Best FLAC converter software

[sandyk]

39 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Not only that Alex but I've invited you to publicly demonstrate this magical ability you posses.

Who cares whether you believe me or not .I certainly don't .

1 hour ago, plissken said:

think you meant to ask what is your favorite WAV to FLAC compressor

No, he did not. I have been in PM contact with the OP .

 Many members download material in .flac format from HDTracks , Linn Records etc. and wish to hear them in their original format at the highest possible quality.

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Component and software selection are always important considerations. Very few software devs have their heads screwed on right.

 

I use JRiver for a few reasons but many have to do with their design approach: 1. They actually take advantage of computers and the ability to have gobs of RAM so they will allow buffering of entire track and album.  2. They take advantage of what ever wire speed you can provide.  3. They take advantage of CPU available by allowing you to choose to decode into memory then playback.

 

Even copying a file 'requires processing activity'. In my video decodes were around 1 second regardless of compression on rather pedestrian x86 silicon.

 

CD's are played a track at a time. Also in another video I concatenated an entire CD in Audacity, compressed to .FLAC, and in Jriver over my 10GB connection clicked play and in the few seconds that it took me to reach in back and pull the fiber the album played back in it's entirety. This was on a $69 Celeron 3350 based ASRock mainboard with 8GB RAM, W10x64 Pro, and SSD, 10GB Solar Flare NIC.

 

 

 

If the hardware and software support optimum handling, then everything's good. But if the user needs to know how to organise all this, rather than ticking a box to say, "do whatever is needed to get possible audio playback quality", then it starts getting messy.

 

Previous laptop, I had to check out various media players, find that most thrashed the CPU, while playing - pick the least 'busy' one, Media Monkey in that case - and then refine its settings in the advanced buffering dialogue, trial and error, until the best subjective performance happened. If the software can work that out itself, to some degree, then it definitely gets a tick ...

[plissken]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

If the hardware and software support optimum handling, then everything's good. But if the user needs to know how to organise all this, rather than ticking a box to say, "do whatever is needed to get possible audio playback quality", then it starts getting messy.

 

Previous laptop, I had to check out various media players, find that most thrashed the CPU, while playing - pick the least 'busy' one, Media Monkey in that case - and then refine its settings in the advanced buffering dialogue, trial and error, until the best subjective performance happened. If the software can work that out itself, to some degree, then it definitely gets a tick ...

 

Wholeheartedly agree with you. M$ was the worst, it's fetching routine was bonkers busy.

 

[bogi]

7 hours ago, Miska said:

What I wanted and none of the existing tools nicely provided was possibility to take for example 352.8/24 DXD WAV and create for example 120/20 FLAC out of it. One of the many reasons to create my own tool.

 

Here SoX is able to create 120k sample rate FLAC file

D:\tools\sox-14.4.1>sox "G:\AUDIO\ABBA\Abba\12 Waterloo.flac" -r 120000 Waterloo.flac

D:\tools\sox-14.4.1>soxi Waterloo.flac

Input File     : 'Waterloo.flac'
Channels       : 2
Sample Rate    : 120000
Precision      : 16-bit

 

But SoX refuses to set any bit depth other than 8, 16, 24 with FLAC. It does not allow for example 20bit or 32bit integer:

 

D:\tools\sox-14.4.1>sox "G:\AUDIO\ABBA\Abba\12 Waterloo.flac" -b 20 Waterloo.flac
sox WARN formats: flac can't encode to 20-bit

D:\tools\sox-14.4.1>sox "G:\AUDIO\ABBA\Abba\12 Waterloo.flac" -b 32 Waterloo.flac
sox WARN formats: flac can't encode to 32-bit

 

Interesting is, that FLAC format specification seems to support more bit depths than those supported by SoX (it supports for example 20bit but not 32 bit):

 

https://xiph.org/flac/format.html

Sample size in bits: 000 : get from STREAMINFO metadata block 001 : 8 bits per sample 010 : 12 bits per sample 011 : reserved 100 : 16 bits per sample 101 : 20 bits per sample 110 : 24 bits per sample 111 : reserved

 

With WAV 32bit integer and also float are possible. 64bit float, which seems to be out of WAV format specification,  is refused:

 

fixed

D:\tools\sox-14.4.1>sox "G:\AUDIO\ABBA\Abba\12 Waterloo.flac" -r 120000 -b 32 Waterloo.wav

