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?"

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

Maybe this was covered, but anybody know a good, reliable program that can do bulk conversion of a library of 1000's of .wav files to FLAC?

I would do this mainly for the metadata tagging advantages of FLAC versus .wav. My library is mostly .wav, just a few FLAC, but I would like to investigate moving more towards FLAC in the future.

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