USB Audio and Computer Audio

[brijenjas]

Jun 9, 2013 16:47:56 GMT -5 @islandman2020 said:

Jun 8, 2013 19:52:09 GMT -5 brijenjas said:

EAC will convert your wav files to FLAC.

Select "TOOLS"> "COMPRESS WAVS"

In fact I'm pretty sure that EAC actually converts your CD's to wav then to FLAC when ripping.

Thanks a million brijenjas! You led me on a rabbit trail that got mission accomplished! It was time consuming to figure it out but it works well. EAC is pretty good at getting the metadata too. Just for info on those that have EAC and want to convert wav or mp3 files:

1) go into your music folder in "My Music" and select "Organize"> "select all" of the folder you're wanting to convert.

2) go to EAC. Select "Tools" then "decompress" for MP3's/MP4's ect. This will convert files to wav which then can be converted to flac

3) If you've already recorded to wav, go to "tools" on EAC, and select "compress wav" and this will convert your files to flac

Glad you got it working, and happy I could help. 

[Deleted]

I have some SACD's I want to rip to my hard drive. Because of the extended frequency range of an SACD is it better to rip to wav rather than flac since there is no compression in wav?

[Deleted]

Islandman, You're a little bit confused. FLAC stand for Free Lossless Audio Compression. You do not lose any bits when compressing to FLAC, you simply save disc space. Additionally, FLAC allows for the use of tags which are metadata (Title, Genre, etc.) describing the file (song).

And ripping from SACD usually results in a DVD or ISO of a DVD being created...

-RW-

[KeithL]

SACDs are recorded in a format known as DSD. "Regular" ripping software CANNOT RIP DSD directly - and computer CD and DVD drives can't read it anyway; it requires a combination of either specially modified hardware or a hacked and software modded Playstation (correct vintage as well) to do it. Usually the SACD process (when someone does it) results in either a 24/88 or 24/176 PCM file, but most of the "extended high frequency capability" of SACDs is illusory (they have a VERY high noise floor at ultrasonic frequencies which requires that those high frequencies be filtered out to avoid noise and aliasing issues). Once you get the RIP done, FLAC and WAv are both lossless, and so equivalent.

HOWEVER, many SACDs are "dual layer" - which means they have a layer which is SACD and another layer that is a regular Red Book (normal) CD - and which can be ripped by normal ripping software.

Jun 10, 2013 1:23:26 GMT -5 @islandman2020 said:

I have some SACD's I want to rip to my hard drive. Because of the extended frequency range of an SACD is it better to rip to wav rather than flac since there is no compression in wav?

[KeithL]

Exactly.... and you can only access networked devices that are intended to be accessed that way (like DLNA servers and network file shares).

Digital audio signals per-se are not sent through Ethernet cables (although some very few DACs might send I2S using a Cat5 cable, it it NOT a network signal.)

May 1, 2013 12:35:59 GMT -5 snafujg said:

Signals thru a CAT5/6 are networking. Using an Oppo, you are accessing your home network thru the CAT5/6, then the Oppo DAC is doing the decoding.

[KeithL]

If you're going to do a lot of conversions, dBPowerAmp offers the most features, and supports every format you're likely to encounter (you can download lots of free add-on CODECs along with the ones it comes with). Their CD ripper is also excellent (and the pair is $39 or so, which is a bargain). It also adds context menu conversion (with DBPA installed you can right click on a file in file manager and convert it).

Jun 8, 2013 20:24:45 GMT -5 drtrey3 said:

dBpower amp is another good program to look into. And I THINK jRiver Media Player will convert files as well.

Trey

[justthefacts]

Keith,

Thank you for all your inputs to this valuable thread!

I'm building my digital audio system and have not chosen an OS, software, or even specific cable output. I'm planning on getting either the Emotiva XDA-2 or Stealth DC-1 (when released) thus I should be able to get 24/192 from all three DAC input choices.

