to DSD may sound better to some people - not because of the extra bits but because of the playback mechanism. It is a personal preference that some people have. If those people cannot convert to DSD, then they simply will not be able to play some of their music.

Lets not get into yet another discussion of what effect different playback mechanisms and playback filters have. Some people like the sound of DSD better than PCM. For those people, not being able to convert to DSD may be a detriment.

dtc · « **Reply #16 on:** March 15, 2019, 04:05:38 pm »

As to distortion, many people like the sounds of tubes over solid state and many believe that the odd order harmonics (distortion) that tubes produce is part of the reason. Well, maybe some people are wired to like that type of distortion. Does that make them wrong? Actually, the reason there are so many different types of electronics and speakers is that different people have different preferences for sound. There is no one standard - unless you want to tell people that they are wrong in enjoying the particular sound they like.

Objectionist versus subjectivist - there is no single answer to this question.

jmone · « **Reply #17 on:** March 15, 2019, 04:07:38 pm »

Also what about those that want to apply a whole heaps of DSP effects and then want to make a transcode of that file? Would't using a lossless container help preserve the additional detail that the DSP has created?

Awesome Donkey · « **Reply #18 on:** March 15, 2019, 04:10:40 pm »

Hmmmm. Converting PCM to DSD or DSD to PCM would technically count as a lossy to lossless conversion as well but unlike other lossy to lossless conversions which are likely few and far between, there's plenty people who actually do that.

jmone · « **Reply #19 on:** March 15, 2019, 04:11:01 pm »

Quote from: jmone on March 15, 2019, 03:17:20 pm

Actually, what would be better is if MC warned users on Import/Analysing if you have such dodgy audio files. These guys have written some papers and even released an app that will scan your files (a work in progress). http://losslessaudiochecker.com/#workinprogress

Detection algorithms
Upscaling
Upsampling
AAC-SIN Transcoding: AAC tracks, encoded using sine windows, transcoded to a lossless format

Work in progress
AAC-KBD Transcoding: AAC tracks, encoded using KBD windows (e.g., Nero AAC), transcoded to a lossless format
MP3 Transcoding: MP3 tracks transcoded to a lossless format

FYI - this tool has found a few of my FLAC files that have been up-sampled and with errors.

With his background in creating APE, I'm sure Matt could would be interested in their paper on how to detect these mods in lossless files

RoderickGI · « **Reply #20 on:** March 15, 2019, 04:46:47 pm »

Are JRiver and its users here to evangelise only "pure" music, and prevent people from "doing the wrong thing" with their own music tracks? Are we here to change the minds of those with a cognitive dissonance regarding such lossy to lossless conversions?

I think not, even if the argument is appealing.

The bottom line is, if people want to do it, they will do it, just using a different tool.

I could also argue that there are indeed situations where one might want to do say an MP3 to FLAC conversion, even knowing the effect that will have. How about setting up for a funeral, there is a list of tracks to play, and the ~~sound system or~~ funeral company requires FLAC files. Are you going to stop and argue with them about MP3's being fine, while making arrangements for your parent's funeral, or just convert a couple of MP3s to FLAC to make them happy?

Same with a school play. There is a Playlist. Some tracks are only in AAC, but the teacher/director/whatever wants all tracks in FLAC. Okay, they should buy FLAC versions. Maybe they aren't available. Maybe they are expensive. It's a school play, the sound system isn't that good. Is anyone really going to notice the distortion introduced in the conversion, or are they going to be watching their six year old dancing around the stage?

You aren't going to educate all the funeral directors, teachers, directors, etc. on how to best handle music. In fact, you aren't going to want to once you start trying. Just look at all the discussion around MQA to see the issue.

I would suggest just a warning. Some people don't actually know it is a bad thing to do, so tell them, but still allow them to do it if they have their reasons.

For uploads to JRiver CloudPlay and so on, vet the files and reject them if they don't meet the standard. That is something that you can control and is a reasonable position to hold.

I would also really like to see a tool that can do what Nathan in suggesting, to identify tracks that have been poorly handled. That would give me the choice to re-rip them, or source better versions.

jmone · « **Reply #21 on:** March 15, 2019, 04:51:32 pm »

I agree

JimH · « **Reply #22 on:** March 15, 2019, 05:08:57 pm »

The argument that a device may require FLAC doesn't hold water, in my opinion. If a device supports FLAC, it supports MP3. Apple supports MP3, but not FLAC.

mattkhan · « **Reply #23 on:** March 15, 2019, 05:30:19 pm »

why do you care if people convert lossy to lossless? does it cost you something?

RoderickGI · « **Reply #24 on:** March 15, 2019, 05:31:18 pm »

Okay, I shouldn't have said that the sound system required FLAC. I should have just said that the Funeral Director required the tracks in FLAC format. Are you going to argue, or just provide them in that format?