D:\tools\sox-14.4.1>soxi Waterloo.wav

Input File     : 'Waterloo.wav'
Channels       : 2
Sample Rate    : 120000
Precision      : 32-bit
Duration       : 00:02:45.73 = 19888000 samples ~ 12430 CDDA sectors
File Size      : 159M
Bit Rate       : 7.68M
Sample Encoding: 32-bit Signed Integer PCM

 

float

D:\tools\sox-14.4.1>sox "G:\AUDIO\ABBA\Abba\12 Waterloo.flac" -r 120000 -e float -b 32 Waterloo.wav


D:\tools\sox-14.4.1>soxi Waterloo.wav

Input File     : 'Waterloo.wav'
Channels       : 2
Sample Rate    : 120000
Precision      : 24-bit
Duration       : 00:02:45.73 = 19888000 samples ~ 12430 CDDA sectors
File Size      : 159M
Bit Rate       : 7.68M
Sample Encoding: 32-bit Floating Point PCM

D:\tools\sox-14.4.1>sox "G:\AUDIO\ABBA\Abba\12 Waterloo.flac" -r 120000 -e float -b 64 Waterloo.wav
sox WARN formats: wav can't encode Floating Point PCM to 64-bit

 

It seems 32 bit float is the only float format supported. And SoX refuses to encode for example 12 bit or 20 bit integer WAV, so it seems to support integer bit depths only of 8, 16, 24, 32.

D:\tools\sox-14.4.1>sox "G:\AUDIO\ABBA\Abba\12 Waterloo.flac" -r 120000 -e float -b 24 Waterloo.wav
sox WARN formats: wav can't encode Floating Point PCM to 24-bit

D:\tools\sox-14.4.1>sox "G:\AUDIO\ABBA\Abba\12 Waterloo.flac" -r 120000 -b 30 Waterloo.wav
sox WARN formats: wav can't encode to 30-bit

D:\tools\sox-14.4.1>sox "G:\AUDIO\ABBA\Abba\12 Waterloo.flac" -r 120000 -b 20 Waterloo.wav
sox WARN formats: wav can't encode to 20-bit

D:\tools\sox-14.4.1>sox "G:\AUDIO\ABBA\Abba\12 Waterloo.flac" -r 120000 -b 12 Waterloo.wav
sox WARN formats: wav can't encode to 12-bit

 

[Miska]

48 minutes ago, bogi said:

But SoX refuses to set any bit depth other than 8, 16, 24 with FLAC. It does not allow for example 20bit or 32bit integer:

 

Yeah, with HQPlayer 4 Pro I can encode FLAC with any word length from 8 up to it's maximum of 24.

 

[bogi]

50 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Yeah, with HQPlayer 4 Pro I can encode FLAC with any word length from 8 up to it's maximum of 24.

 

 

Based on this

  

1 hour ago, bogi said:

Sample size in bits: 000 : get from STREAMINFO metadata block 001 : 8 bits per sample 010 : 12 bits per sample 011 : reserved 100 : 16 bits per sample 101 : 20 bits per sample 110 : 24 bits per sample 111 : reserved

 

I thought that any bit depth (for example 22) is not allowed, because it cannot be encoded in those 3 bits. When you say "any word length from 8 up to it's maximum of 24" do you mean really any integer in the range 8 - 24 or do you mean 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 ? If any, how that fits into FLAC format?

 

With such FLAC with non standard bit depth one can save some disk space. But probably there is no other software than HQPlayer which could read such a file. I would rather see streaming as more reasonable use case for special bit depths to spare some network bandwidth. Then some streaming services would need to support that. But they are rather MQA-ized than trying to optimize network load this way.

[Miska]

5 hours ago, bogi said:

I thought that any bit depth (for example 22) is not allowed, because it cannot be encoded in those 3 bits. When you say "any word length from 8 up to it's maximum of 24" do you mean really any integer in the range 8 - 24 or do you mean 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 ? If any, how that fits into FLAC format?

 

When necessary, samples are zero-padded to word length supported by FLAC. FLAC is clever enough to take this zero padding into account on compression. So you can encode something like 15, 17 or 19 bit file as well.

 

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, Miska said:

 

When necessary, samples are zero-padded to word length supported by FLAC. FLAC is clever enough to take this zero padding into account on compression. So you can encode something like 15, 17 or 19 bit file as well.

