Converting Flac to Wav & Upconversion

.. Better be a clear difference to justify the much larger file size. Some difference might be possible. Better? Maybe, but my guess is not definitively in any way.

"With most DACs, this type of upsampling from 44.1 to 96 can be very beneficial."

YEs, it can, but it all depends on what specifically is done during the upsampling and that is done correctly and that the playback system is sufficiently resolving and dynamic.

The upsampling process is essentially an opportunity for the designer to digitally remaster the raw data as desired. There could be more to it that strictly just up-sampling alone. There are many common enhancement algorithms that might be applied.

As usual, the devil is in the details in each case.

Uncompressed upsampled files will be much larger. BEsides disk storage, network or computer bus bandwidth limits are more likely to come into play. IT is not without some potential risk/downside as well.

So if you do it, make sure what you hear is worth it. Bigger is not necessarily always better when it comes to digital files.

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.

SGR,

Thanks for that info.

Which program is best from a usability perspective in order to just point to a source music library and convert to a target without any additional manual interaction? I"d like to be able to fire off the program just once and have it convert all my thousands of files in one reliable shot.

I get excellent results with wireless lan connection to music server. THis approach provides excellent electronic isolation between noisy computer gear and sensitive audio gear. Also excellent for physical isolation between the two as well.

I think I have heard some similar differences to what you describe between FLAC and .wav, enough to prevent me from going all FLAC so far, but have not done enough critical comparison to say for sure.

I am running a trial version of switch converter software as we speak. Its in process of test converting all my files from wav to flac to see how it goes. Over 21000 files to convert. Should complete this weekend sometime i'm hoping and then will see what i have.

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.

When FLAC and wav sound different, its probably more due to the different software in play for each and how that is written, designed, and performs more so than the format. Decompressing FLAC files will probably require more CPU processing, but should not be a problem if done right. Of course, things are not always done right, and many factors can come into play when playing digital music files, so differences in performance between the two in any particular case would not surprise me and reasons why may not be apparent.

IT boils down to the software must be able able to run correctly and fast enough to maintain a in-memory cache of data that is available at the exact time needed for playback. Playback happens in real time, so data must be continuously streamed, made available and applied at precisely the correct time in order for things to sound best. Real time applications like computer audio up the ante in regards to what is needed for optimum performance.

Memory is shared and virtual on most general purpose computers. MAny programs may compete for available memory. WHen there is not sufficient physical (fast) memory available, virtual disk based (slow) memory is applied as a supplement to allow things to run though not as fast.

If data is not availble at the exact moment needed for playback, software has three choices:

1) pause or wait for memory to become available again. THis may result in an interruption or delay in playback until data is once again available

2) reduce the bit rate of the data stream. This would result in not all bits being used and would affect sound quality accordingly, although teh music may continue to play. A program/system designed for audiophiles would not chose this approach, but it might be applied otherwise for more casual listeners without concern.

3) some combination of 1) and 2)

With software/computer programs anything is possible and may well occur unless care is taken in design to avoid it. Specialized audio streaming devices like Squeezebox are essentially specialized and dedicated (not general purpose) computers designed to optimize performance. They take a lot of the mystery and variables that can affect the sound quality out of the equation.

SO in my opinion, the system used to stream and play FLAC or WAV files is a much bigger factor in regards to sound quality than the format itself, both of which are lossless and essentially equivalent in terms of information content. Its what content gets delivered and how well that matters most.

Unfortunately, digital playback mechanisms are not transparent to the user. There is nothing other than the hearing the resulting sound apparent to determine if if all this is occurring well or not. That's one advantage of vinyl. There is more there to see, feel and touch in addition to hear. It gives you something more physically tangible to sink your teeth into and perhaps adjust or tweak for better performance, if that is your thing. With digital audio, your listening fate is more largely determined by the equipment designers. Luckily, there are many good ones out there. There is an advantage to placing your fate in the hands of a trusted expert as well. Most will likely prefer that approach.