Converting Flac to Wav & Upconversion

FLAC to .wav conversion is one thing, but sample-rate conversion is another. dbpoweramp is great for ripping and format conversions, however it is probably a mediocre resampler at best. Use Izotope for this. It's the best.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Mezmo wrote:
"Steve, have you found that permanently up-sampling files with a purpose-built program (ie, Izotope) is beneficial?"

Depends on your DAC. With most DACs, this type of upsampling from 44.1 to 96 can be very beneficial. More detail and improved dynamics. Smoother vocals.

The problem I have found with FLAC is that on many systems it compresses the sound a bit. I believe that it is not changing the data when run statically, but dynamically something is happening to corrupt the data. With cheap disk prices and AIFF format, there is really no reason to play FLAC files. Convert them to AIFF or .wav.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Dob - It helps to understand why upsampling makes things sound smoother and silkier. Its not due to the upsampling itself, it because a different digital filtering is being auto-selected in your DAC. This higher frequency roll-off filter has less impact on the SQ.

If you can manually select the digital filter, then the advantage of upsampling the file goes away. You can select a high-frequency filter for all files for instance. That is what I do. This is even better than upsampling because you have the best of both worlds: the data is not modified and the digital filter is not impacting SQ.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Dob - higher sample-rate files can be better for high-frequency transients, but upsampling 44.1 has its own added distortions I have found. If a DAC has a high-order digital filter, then leaving a 44.1 file at 44.1 is usually the best course. This result depends on your DAC of course. I have one of the few DACs that sounds great with 44.1. At shows, the attendees believe that I'm playing hi-res when its only 44.1 rips.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

"Steve,
Any ideas about transcoding on the fly from FLAC to WAV?
Can this sound as natural as AIFF or WAV?
Has transcoding evolved to close the distance?"

It's the real-time uncompression of FLAC that causes bad audio quality. This would not change that.

"On reading your posts above, I think you were saying it is better to let the DAC do the up sampling rather then upconverting via IZotope?"

No, it is still better to use Izotope because the algorithms are better than any hardware resamplers, plus you get options to adjust.

"Is there a way for Izotope to convert on the fly like transcoding?"

No.

"Have you heard a difference converting a 44.1 file to 88.2 or 176.4 vs 96 or 192? Or does it make any difference?"

Depends on the DAC. It is more a function of how good does the digital filter at 176 sound versus the 192 filter I think.

"Does AIFF keep all the artwork sorted as well as FLAC?"

Yes.

"Does AIFF sound the same as WAV?"

I wish it did, unfortunately it sounds very diffuse and unfocused to me. I dont understand why because the only real difference is that the L-R data comes R-L instead....

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

SGR - I have found that the differences in FLAC ALAC and AIFF compared to .wav are I believe limited to software using the audio stacks, like USB and Firewire. Networked audio may not have these problems.

The sound quality differences are primarily with imaging, focus and soundstage width. Each of these has a slightly different effect. If you dont have a highly resolving system that is tweaked to achieve pinpoint imaging and wide soundstage, you may not hear any differences.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Dob wrote:
"He will never guess, that "1" is actually electrical pulse, say 1 v amplitude for illustation and could be a) mispaced in time due to the jitter and b) greatly distorted (say reduced to 0.499v) due to noisy power supply, non linear DC:DC convertors etc and be mischaracterized as a "zero""

Well, this is certainly possible, although not very probable. Most of the effects in digital audio are not due to bit-errors, but rather from jitter.

This is why it is critically important to address the jitter of the source deviceand master clock as a higher priority than the format, computer, software or even the DAC quality. All of these things are second-order effects compared to jitter.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Sgr - there have been quite a few anocdotal reports that say that networked audio is less likely to exhibit these format differences in SQ. I believe is is a funciton of the audio stack, which is bypassed when using most networked audio streaming. It is mostly audible when using PCI cards, USB or Firewire.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio