Converting Flac to Wav & Upconversion

I have Musica Pristina Virtuoso music server and here is my experience.

1 When I rip CD into WAV and FLAC (two separate files) and compare both - WAVE is dramatically better then FLAC which sounds lean, thin, 2D and castrated

2 When I take FLAC file I have downloaded from HDTracks.com or hidefenitiontapetransfer and convert it to WAV format I never experience sound degradation described in TAS recently. Converted WAV is better then FLAC but not in 100%. So I do convert as there is no downside (besides space which is cheap now) and potential improvments. Sound characteristics as I described above

3 When I upsample file, WAV or FLAC, (I use Musica Pristina software) then I hear tremendous improvment in highs: silkier, extended, air, instrument separation. Bass does not change (a bit tighter) but is not so promiment in comparison. Its natural, as we just improved highs and ear is not used to it! Later on, bass sound "normal"

I believe that upsampling results depends grealy on the DAC you use because if it does its own upsampling then done twice it could be worsen, in theory I believe. My DAC is Esoteric K-01 USB DAC portion of this SACD Player.

Done right - the SQ is better then majority of analog gears I auditioned in my life

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

Hello Steve,

"Dob - It helps to understand why upsampling makes things sound smoother and silkier. "

I do not beleieve its always the case and depends larfely on the given DAC (with its filters and other parameters)

I believe later on you also said that if X then Y and else its Z etc....

I think audiophile must trust their ears first of all. If I like the taste of the given soup I don;t have to learn all exact ingridiens and methods of cooking involved in its preparation - leaving it to the brilliant chefs as you are.

Always ewmjoy reading your comments. Thanks a lot

Thanks

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!

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