JimH · « **Reply #25 on:** March 15, 2019, 06:24:47 pm »

Quote from: RoderickGI on March 15, 2019, 05:31:18 pm

Okay, I shouldn't have said that the sound system required FLAC. I should have just said that the Funeral Director required the tracks in FLAC format. Are you going to argue, or just provide them in that format?

I'll be dying to find out.

JimH · « **Reply #26 on:** March 15, 2019, 06:26:37 pm »

Quote from: mattkhan on March 15, 2019, 05:30:19 pm

why do you care if people convert lossy to lossless? does it cost you something?

Because we have a plan, and it requires quality files.

It's also a very bad idea to do, and there are many other ways to do it if you insist on it.

Can anyone think of a realistic need for it?

Gedeon · « **Reply #27 on:** March 15, 2019, 06:36:34 pm »

Not my field of interest. I obviously wouldn't do such kind of conversion, but ...

Couldn't those "lossy to lossless" files be marked in some way, through metadata, through some kind of micro-tag/mark ?

Couldn't it be done, anyway, from "lossy to less lossy", like 192kbps mp3 to 256aac ? If user insists... Maybe an advanced option which should be unlocked to allow a "no-sense" conversion after specific confirmation/warning.

dtc · « **Reply #28 on:** March 15, 2019, 06:56:58 pm »

Quote from: JimH on March 15, 2019, 06:26:37 pm

Because we have a plan, and it requires quality files.

It's also a very bad idea to do, and there are many other ways to do it if you insist on it.

Can anyone think of a realistic need for it?

Jim - I gave a realistic example based on a thread from a real MC user. It is not a common use, but it is based on a real user who your proposal would force to go to another tool. Maybe you are OK with that, but that is, of course, the issue.

Is your plan so critical that you cannot find a way to allow your users to do what they want to do? You can make it hard to do, but to eliminate the option takes a legitimate option away from real users.

By the way, what is to prevent users from moving the files to another tool, doing the conversion and moving them back to MC?

Rather than preventing your customers from doing what they want to do, maybe you should warn them about doing it, but let them do it if they want to.

Audio quality also brings up the problem of badly compressed files with very little dynamic range - the whole loudness war issue. If you want to prevent bad audio in your new program, are you also going to reject badly compressed files also?

Castius · « **Reply #29 on:** March 15, 2019, 08:40:43 pm »

I did not read the whole thread. But I just used mc to convert a YouTube video to wav. So I could edit it for myself. I would not want that to go away.

JimH · « **Reply #30 on:** March 15, 2019, 09:43:36 pm »

Quote from: Castius on March 15, 2019, 08:40:43 pm

I did not read the whole thread. But I just used mc to convert a YouTube video to wav. So I could edit it for myself. I would not want that to go away.

You could convert it to another format.

syndromeofadown · « **Reply #31 on:** March 16, 2019, 12:44:10 am »

The only time I convert lossy to lossless is with DVD rips and the occasional blu-ray rip that has DVD quality audio.
Multichannel audio on DVDs, and some blu-rays, uses Dolby Digital (AC3) and DTS which are both lossy. I rip them to flac which supports their 6 channels and high bitrate resulting from the 6 channels. I use another software for this but MC currently does it too: https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Convert_Format.

As for converting mp3 to lossless, I say disable it. If it results in the end of the world, consider adding the ability back in with warnings.

Scobie · « **Reply #32 on:** March 16, 2019, 01:29:52 am »

Cannot think of a valid reason to have this functionality, and if enabled flies in the face of pure audio sensibility which is a cornerstone of this product.

Absolutely; remove it.

mattkhan · « **Reply #33 on:** March 16, 2019, 03:30:09 am »

Quote from: JimH on March 15, 2019, 06:26:37 pm

Because we have a plan, and it requires quality files.

It's also a very bad idea to do, and there are many other ways to do it if you insist on it.

Can anyone think of a realistic need for it?

I agree with jmone and RoderickGI.

Quality of content is a different matter. Your service that requires "quality" files should enforce that standard rather than arbitrarily removing some function in this app.

The main use I can think of is the previously mentioned use for DSP processing to extract some part of a track to use it elsewhere. A niche use case but a valid one. JRiver is v convenient for this as it can follow an MPLS playlist across many underlying tracks. Having said that, the underlying tracks in that case are lossless anyway so not relevant to this case.

To my mind it seems like a needless removal of customer choice and one which doesn't seem to do what you want (protect quality of some other service). However I can't say I do this myself so don't really have a strong opinion either way.

I do think the implementation seems a bit annoying though in that you give someone an option and then tell them no after trying to use it, I think it would be better to provide the available conversion formats for the selected content instead so the user can only choose from the actually available options.