 

Miska

Interesting, but the thread is about converting .flac files back to their original format. 
It seems non intuitive to use additional processing to convert a music file to .flac just to convert it again to DSD or ANY other format.
 Quite a few members have already found that .flac conversions do not sound as good as the original format,
 hence the search for the best .flac to .wav etc.S/W converter.
 In fact, given Internet speeds these days and the dramatic reduction in the cost of storage in recent years, 
why shouldn't consumers have the option of  obtaining their music in the same format as they would have been playing from an RBCD.DVD-A or SACD ? 
Why do so many members keep insisting that the front end doesn't matter, and you can  restore everything to their original pristine state at a later stage ? .
Gary (one and a half) has shown in the thread at the attached link that the front end DOES matter irrespective of what you do,as NO Computer is 100% perfect or completely electrically quiet .
 

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

Note also that Kelvin, the member who started the thread (below) WAS using HQPlayer, yet still heard further improvements.
Note also this later comment from Kelvin: 
" Oh I am 😵 totally up to date on this Earthing thing. Went poking around with my Multimeter and star earthed the PC case, PCIE brackets, AIO casing, PSU casing to my SSD's "

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/60807-sound-quality-of-boot-drives-impact-of-quality-of-power-supply-to-sq/?tab=comments#comment-1086490   Post No.1 

  

[Miska]

41 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Interesting, but the thread is about converting .flac files back to their original format. 

 

I'm curious how do you define "original" format. FLAC can be as much original format as anything else.

 

42 minutes ago, sandyk said:

It seems non intuitive to use additional processing to convert a music file to .flac just to convert it again to DSD or ANY other format.

 

Not to me...

 

42 minutes ago, sandyk said:

why shouldn't consumers have the option of  obtaining their music in the same format as they would have been playing from an RBCD.DVD-A or SACD

 

Those on-disc formats are not any more original than the typical download formats, usually less. Most new DSD content for example is recorded at DSD128 or DSD256 and will never see SACD. Same for a lot of PCM content, if there is a CDDA version, it will be created along with MP3 versions and such, from the hires source. 

 

So I'm all for getting original format, and not some RedBook or similar. I would say nobody records in RedBook format.

 

 

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, Miska said:

I'm curious how do you define "original" format. FLAC can be as much original format as anything else.

Not from the major Recording companies, HDTracks, Linn Records etc. ,Blue Coast (DSD mainly) Soundkeeper (.aiff)

Nether Cookie Marenco from Blue Coast,  or Barry Diament (SoundKeeper) like .flac SQ either and avoid it.

 BTW, there are quite a few recordings from the majors that appeared to have started life as 24/44.1.

[Miska]

17 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Not from the major Recording companies, HDTracks, Linn Records etc. ,Blue Coast (DSD mainly) Soundkeeper (.aiff)

Nether Cookie Marenco from Blue Coast,  or Barry Diament (SoundKeeper) like .flac SQ either and avoid it.

 

For most recordings, the original format is some DAW's proprietary multitrack file format. And then most DAWs can render output directly to FLAC, WAV, MP3, etc.

 

ProTools is probably market leader at the moment.

 

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

BTW, there are quite a few recordings from the majors that appeared to have started life as 24/44.1

 

Yes, but that is not RedBook... 96k 24-bit or 32-bit is pretty typical too.

 

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, Miska said:

or most recordings, the original format is some DAW's proprietary multitrack file format. And then most DAWs can render output directly to FLAC, WAV, MP3, etc.

Nevertheless, most DAWs do not generate direct .flac for consumer consumption.

I am unsure how HDTracks get their .flacs these days though, (IIRC, JRiver used to play a part there?) but they are only  tiny fish in the ocean.

As for .mp3 , this is mainly relegated these days to unenlightened individuals who don't realise that .flac is much better, can have similar small file sizes , and is lossless.

 Neither can I  imagine the Record companies wanting to pay royalties to use .mp3

[bogi]

I don't want to download WAVs instead of FLACs, because that would increase download time. Who wants to play WAVs he can then convert FLAC to WAV, the conversion is lossless. Most people play FLAC as it is distributed.

[Miska]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Nevertheless, most DAWs do not generate direct .flac for consumer consumption.

 

Yes the mastering tools do, and most DAWs too. It is also practical for metadata purposes.

 

HQPlayer of course supports ID3v2 tags in WAV and can convert basic ones between FLAC and WAV/AIFF. But ID3 tag support in WAV is not very common yet.

 

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

As for .mp3 , this is mainly relegated these days to unenlightened individuals who don't realise that .flac is much better, can have similar small file sizes , and is lossless.

