Best FLAC converter software

[AnotherSpin]

4 hours ago, cappo said:

You, ignoramus, have an IQ of an amoeba and don't know your arse from your elbow!

 

True. Subjective all-inclusive Knowing makes no difference between various objects, all of them are equally known. All the rest is noise.

 

[AnotherSpin]

2 minutes ago, robocop said:

OMG why has this gone to hell in a hand basket. Small margins of sound difference are not to be argued over. I have never heard of Audio Transcoder so never tried it. But we are splitting hairs I think. 

 

My idea is first never having to convert anything from original is best in my book. The source (wave) is the best if you can't get this then second is flac, after this not worth arguing over. Put up with what you have and don't bother with comparisons.

 

Mind you I'm ignoring DSD which I've not bothered with being PCM follower.

 

A bottle of red wine helps with enhanced listening or perhaps two!!!

 

 

 

 

Yes. All files do sound different before and after visiting the bathroom. No software required for this.

[bogi]

54 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

For me, it looks like an attempt to prevent the sales.

 

... and for me, audio is only fun. Both listening and the technical things. I like to compare these 2 worlds. I am open to anything new but missing explanation of the WOW effect physical nature. Eventually I can listen to files sandyk is pointing to.

 

Maybe the computer noise of FLAC to WAV file conversion process is somehow "remembered" in storage media - it may affect how "precisely" is the information stored in physical media such as any computer memory. There are always some levels of physical values which allow to distinguish logical 0 and logical 1. So the physical nature of storage media can cause that the same file, when stored twice on the same media, is stored a bit differently. Like 2 CDs burned at different burning speeds.  CD player can then produce different noise pattern when reading one CD and the other, although the bits are the same.

 

So if different noise pattern of FLAC to WAV conversion can influence the physical properties how the WAV file is stored and this way to "store" the noise related information with the file on physical media, that differences could propagate

further as different noise patterns when reading the stored files again.

 

The question is how far can such type of noise be propagated. Until a zip file arrives from Australia to Europe, it travels through tens of routers and in our home possibly through a switch and then WiFi network. The different noise pattern would need to be "reproduced" all the way. Through different physical principles how the bits are stored on the way and all the electrical to optical to wireless (and back) converters all the way. It looks to me very improbable that the initial noise difference would not be filtered out during so many hops of travel.

[cappo]

37 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 IGNORED .

Are you by any chance related to Ralf11 ?

No, Alex, he's related to amoeba!😄

[sandyk]

32 minutes ago, robocop said:

My idea is first never having to convert anything from original is best in my book.

 Agreed.

[sandyk]

43 minutes ago, bogi said:

Like 2 CDs burned at different burning speeds.  CD player can then produce different noise pattern when reading one CD and the other, although the bits are the same.

Care to explain how adjoining pairs of .wav files on the same CD-R can also sound different, just like they did before being burned to CD-R, even though the order of each file in the pair on the CD was deliberately  varied in a manner purposely not known to the recipient ? This was done with a series of CD-Rs sent to Martin Colloms in the U.K. at a later date.

 (report is available via PM if requested)

 You may be able to use an Electron Microscope to see the differences though ???

[copy_of_a]

I was extremely sceptical when I first saw someone posting about differences of different lossless file formats (from the same source) since they are only containers for PCM data.

This is why I once made a test and converted 1.) an original WAV source file and 2.) an original FLAC source file.

I ran both through 4 different converters (iZotope RX, Steinberg Wavelab, XLD and a 4th app I forgot since I've cleaned my computer from unnecessary stuff 2 years or so ago).

Now, I converted 50 times in wild order of the apps going from source to wav, to flac, to aiff back and forth.

In both cases the final "50th generation" file nulled with the original file - so they were bitperfect identical.

IF there is a difference while playback it's attributed to the playback software - not to the file format or the number of conversions.

[sandyk]

Incidentally, some prefer the resulting SQ from the use of Monkey's Audio (.ape) over .flac

 .ape format was developed by Matt Ashland from JRiver

[AnotherSpin]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 IGNORED .

Are you by any chance related to Ralf11 ?

 

Sorry, no.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, bogi said:

Eventually I can listen to files sandyk is pointing to.

It may be easier to SEE the differences with files such as "Aurora Conqueror" even directly from Dropbox ,if you have a decent external monitor, although they could also be downloaded to USB memory and played using an Oppo 103 etc. into your HDTV

Perhaps even directly from the USB  port of some HD TVs ?

