Hi Rez audio conversion question

[mtb_ww]

I have a collection of hi rez audio files (dsf), that I would like to convert to flac. This would enable me to enjoy the music on an older system (DAC), that is not capable of DSD, DSF or DFF playback. Any suggestions or input is greatly appreciated.

[Rocky Bennett]

For something as specialized as that, you really might need to do the conversion with a Windows program. I think that foobar2000 plays DSD files, but DSF is twice DSD, if I'm not mistaken, and that would be an obscure file to play and/or convert. I play DSD in my home hi fi, but I am shackled to PCM on my computer.

[Flemur]

Any suggestions or input is greatly appreciated.

Assuming "hi rez" means high sampling rate and bit depth, resample them down to 44.1 or 48KHz in some normal format and they'll sound (slightly) better. Semi-technical article explains why:
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[Rocky Bennett]

Any suggestions or input is greatly appreciated.

Assuming "hi rez" means high sampling rate and bit depth, resample them down to 44.1 or 48KHz in some normal format and they'll sound (slightly) better. Semi-technical article explains why:
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

There's certain people (like me and millions of others) that know from experience that this is total nonsense. I am a high rez afficinado, and I have been for many, many years.

[Flemur]

There's certain people (like me and millions of others) that know from experience that this is total nonsense. I am a high rez afficinado, and I have been for many, many years.

Well then, your experience doesn't include blind comparisons or ABX testing because then it all falls apart, quite consistently.

It's like people judging wine based on the label; remove the labels and the $10/bottle wine tastes best.

[z31fanatic]

Oh no, the golden eared have made it to the Mint forum.

[Flemur]

Oh no, the golden eared have made it to the Mint forum.

Heh. "Golden Ears" = has an over-active imagination.

I've yet to see any properly run blind tests where hi-res sounded better than the CD standard.

For example: http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
"Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard.

The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles.

The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.
...
The test results for the detectability of the 16/44.1 loop on SACD/DVD-A playback were the same as chance:
49.82%. There were 554 trials and 276 correct answers. The sole exceptions were for the condition of no signal and high system gain, when the difference in noise floors of the two technologies, old and new, was readily audible."

[Hoser Rob]

I agree that 24 bit audio is just a waste of disk space, and have read the above mentioned study. Virtually NO "golden ear" claims have held up do proper double blind ABX testing with matched levels.

However, that study did claim that the SACDs sounded better than the CD release, but not because of the added bits. It's because those hires releases are mastered better. I agree with this too.

So, I'm not against high res, but I downsample it to 16 bit.

I can't find much for dsd to flac conversion in linux. Just this, and I think it's meant for arch if there are any binaries:

https://code.google.com/p/dsf2flac/

[BigEasy]

AC'97 and desktop speakers forever!

To mtb_ww: install Foobar2000 in wine and you will get all you want.

[Rocky Bennett]

There's certain people (like me and millions of others) that know from experience that this is total nonsense. I am a high rez afficinado, and I have been for many, many years.

Well then, your experience doesn't include blind comparisons or ABX testing because then it all falls apart, quite consistently.

It's like people judging wine based on the label; remove the labels and the $10/bottle wine tastes best.

My experience is based on over 40 years of audio enthusiasm as well as numerous double blind tests. That is where your claims fall apart.

[Hoser Rob]

There's certain people (like me and millions of others) that know from experience that this is total nonsense. I am a high rez afficinado, and I have been for many, many years.

Well then, your experience doesn't include blind comparisons or ABX testing because then it all falls apart, quite consistently.

It's like people judging wine based on the label; remove the labels and the $10/bottle wine tastes best.

My experience is based on over 40 years of audio enthusiasm as well as numerous double blind tests. That is where your claims fall apart.

Well then you are the exception, which tells me you did it wrong. "Golden Ears" are either techno retards or con artists.

BTW the wine analogy is even stronger. In double blind tests the 'experts' couldn't even tell red from white.

That said, I still think it's worth getting hi res and properly downsampling them to 16 bit. I've done this a number of times (not DSD though) and every time it still sounded better than the redbook CD version because it was mastered better.

[BigEasy]

1. Masterings is always different, but not nesessary always better. So, mastering it's not big matter in question of sound quality.
2. There is no single stupid in the world who convert LP to 16/44,1. Guess why?

In double blind tests the 'experts' couldn't even tell red from white

In muliply blind tests very few can even tell that they are in front of Linux Mint, not something else. What follows from that?

