Converting Flac to Wav & Upconversion

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

Thank you Steve.
I have only limited experience with upsampling and I am thankful to you for your much more generilized input

"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

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.

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