RD James · « **Reply #34 on:** March 16, 2019, 06:11:54 am »

I would recommend blocking SACD to DSD conversions too, since most people are doing that to split their SACD to individual tracks without knowing about the DSD>PCM>DSD conversion that will happen.
It would be great if you could integrate sacd_extract for that, but I don't know what the license is for it.

Quote from: dtc on March 15, 2019, 04:01:20 pm

Well, there is at least one situation where some people feel it is quite reasonable to convert a lossy file to a lossless format. Some people believe that at least some DSD DACs sound better than comparable PCM only DACs. And those people sometimes buy DSD only DACs. Therefore, they will want to convert not only PCM files to DSD, but also mp3 files to DSD. The issue is not creating something out of nothing. The issue is that the very process of playing DSD files is different than playing PCM files and some people find that sound more pleasing. So, a PCM file converted to DSD may sound better to some people - not because of the extra bits but because of the playback mechanism. It is a personal preference that some people have. If those people cannot convert to DSD, then they simply will not be able to play some of their music.

Lets not get into yet another discussion of what effect different playback mechanisms and playback filters have. Some people like the sound of DSD better than PCM. For those people, not being able to convert to DSD may be a detriment.

DSD is a lossy format, not lossless - so I guess it would not apply here?

Quote from: RoderickGI on March 15, 2019, 04:46:47 pm

Are JRiver and its users here to evangelise only "pure" music, and prevent people from "doing the wrong thing" with their own music tracks? Are we here to change the minds of those with a cognitive dissonance regarding such lossy to lossless conversions?

I think not, even if the argument is appealing.
The bottom line is, if people want to do it, they will do it, just using a different tool.

Lossy > Lossless is essentially an invalid conversion and I see no reason to support it.

BryanC · « **Reply #35 on:** March 16, 2019, 08:17:13 am »

I think that the ability to convert lossy>lossless should be an advanced option that is off by default. That way, users that do so to apply DSP or whatever other esoteric reason would be unaffected.

If the option is ever enabled, maybe it should permanently disallow uploads to CloudPlay.

cncb · « **Reply #36 on:** March 16, 2019, 08:39:37 am »

I assume this wouldn't affect real-time conversion like for DLNA where lossy to lossless is useful (e.g. for volume leveling)?

jachin99 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 16, 2019, 08:49:07 am »

Why not just make a standalone tool? I can honestly picture a lot of strange situations where for whatever reason someone wants their files in a particular format and there is no time or good reason to argue with them. You might be able to point the jriver user user in the right direction but it would still be up to said user to change the third party's mind.

greynolds · « **Reply #38 on:** March 16, 2019, 07:23:33 pm »

Rather than putting any effort at all into removing an existing feature, I’d rather see that effort put into working on new features and fixing existing bugs. I agree that it’s generally silly to convert lossy to lossless, but if someone really wants to do it, they’re going to find a way; removing the feature from your software isn’t going to prevent someone from uploading low quality content to your servers.

Hendrik · « **Reply #39 on:** March 16, 2019, 07:47:23 pm »

Personally, I think at most it should warn people that its not recommended, just in case someone truely just doesn't know, with an option to dismiss the warning forever, but not block it. Blocking it will just cause complaints, and there really is no benefit to doing so. As others have said, they'll find a way if they really want to. We shouldn't try to "nanny" users like that. We can offer tools, and even recommendations if we want to, but trying to enforce rules on top of that is a very slippery slope - in my opinion.

If the entire purpose is to ensure quality uploads, then trying to do something like jmone suggested, and actually trying to analyze audio for its quality sounds like a great option - but I don't know how reliable something like that can be. Nothing is preventing someone from converting in another tool and uploading, or having low-quality recordings in the first place that someone once claimed to be "lossless". As an alternative, I also like the idea of writing a tag to identify the original format, if you just want to block simple cases of conversion in MC and then immediately uploading. Of course if someone is very eager, they might find and remove the tag, but in the same way they might also convert in another tool.

There is also some actually valid conversion scenarios, not to increase quality, but to preserve it. If I have audio in an uncommon or new lossy format, that some devices may not be able to play, and I want to convert it to a format they can play, what do I pick? Converting lossy to lossy will always further degrade quality. Always. So I would convert to FLAC. I'm under no illusions that it'll improve the quality, but it'll exactly preserve the quality I already had.

Yaobing · « **Reply #40 on:** March 16, 2019, 08:29:14 pm »

I like the idea of "Original Format" tag.

ferday · « **Reply #41 on:** March 16, 2019, 08:30:19 pm »

i actually have converted a small amount of lossy to FLAC in the past, for reasons exactly like Hendrik stated (archival purposes)

JRiver is all about choice and i'd hate to see it start going the other way

Castius · « **Reply #42 on:** March 17, 2019, 01:39:29 am »

I like the tagging as well. I also thing a simple warning is reasnable. It's not something you should do unless you mean to.