[Rocky Bennett]

I'm certainly not a golden ear, and I'm sure glad of that. As far as mastering goes, that is the number one consideration in all of home audio. Actually, mastering is probably the number one, two and three most important factors in home high fidelity. Sure, the quality of the original microphone and the original tape recorder are major factors, but they are beyond the realm of the typical consumer to consider. I learned about the importance of mastering back around 1964, and to this day mastering is still the most important factor in all of audio. There are so many good albums in the world that have been ruined by poor mastering. As far as resolution, I really think that anybody that listens can tell the difference between high resolution and low resolution. It has been scientifically proven that at least 95% or more can honestly tell the difference, and less that 1% cares.

[dXTC]

I learned about the importance of mastering back around 1964, and to this day mastering is still the most important factor in all of audio. There are so many good albums in the world that have been ruined by poor mastering.

Yes, sometimes at the insistence of producers, especially the "Louder Is Better" crowd. The phenomenon known as the Loudness War has been raging for quite some time now.

It has been scientifically proven that at least 95% or more can honestly tell the difference, and less that 1% cares.

And half of that ~1% still end up buying Bose anyway. (Long-standing joke there.)

I'm a hobbyist electronic musician myself. I track and mix in 24-bit-- not because I can "hear the difference", but because 24-bit allows plenty of headroom for mixing the full frequency range without signal degradation or across-the-board compression; I then downsample to 16-bit during mastering. I can't really tell the difference between 16- and 24-bit versions of the same track... IF I've mastered it right. As you've said, mastering is a key factor.

[BigEasy]

but because 24-bit allows plenty of headroom for mixing the full frequency range without signal degradation

24-bit (as well as 16 or 32 or every other bits) is level resolution and not related to any frequencies. As musicant you must know it. In every moment of time 24-bits resolution 256 times more accurate measures the level than 16-bits. You don't heard differences? You are not alone, for example Bethooven heard almost nothing

[Hoser Rob]

1. Masterings is always different, but not nesessary always better. So, mastering it's not big matter in question of sound quality.
2. There is no single stupid in the world who convert LP to 16/44,1. Guess why?

In double blind tests the 'experts' couldn't even tell red from white

In muliply blind tests very few can even tell that they are in front of Linux Mint, not something else. What follows from that?

What dribble. Totally stupid. The last bit particularly ...

[BigEasy]

Everyone knows when discussion is about yes audiophile or not audiophile then holywar started
But be careful with percents manipulation. Listen to me: 95% of computer users never seen Linux with own eyes. Does this means that Linux is "mistake OS"
and nobody cares about it? Cares, of course, and you too. So don't say hi res audio is mistake. I't's probably mistake for you personally and other 95%.

[Rocky Bennett]

Human existence is probably 95% a mistake, but the other 5% is heaven.

[Rocky Bennett]

I just wanted to append my previous remarks upthread. Yes, I have gone on record as being an audiophile that can definitely tell the difference between high resolution music and low resolution music, and I prefer high rez music. But here is the clause. Mastering is such a significant factor in music playback that I want to go on record as saying that between a poorly mastered high resolution file of a favorite album, and a very well mastered low resolution version of the same album, I would choose the low rez well mastered version over the high rez poorly mastered version. A case in point is the new Led Zepplin remasters. I have purchased the 24 bit 96 khz files of the newly remastered Led Zepplin albums and they don't hold a candle to the original CDs from the 80s. Of course they beat the snot out of the remastered Led Zepplin CDs from the 90s, but the original 80s Zep CDs still beat every other version out there, including the new 24/96 versions. But generally speaking, with storage so cheap, I will always buy and store the uncompressed high resolution version of an album, but the mastering is critical and it is always a case-by-case decision.

[dXTC]

but because 24-bit allows plenty of headroom for mixing the full frequency range without signal degradation

24-bit (as well as 16 or 32 or every other bits) is level resolution and not related to any frequencies. As musicant you must know it. In every moment of time 24-bits resolution 256 times more accurate measures the level than 16-bits. You don't heard differences? You are not alone, for example Bethooven heard almost nothing

Yes, BigEasy, I agree that bit depth is more amplitude-related than frequency-related. However, the added "level resolution" of 24-bit allows more subtle, detailed changes in amplitude. Consequently, this provides for more accurate representation of all frequencies over a given time period without having to perform compression on louder instrument tracks, making mixdown (and eventually mastering) a bit easier.

Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said that I heard virtually no difference between 24-bit and 16-bit versions of the same file. I intended that to mean the difference between a 24-bit waveform and the same waveform resampled to 16-bit, with no mastering or compression. A world-class masterer can take that 24-bit raw mixdown and transform it into a 16-bit file that has the clarity, warmth and punch we expect from professional music releases. Without that step, many top songs today would probably sound like "demo tapes".