If you were starting from scratch what would you run?

1. OS
2. Media software
3. MOST IMPORTANT TO ME - which input from computer to DAC: usb, digital COAX, or optical TOSLINK?

For instance would you buy a Mac (PowerBook), use what hi-resolution software player, connect via optical toslink?

Or would you buy a PC Laptop, Windows version (?), windows software like jRiver Media Player, and connect via what? I assume for a laptop the only choice is USB to the DAC (am I correct?).

My only criteria for the computer, is I would prefer it was a laptop/notebook (portable) and had the least amount of hassles as an audio source.

I'm not asking for the you to go out on a limb and make an official recommendation (picking sides, etc.) just what you would build for your own personal enjoyment. I respect your knowledge and would be able to copy your personal choice to get started in a direction that should be stable, accurate and enjoyable.

I just want to start off on the right foot, I promise to not blame anyone for their advice

Thank you in advance for your response!

Cheers,

- Andre

[GreenKiwi]

A few months ago, my answer would have been.

If I were in a PC world, I'd follow these systems:
www.computeraudiophile.com/section/c-p-s-489/

Though you could substitute a laptop/network in for the system.

In a mac world, get a mac mini/ macbook and use iTunes or JRMC.

Having done both, I would be waiting until july and looking very seriously at the Olive One.
www.myoliveone.com/

You can get it with a 1 or 2 TB drive to hold all your music. It has what appears to be a very nice UI. They have said that it will have various digital outputs (including direct to USB dacs) and as it is a dedicated audio device, you won't be tempted to mess with it much and you will just enjoy it.

We'll see if all that comes to pass... but I'm planning on getting one, since my Mac Mini solution isn't quite ideal. It's close, but there are just too many hiccups.

[justthefacts]

Great ideas and I appreciate your thoughts.

Jun 10, 2013 10:45:26 GMT -5 GreenKiwi said:

A few months ago, my answer would have been.

If I were in a PC world, I'd follow these systems:
www.computeraudiophile.com/section/c-p-s-489/

Interesting idea but I'm hoping to avoid the hassles of assembly and I would need a display screen, I like the notebook computer form factor since it has display, input, user interface (keys/mouse, etc.), large capacity storage, etc. all in one. This way I can unplug notebook and DAC from one stereo and take to another place for audio enjoyment.

Though you could substitute a laptop/network in for the system.

In a mac world, get a mac mini/ macbook and use iTunes or JRMC.

O.K. now this is a solid recommendation, now what output works best from the Mac? USB or optical?
in your opinion what "is not ideal?"
Having done both, I would be waiting until july and looking very seriously at the Olive One.
www.myoliveone.com/

You can get it with a 1 or 2 TB drive to hold all your music. It has what appears to be a very nice UI. They have said that it will have various digital outputs (including direct to USB dacs) and as it is a dedicated audio device, you won't be tempted to mess with it much and you will just enjoy it.

The Olive One seems to be full of great ideas, but in my case I'm trying to avoid redundant parts, ideally I would have only two parts
1. PRE-AMP/DAC/headphone amp
2. A computer playing high res. music files.

The Olive has its own DAC, which means I'd have redundant systems if I were to get an XDA-2 or Stealth DC-1. Also it makes me wonder when I see the analog output is only in the form of a 3.5 mm plug. Maybe I've fallen for the Audiophile fever, but seems to me that not having, substantial L/R speaker connectors, or RCA, or XLR output makes the Olive more like an iTouch on steroids than a pre-amp style interface to my power amps.

We'll see if all that comes to pass... but I'm planning on getting one, since my Mac Mini solution isn't quite ideal. It's close, but there are just too many hiccups.

I look forward to your reply.

[Deleted]

Jun 10, 2013 8:30:55 GMT -5 @rlw said:

Islandman, You're a little bit confused. FLAC stand for Free Lossless Audio Compression. You do not lose any bits when compressing to FLAC, you simply save disc space. Additionally, FLAC allows for the use of tags which are metadata (Title, Genre, etc.) describing the file (song).