[bogi]

54 minutes ago, copy_of_a said:

IF there is a difference while playback it's attributed to the playback software

This thread is about more computer software producing the same file (the same checksum). So the computer software alone is not enough to make an audible difference. What different software can cause is that it can produce different computer noise pattern when it is processing the same audio file. It can be caused for example by differently organized loops of processing, using different buffer lengths etc. Such a noise can only have distant effect if it can be stored together with bits. I suggested to go to analog level and to look how bits are stored in computer memory of more types. For every memory type there is a range of analog values of physical properties for which the digital value is still considered to be the same (zero or one). And the noise coming from FLAC to WAV conversion could in some extent affect these analog values. The noise pattern then could be somehow "recorded" into low level analog values, which digitally mean only 0 or 1. And during playback of such stored audio content (like with any other computer activity) computer noise is again generated - the noise could reflect those previously "stored" analog values and effectively transfer them to a next location where they will be stored with digital bits again based on the same analog principle.

I didn't tell that this is what is happening. I didn't tell that software application specific noise can be transferred from Australia to Europe this way. But it looks to me better than a), b) and c) I mentioned before.

[bogi]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

It may be easier to SEE the differences with files such as "Aurora Conqueror" even directly from Dropbox ,if you have a decent external monitor, although they could also be downloaded to USB memory and played using an Oppo 103 etc. into your HDTV

Perhaps even directly from the USB  port of some HD TVs ?

 

Maybe on evening of Central European Time I will try something. Thanks for your suggestion.

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 hours ago, cappo said:

You, ignoramus, have an IQ of an amoeba and don't know your arse from your elbow!

This is your one warning. Personal attacks aren’t allowed here. Next time I will have to ban your account. 

[giordy60]

14 hours ago, robocop said:

Xxhighend is the best flac to Wave software I use.

 

Robert

thanks for reporting ... I did not know the software 👌

[cappo]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is your one warning. Personal attacks aren’t allowed here. Next time I will have to ban your account. 

Instead of threatening me, why don't you do your job and police this thread. It's going to the dogs. They've already generated 3 pages of noise. 98% of it is off topic. I've created this thread to discuss the best FLAC converter software. Instead, they are discussing checksums, audio players, on-line conversion and such like. And you have been turning a blind eye to all of this.

 

One nitwit accuses me of promoting somebody else's software. Then you come along suspecting me of "affiliations" and condescendingly give me "the benefit of the doubt". Dude, there are more commercial ads on your web site than member posts! And you are raking it in from all those ads. So, who's affiliated here?! Ha??!!

 

Last but not least, I am deeply frustrated with your forum and its ignorant members. It's value is close to zero. I want to close my account and stop wasting my time here. How do I do that? In fact, why don't you do me a favour and close it yourself. I've got better things to do...

[The Computer Audiophile]

Bye @cappo

[copy_of_a]

9 hours ago, bogi said:

This thread is about more computer software producing the same file (the same checksum). (...)

What different software can cause is that it can produce different computer noise pattern when it is processing the same audio file.

As far as conversion of one PCM container (AIFF, WAV, FLAC) into another goes I think it's not adequate to talk about "processing".

It's rather a re-wrapping into a new file container while the actual PCM data is passed through untouched (in the case of FLAC a file compression similar to ZIP is also at play).

This is why you can convert back and forth through the different lossless formats all day long and in the end you'll have a file that is identical to the original source.

When a certain converter software doesn't pass through the PCM data unaltered I'd look at the internal settings (is it really set to "pass through" or is something else active? ... which would turn the re-wrapping in fact into some kind of "processing").

 

[bogi]

31 minutes ago, copy_of_a said:

As far as conversion of one PCM container (AIFF, WAV, FLAC) into another goes I think it's not adequate to talk about "processing".

 

I meant the word "processing" in more general fashion, not related to audio formats. Every running program, which takes more resources during execution, rises computer power consumption and that results to increase of computer noise. I mean some added noise in analog form on signal bus, nothing about content of digital data processed.

 

Generally, computer noise can affect audio system, which is in contradiction to other usual apps sensitive to it. For example you can find many user reports on the web how noise resulting from graphical card activity can be heard through amplifier connected with computer through USB DAC. On one Slovak forum it was for example measured that a concrete weather webpage generates noise into analog parts after DAC. So the possibility that the noise generated by specific computer activity can become audible is well proven.

 

Different computer activities generate different noise patterns. For example you can setup more software audio players for bitperfect playback and users will still report that they don't sound exactly the same. IMO nothing other than difference in noise pattern, caused by activity of these players, can cause such audible difference.

 

IMO this is quite general thing. Every computer activity produces some noise. Normally, it doesn't hurt anything, because in digital domain all works as should. But it has influence to audio related things.

 

That's valid also about FLAC to WAV converters. Implementation of these converters is not the same. They are in principle doing the same thing but they can for example use different sizes of internal buffers, resulting to repeated power consumption pikes and thus noise pikes at buffer operation frequency. So under the word "processing" I didn't mean any change of FLAC/WAV audio content. I meant general computer activity, which, as always, consumes some electric power and generates some noise.

