Converting Flac to Wav & Upconversion


I've seen Steve N. Recommend converting Flac to Wav a few times in the threads. Last night I downloaded DBPoweramp to give it a try. It worked great. Just took 16/44 Flac & converted to 16/44 wav. Then I noticed it offered upconversion capability... It was late, I should have been in bed an hour before, but I sat there and converted another flac file, setting it to upconvert to 24/192... Let it do its thing, hit play, heard music and when I looked up at my DAC, it said 24/192. It worked!. It was late, I had the volume on very very low, everyone was asleep. Sure, I'll listen and report, but 'm wondering if anyone else has tried this and found any sound quality difference between Flac Or Wav @ 16/44 vs upconverting the recording? I and I'm sure others would love to hear your experience, thanks in advance, Tim
timlub
DTC,

"All it really has to do is keep the buffer full and not get in the way of the aysnc USB requests."

That's pretty much always the case, isn't it?

Asynch USB might be faster/more efficient compared to other protocols maybe, but the data has to be cached upstream and readily available in any case in order to perform I would think. I'd have to read up on the aasynch/USB spec further, but not sure that alone is assured of solving the problem. Bottom line is the data has to be cached at a faster rate than it is needed to play, and readily available when needed in real time for conversion to analog.
Mapman - async USB puts the timing and request under the control of the external device, not under the control of the PC. The USB device is optimized for that and does not have other functions to distract it. So, all the PC and player have to do is keep the buffer full, which it should be able to do without much problem. Other than that, the timing is controlled by the external device.

Here is an explanation of how async USB works, from the guy who introduced it.

Async USB
Hi Dob, all I wanted to say is that Sgr's system is far superior to mine (mere mortal) and yet he stated that the differences between FLAC and WAV he heard were relatively subtle.
I simply inferred that a lesser system, like mine would probably not reveal them at all.
If this called for your comment, so be it, I'll turn a "deaf ear" to it.
The first system I noticed the difference between AIFF and ALAC (compressed lossless) was with an iPhone 3GS docked to my car's Alpine Head Unit. Not even a very expensive set up. I used the Alpine's integrated amps and a set of Rainbow component speakers.

I had done that experiment after how I noticed a CD played on an Ayon CD5S sounded a lot more dynamic and punchy vs the same CD played on my iPhone docked to a Wadia iTransport and my friend asked to change it to WAV or AIFF. I thought he was pulling my leg but did it just as a test.

After the experience with the car system, I brought the phone back to the showroom where I had tested the ALAC vs CD earlier and this time, the gap was much smaller.
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.