And ripping from SACD usually results in a DVD or ISO of a DVD being created...

-RW-

Hey RW, Yeah I'm aware of the differences of wav vs flac. I read an article that I thought was interesting and kinda wanted to know if it might apply to SACD. The article was about a hearing test done with ultra high frequencies that were played in a range beyond the limits of human hearing. None of the subjects heard anything. However, the real time CAT scans were showing on and off activity within the test subject's brains as these "ultrasonics" were started and stopped through the headphones. A hypothesis was formed that it might be possible that sounds beyond our conscious hearing actually still do have an effect on how we perceive sound. I understand flac is lossless, but I understand that it is lossless to the degree that we hear no difference between it and wav even though compression is applied. I found the article interesting (will try to find it and post a link) and wondered if flac compression might affect some of these "ultrasonics" in SACD's that some believe might contribute to the perception of sound.

[Deleted]

As always, thanks for your input Keith!

[Deleted]

It's also lossless because a WAV file that is compressed to FLAC can be re-constituted, bit perfect, back to the original WAV file...

-RW-

[Deleted]

Interesting. Also, with EAC (Exact Audio copy) you can decompress MP3 files to wav, then recompress to flac. Doesn't seem to work on MP4's though.

[arthurz]

You can convert from any audio format to any other. When you go from lossless to lossless, there's obviously no difference in sound. When you go from anything to lossy, you're most likely going to lose data. When you go from lossy to lossless (your example), you're only creating a larger file with no new data.

[Deleted]

Jun 10, 2013 16:45:22 GMT -5 arthurz said:

You can convert from any audio format to any other. When you go from lossless to lossless, there's obviously no difference in sound. When you go from anything to lossy, you're most likely going to lose data. When you go from lossy to lossless (your example), you're only creating a larger file with no new data.

When you go from anything to lossy, you're most likely going to lose data. When you go from lossy to lossless (your example), you're only creating a larger file with no new data.[/quote]
[/font]

That makes sense, but why does it sound so different when MP3>wav>flac conversion is done? I had some MP3 downloads from when Limewire existed. I just converted some MP3 Allman Brothers downloads that came from Limewire to wav and then to flac. Anyway, that is the path you take when you're using EAC. Foobar leaves duplicates of each file until you delete the MP3's manually. That makes it easy to compare the MP3 sound against the flac sound of same songs. There is a significant difference. In fact, I used it as an example to my daughter to show her how much better flac sounds than MP3's. She could really hear the difference too. What is going on here exactly?

[arthurz]

I'm guessing either your playback software uses different settings for MP3 vs. FLAC, or your MP3 to FLAC conversion also includes some form of processing. Maybe you have an EQ enabled somewhere? I'm sorry I have to be vague – it's really hard to guess.

[maximumkahuna]

Jun 10, 2013 10:07:21 GMT -5 justthefacts said:

Keith,

Thank you for all your inputs to this valuable thread!

I'm building my digital audio system and have not chosen an OS, software, or even specific cable output. I'm planning on getting either the Emotiva XDA-2 or Stealth DC-1 (when released) thus I should be able to get 24/192 from all three DAC input choices.

If you were starting from scratch what would you run?

1. OS
2. Media software
3. MOST IMPORTANT TO ME - which input from computer to DAC: usb, digital COAX, or optical TOSLINK?

For instance would you buy a Mac (PowerBook), use what hi-resolution software player, connect via optical toslink?

Or would you buy a PC Laptop, Windows version (?), windows software like jRiver Media Player, and connect via what? I assume for a laptop the only choice is USB to the DAC (am I correct?).

My only criteria for the computer, is I would prefer it was a laptop/notebook (portable) and had the least amount of hassles as an audio source.

