Converting Flac to Wav & Upconversion

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?

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

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?

Does AIFF keep all the artwork sorted as well as FLAC? Does AIFF sound the same as WAV?

Thanks in advance!

Hi Steve,
Thanks for your thoughts. I've been reading that transcoding Flac to WAV with i7 multi core processors maybe the key to solving the problems like timing and latency add to the decoding process as the envelope surrounding the file is opened. There may eventually be (or maybe there are now) be some software written that assigns one core to the transcoding process. I know that in dbPoweramp has implemented such a scheme in their newest versions but I don't think it is used for transcoding.

In my latest tests, I can hear the difference between Flac and WAV files and know it is there. But if I just listen to the Flac and am not actively comparing it one doesn't really notice. Encoding files with the no compression or 0 compression is much closer to WAV.

I've also found it makes a difference in the processor in the PC doing the transcoding. For instance my WHS machine has an older AMD Athalon processor and while it is very quick to send out the files if I use it to run PS Audio's eLyric from the server with transcoding turned on, it clearly sounds worse than sending the files to my Windows laptop with an i5 processor running eLyric which performs the transcoding.

Using Fidelizer on both the WHS and laptop make a big difference as well.

Mapman,
jRiver or dbPoweramp can do the trick. I believe if you go to the FLAC website there is a free converter as well. There may be others available free. Do a google search.

Steve,
My system does resolve the differences and they are clearly discernible. I have never used USB only Ethernet and I'm learning more tricks all the time about how to improve the sound quality. Using CAT 7 Ethernet cable, providing linear power supplies for routers and gigabyte switches, using Fidelizer, using PS Audio regenerators and filters for all front end components and any piece of computer related hardware, are a few of the almost insane lengths I've gone to. I suspect that many of these tweaks would help systems with USB interfaces as well.

It would be interesting to compare USB to Ethernet streaming to find if there were inherent advantages in sound quality from one system to the other.

In my system, comparing the same WAV to Flac files, I don't hear differences in imaging, but there is just a little more snap and live sound with WAV and maybe a little more blackness. However if one is not comparing them purposely, they are so close that one is really not aware that, "Oh, too bad that was a Flac file not a WAV."

I'm investigating types of computers, their components, and operating systems to find out how I can improve this aspect as well.

Thanks for your input.
Steve

Each program works a little differently and they should be able to convert your entire library though it might take several hours. Which format are you going to switch them all too?

DOB,
I do hear a difference. WAV does sound better than Flac in a direct comparison. Especially if the FLAC file is heavily compressed. Flac files at zero compression sound much closer to WAV.
It has been suggested that it is decoding the envelope around the Flac file might cause software jitter that is sent to your DAC. Many have found that the newest i7 processors have much less trouble (if any at all) decoding Flac files This is all conjecture at this point as few know for sure.
Apparently there is more difference between the two depending on if you use Ethernet via DNLA vs USB. Most have reported less differences if the Ethernet via DNLA which is what I use. In most if these systems one can enable transcoding the Flac to WAV on the fly. I use this also.
So until you have tried streaming the files via both methods maybe you should be a little more open when deciding what I can hear.
I do hear the differences between Flac and WAV and they are much larger via USB than DNLA Ethernet. I have spent lots of money and improving my Ethernet system to minimize these differences.
In my system the difference though detectable have become smaller and smaller until I don't really care. Yes WAV still sounds a bit better as described above. I'm hoping that like others, upgrading my transcoding PC will finally make the differences between Flac and WAV undetectable.
At this point, WAV still sounds to just a little bit better. So close that I'd rather take a little hit in SQ rather than having lost tags and retagging again and again.
Hopefully you have learned some things about Flac and WAV playback systems. I'm always ready to learn a new trick. In audio, I have learned to never say never. Little things can make a big difference to the sound and all things have the potential to affect the sound of your system.

Would you believe treating the cd before it is ripped and using footers under your ripping drive during ripping could effect the SQ? Or that the quality and type of Ethernet cable can be heard? Many would say not, but my ears and system have been proven to be right by those who have kept an open mind and listened for themselves.

So long and farewell for now and someday I'll learn to keep my deaf ears to myself.
Sincerely,
Steven

Thanks DOB
No offense.
I'll check out Musica Pristina
It is a great hobby and trying to get the most from digital is quite an undertaking. We are pioneers. And there seems to be more than one way to get there.
Steven

Hi,
I would like to illuminate my "subtle" reference between Flac and WAV files. I have heard some systems where the differences were not subtle between the files. WAV was much better no contest. In fact when I first started with PC Audio, using USB and then moving to the Bridge and PWD II the differences were not subtle. It is only now with CAT 7 Ethernet wiring the system, a faster computer to transcode, better power supplies for routers and switches, and several other small changes have the differences between the two formats become less discernible. But I've spent a lot of time and money to do this. I did not set out to do this, it was not a goal, it just happened as a result of my system getting better.
I would love to close the gap, and believe upgrading to an i7 processor, a solid state drive and a few other changes might make the point mute.
There is definitely an advantage in setting your Flac compression to the least amount possible.