[copy_of_a]

16 minutes ago, bogi said:

IMO this is quite general thing. Every computer activity produces some noise. Normally, it doesn't hurt anything, because in digital domain all works as should. But it has influence to audio related things.

I agree... of course.

 

16 minutes ago, bogi said:

That's valid also about FLAC to WAV converters. Implementation of these converters is not the same. They are in principle doing the same thing but they can for example use different sizes of internal buffers, resulting to repeated power consumption pikes and thus noise pikes at buffer operation frequency. So under the word "processing" I didn't mean any change of FLAC/WAV audio content. I meant general computer activity, which, as always, consumes some electric power and generates some noise.

What puzzles me is in how far computer noise is relevant when converting a lossless file to another file format?

It's not that the computer noise generated during conversion is somehow written in the converted target file.

The actual PCM content is actually only dublicated into a new wrapper (similar to copying a file to another drive.)

 

And with regard to playback... well, maybe the decoding of FLAC may introduce a super low level of computer noise.

But only for the super short time it takes the playback software to load the PCM into RAM ... after that initial decoding everything should be equal to, say, WAV. It's really totally a non-issue.

 

As far as the conversion software goes... take one that works as supposed to and call it a day 😊

Also a non-issue ...

 

[sandyk]

43 minutes ago, copy_of_a said:

As far as the conversion software goes... take one that works as supposed to and call it a day 😊

Also a non-issue ...

 

 You must live in a perfect P.C. world where the quality of the PSU and earthing of the source doesn't matter as long as it spews out the correct 1s and 0s

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/60381-hdd-to-case-bonding-uptick-in-sq/?tab=comments#comment-1084599

 

[bogi]

Decompressing while reading input file and writing output file in the same loop, with some input and output buffer sizes, that's the probable way of processing. All in the same main loop, with continuous reading and writing. No loading of the whole PCM content into RAM before decompression. I would do it that way because that's fastest and doesn't need to hold much data in RAM.

 

I found repeated reports that "WAV sounds better than FLAC" and never opposite. The only difference is the FLAC decompression ...

 

42 minutes ago, copy_of_a said:

As far as the conversion software goes... take one that works as supposed to and call it a day 😊

I agree... I am playing today with Feral Decoder from the other thread so no time to try sandyk's suggestions, but as of today, I don't trust to something like "conserving processing noise in audio file".

[miguelito]

On 11/5/2020 at 12:00 AM, cappo said:

If you take an album in FLAC (or APE) and convert it to WAV using 5 different converters you will find that all 5 newly created WAV-versions of your album sound different.

I don't understand... Isn't FLAC lossless? In which case, doesn't that mean that the data should be exactly recovered - other than possibly metadata (which can be incorporated in WAV) the files should be bits for bit identical. Is this not the case? Why?

 

Notice I am not a "bits is bits" person. In this particular case you aren't comparing FLAC and WAV as you play, but doing math to get from FLAC to WAV... Unless there is something inherently complex about whatever compression happens in FLAC, this makes no sense to me.

 

BTW... This possibly means that WAV to FLAC is not all that reliable. 

[miguelito]

On 11/7/2020 at 12:37 AM, fas42 said:

Not quite 😉 ... listening to FLAC means that the conversion mechanism that uncompresses the FLAC is active at the same time as listening; which could degrade the SQ, via interference from the digital processing circuitry. So converting to WAV, offline, is the best approach - agreed.

 

But I haven't seen anything that supports the idea that the resulting WAVs will differ, depending upon which FLAC to WAV software is used - my thoughts are that the resulting files sound different because of other reasons; such as precisely how each output example is stored physically on the storage media. This is where I would do a set of experiments, where I could guarantee that each output WAV is stored absolutely exactly the same way, down to the last byte, for each one file - and see if I could still hear differences ...

 

Does this make sense?

Yes, and I agree. But my question remains: is the WAV data bit for bit identical? It should be since this is done offline.

[copy_of_a]

58 minutes ago, bogi said:

I found repeated reports that "WAV sounds better than FLAC" and never opposite.

Sure. You‘ll find a lot of nonsense on audiophile forums.😜

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, copy_of_a said:

Sure. You‘ll find a lot of nonsense on audiophile forums.😜

 If the OP hadn't been banned as a result of him losing his cool ,because of the attacks from members such as yourself and AnotherSpin, he would have been in the position as the OP to request that as this is clearly  a Subjective, NOT Objective thread,  that comments like your would have been removed , and not have been permitted.as they inevitably lead to the closure of threads which is their clear intention.

 This is exactly the kind of disruptive behaviour that saw quite a few members either banned or move to A.S.R.