I'm not asking for the you to go out on a limb and make an official recommendation (picking sides, etc.) just what you would build for your own personal enjoyment. I respect your knowledge and would be able to copy your personal choice to get started in a direction that should be stable, accurate and enjoyable.

I just want to start off on the right foot, I promise to not blame anyone for their advice

Thank you in advance for your response!

Cheers,

- Andre

I go with the OS that you're most familiar with. Ease of use trumps other considerations since you can make either mac or pc sound really good. JRiver on a pc is the common choice for hassle free use. Easy to use, versatile, sounds great. Unless you're a tinkerer, not much reason to use anything else. For a mac I'd use iTunes and an add on player that gives you auto bit rate switching. Easy file handling and better sound.  There are many good sounding usb dacs now at every price point, so that's the way I'd go. Keep the set up simple. You can make it as complicated and expensive as you want, but there's no reason you can't get great sound from a relatively straight forward set up.

The Olive One concept sounds interesting, especially if you want an all-in-one set up. But it's limiting, and there's no indication that it'll sound better. If you get the add-ons for using your own amp and dac, the price advantage goes away.

[yves]

Jun 9, 2013 17:00:16 GMT -5 @islandman2020 said:

Anyway, thanks for your time in responding everyone. I think foobar is pretty cool, but they need to make it more easier to install Flac.

You can simply download and install "Flac for Windows with installer" from this page. Next, you should be able to make foobar2000 remember the path of the folder to which you have installed FLAC, by following the instructions I previosuly described. (The path of the folder is shown in the screenshot below).

[dac0964]

Nov 26, 2012 15:17:04 GMT -5 KeithL said:

As you probably know, the XDA-2 now displays the sample rate of the incoming digital audio on the display.

You may notice that the rate you see displayed is sometimes different than you expect. Specifically, you may see 44.1 displayed (or 96k) when you were expecting a higher sample rate.
THE SAMPLE RATE ON THE XDA-2 DISPLAY IS CORRECT. Many operating systems, including Windows, often re-sample the playback rate for digital audio files as they are played.

So, for example, you may play a 96k file in FooBar2000 (a very popular player program), and see 96k displayed in the player status window, but see 44.1 displayed on the XDA-2's display. What's happening is that FooBar2000 is playing your 96k file, and correctly reporting the sample rate. It then passes the file to Windows, which is re-sampling the file to 44.1k (which is probably set as its default rate), and passing it on to the XDA-2, which then correctly reports what IT receives as 44.1k.

Whether this happens or not will depend on your software (Windows 7 does it by default, as do some Macs). In some instances you may be able to choose a different playback mode which doesn't re-sample, some players may automatically override the Windows preference, and you may actually find that you prefer the sound of a specific sample rate (for example, some people prefer to let Windows up-sample their 44.1k files to 96k).

[The XDA-2 does have an ASRC (sample rate converter) which INTERNALLY re-samples data to 96k while eliminating jitter when it is engaged (NOT bypassed). The operation of the ASRC is transparent to the display; the display will always display the sample rate of the incoming data as it really is, even when the ASRC is operating.]

Hi Keith, I don't know if you answered this question before but I got into this situation this weekend (downloaded a 24/96 music file from HDTracks and use JRiver as music server) and I've been trying to find a way to defeat the Windows 7 re-sampling with no luck. I thought by setting the JRiver output option to WASAPI would do it but it still won't play and shows an error message that my 'sound device' does not support 24/96 files. I thought the message meant my computer's sound card. However you said in another post here (page 2) that when connected via USB the computer's sound card is essentially by-passed and the XDA-2 effectively becomes the sound card. If this is the case why can't I still play the 24/96 music? Isn't it that the XDA-2 support up to 24/192? Can you give me some directions on how I can defeat the Windows 7 re-sampling. Thanks.

[GreenKiwi]

Have you asked about this over on the JRiver forums? They seem to have lots of experience setting these things up.