Manfred · « **Reply #43 on:** March 17, 2019, 05:36:37 am »

Quote

Personally, I think at most it should warn people that its not recommended, just in case someone truely just doesn't know, with an option to dismiss the warning forever, but not block it. Blocking it will just cause complaints, and there really is no benefit to doing so.

I 100% agree with Hendrik. I also like the tagging as well.

JimH · « **Reply #44 on:** March 17, 2019, 09:17:56 am »

Quote from: Hendrik on March 16, 2019, 07:47:23 pm

There is also some actually valid conversion scenarios, not to increase quality, but to preserve it. If I have audio in an uncommon or new lossy format, that some devices may not be able to play, and I want to convert it to a format they can play, what do I pick?

MP3 high bitrate or VBR. You'll never hear the difference.

I think this issue is similar to the use of seat belts. I remember when cars had no seat belts. They were added, but they had no shoulder harnesses. Then a warning chime was added. So now, you wear a seat belt, even though you can easily buckle the belt behind you and never use it.

To the point of JRiver acting as a "nanny", I think part of our job is to promote best practices. Converting lossy to lossless is clearly not a best practice.

The issue came up because of Inflateablemouse's question on quality for the new Cloudplay, but when I thought about it, I decided that we should probably never allow lossy to lossless conversion. I've read all the posts above, and I still see no convincing argument in favor of allowing it. The best argument is that a few people won't like it. That's not enough. There are already a few things we do that someone doesn't like.

The idea of tagging files that have been converted is a good one, but it's easily defeated by a determined user.

Checking files to see if they have been converted might help, but it's a lot of work to do and may not be effective.

Again, if you have a good reason to allow lossy to lossless, please state it.

dtc · « **Reply #45 on:** March 17, 2019, 10:46:18 am »

Quote from: JimH on March 17, 2019, 09:17:56 am

MP3 high bitrate or VBR. You'll never hear the difference.

With all due respect Jim, when you came out with your little MP3 versus flac tester, people did hear the difference. You cannot, but that does not mean others don't.

Quote

Again, if you have a good reason to allow lossy to lossless, please state it.

Actually, several people have.

Hendrik · « **Reply #46 on:** March 17, 2019, 11:54:35 am »

Quote from: JimH on March 17, 2019, 09:17:56 am

MP3 high bitrate or VBR. You'll never hear the difference.

Thats not something I would accept, and just use another tool. File size is of no real concern for me with audio, since its all relatively small in comparison to my video archives, so any bit of quality I can preserve, I will preserve.
People going to another tool is the last thing you want, because if they do that often enough, they won't come back.

Quote from: JimH on March 17, 2019, 09:17:56 am

To the point of JRiver acting as a "nanny", I think part of our job is to promote best practices. Converting lossy to lossless is clearly not a best practice.

Promote and educate. Not enforce. If the reasons are good, and we can enlighten people, then they won't want to use it. If we force them, they'll just get bitter and any lesson is lost on them.

Quote from: JimH on March 17, 2019, 09:17:56 am

The idea of tagging files that have been converted is a good one, but it's easily defeated by a determined user.

Using another tool to convert to FLAC is also not hard, the web is full of them.

--

Ultimately, what I just don't get is what the advantage of such a change is. What does it do for the users of Media Center? Because I don't see anything positive there.
If all that is about is trying to prevent people from converting to lossless and uploading it, there must be other ways that don't leave a bad taste after you've been told by an app you bought that you cannot do something.

SamuriHL · « **Reply #47 on:** March 17, 2019, 11:56:18 am »

The key to what you just said is preserve. Not "manufacture."

greynolds · « **Reply #48 on:** March 17, 2019, 12:50:36 pm »

Promoting best practices doesn’t have to be heavy handed. Surely there are more productive things to spend valuable development resources on than ripping out existing functionality where the justification for doing so is fairly week.

It sounds like the number one reason to do this is for your playlist upload feature. Making the proposed change isn’t going to even come close to ensuring that only high quality files get uploaded as people have a multitude of other ways to create poor quality files.

The overwhelming feedback here is don’t do it, but it sounds like you guys were expecting the user community to give you a rubber stamp. That’s something to think about as if you start to ignore your users, they’ll be inclined to look into other options over time...

swiv3d · « **Reply #49 on:** March 17, 2019, 01:19:02 pm »

If you do implement this, then I suggest it should be done properly by only allowing lossy to lossy filetypes to be selected in the conversion screens - there is nothing more annoying than going through a process to set up an action and then have a screen pop up saying "No you can't do that!".

All in all I would have thought that there are lots of positive things to do in MC25 rather than becoming Nanny MC. Just my opinion.

How would you stop someone burning a bunch of mp3 to an RW audio cd and then use mc to rip the disc to flac format?

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Conversion Proposal... (Read 7169 times)

swiv3d