 

That is unfortunately the majority (Amazon Music etc)... Or as much AAC these days (Apple Music) which does a bit better job. And then Vorbis (Spotify) which is similar to MP3.

 

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Neither can I  imagine the Record companies wanting to pay royalties to use .mp3

 

MP3 is now patent free (all patents have expired and thus patent licensing discontinued). AAC is not yet. Vorbis never had.

 

 

[sandyk]

45 minutes ago, Miska said:

Yes the mastering tools do, and most DAWs too. It is also practical for metadata purposes.

 I didn't say they can't , just that I don't believe that the Majors would not normally do that for general consumption. Or do they ? 

[Miska]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I didn't say they can't , just that I don't believe that the Majors would not normally do that for general consumption. Or do they ? 

 

Why wouldn't they if the final delivery is FLAC? Because they need to deliver metadata as well for downloads. Easier that way. And of course they deliver some MP3 and AAC as well. DSD is usually delivered as DSF files for the metadata reasons as well (HQPlayer also supports ID3v2 tags in DSDIFF but that is not commonly supported either).

 

FLAC also supports embedding MD5 checksum for the data, so you can make sure nothing changes on the way.

 

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, Miska said:

Why wouldn't they if the final delivery is FLAC? 

 That was my question  .Do the Majors (themselves) send .flac files out to consumers, or is this done by the distributor who included Artwork as HDTracks used to (at least) do ?

IOW, has there been another conversion ?

[Miska]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 That was my question  .Do the Majors (themselves) send .flac files out to consumers, or is this done by the distributor who included Artwork as HDTracks used to (at least) do ?

IOW, has there been another conversion ?

 

HDtracks is quite messy and I'm trying to avoid it, I'm mostly using highresaudio.com. I can download without some stupid downloader app.

 

It is not about just artwork, but all the metadata embedded in the file.

 

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Do the Majors (themselves) send .flac files out to consumers

 

Do any of the major labels sell music directly to consumers?

 

[fas42]

I'm just not into streaming, at all ... but just got on to Spotify for Free, to see how it went ... hmmm, not bad, even at the reduced bit rate - comes across well on the laptop speakers. ... I'm tempted to try hooking this up to the Edifier speakers; and see how much listening satisfaction I can squeeze out of it ... 😉.

[kumakuma]

Just now, fas42 said:

I'm just not into streaming, at all ... but just got on to Spotify for Free, to see how it went ... hmmm, not bad, even at the reduced bit rate - comes across well on the laptop speakers. ... I'm tempted to try hooking this up to the Edifier speakers; and see how much listening satisfaction I can squeeze out of it ... 😉.

 

Spotify!

 

You can hand in your audiophile card on your way out the door...

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Do any of the major labels sell music directly to consumers?

 

You tell me. Are digital downloads of new music provided by the distributors from .flac files complete with artwork (?) direct copies of what they got from the Record companies, or do the Distributors provide the extras  themselves ?

 At least if I purchase a recording from Linn Records I know it's provenance.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

You tell me. Are digital downloads of new music provided by the distributors from .flac files complete with artwork (?) direct copies of what they got from the Record companies, or do the Distributors provide the extras  themselves ?

 At least if I purchase a recording from Linn Records I know it's provenance.

 

It is my understanding that distributors like HDTracks simply resell what they get from the labels.

[robocop]

Yes I concur kumakuma with that re HD Tracks. Downloads I've had trouble with, on communication with HD Tracks direct, they have said on two occasions they only sell what they are supplied by the labels(Record Companies).

In both cases said digital recordings were bad so I guess that was down to the Record Company. In one case HD Tracks took the recording down and I see it has been replaced now. HD did refund my money so can't complain. I have also experienced some very good recordings from HD.

 

Interesting that the major labels do not sell direct only through distributors. I find this in itself a major problem especially with old and rare recordings. This is where I resort to Torrent download sites as a particular recording can't be had on CD or vinyl new or second hand so one must rely on someone ripping it. 

 

I would like to use Qobuz but its use is blocked in Australia and New Zealand, even HD Tracks is technically blocked so officially I can't download any hi-res digital tracks legally apart from small independent labels on Bandcamp/Juno UK, Linn, Sound Liasion and other small labels. Can't be bothered with Tidal.

 

Robert 

 

 

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, robocop said:

This is where I resort to Torrent download sites as a particular recording can't be had on CD or vinyl new or second hand so one must rely on someone ripping it. 

UseNet is a very good source of this old stuff that they will no longer sell to you. 

You can get a subscription for around USD$9.99 per month