Converting DSD Files to FLAC

[par4ken]

But, logically, you cannot know that.

Of course I can!

 

[jimfisheye]

I think it's important to include the caveat that this is an on the fly conversion being critiqued here.

 

[mkt]

A 1db difference is pretty audible in this context (even with the dryer running in the next room and not great hearing).

Blind Testing a 1 dB Level Difference
Sneakier (in my opinion) is that the different levels present to me as differing sound quality (e.g., bright vs dull). I once convinced myself that Roon sounded "better" than LMS until I figured out that Roon was using a different method for ReplayGain.

A tricky part of converting DSD to PCM is setting the level.

SACDs are mastered such that when converted to PCM they are approximately 6dB too quiet. However, different SACDs are mastered differently - as such, if you don't check the track peaks before converting, you may discover that you have added too much gain and induced clipping in some tracks, which is clearly undesirable.

There are a number of ways to measure this clipping. A popular method is using the Dynamic Range plugin for foobar2000, coupled with the foo_input_sacd plugin allowing foobar2000 to read DSD files.

My script for converting DSD to flac (which I'm not a fan of) does two passes: the first to determine the gain and the second to convert to flac using that gain in Weiss Saracon. I can imagine that an on-the-fly method might have level variations, but just speculation.

 

[par4ken]

A 1db difference is pretty audible in this context (even with the dryer running in the next room and not great hearing).
View attachment 74550
Blind Testing a 1 dB Level Difference
Sneakier (in my opinion) is that the different levels present to me as differing sound quality (e.g., bright vs dull). I once convinced myself that Roon sounded "better" than LMS until I figured out that Roon was using a different method for ReplayGain.

A tricky part of converting DSD to PCM is setting the level.


My script for converting DSD to flac (which I'm not a fan of) does two passes: the first to determine the gain and the second to convert to flac using that gain in Weiss Saracon. I can imagine that an on-the-fly method might have level variations, but just speculation.

Another user of Saracon! I wish that I could afford it, I would likely have a bit of an expectation bias there. Any thoughts on using cheap/free converters like Foobar? What are the optimum settings to use? Are the optimum settings program dependant? Why are you not a fan of flac?

Most of my ramblings have been about the difference in sound produced by the Oppo on the fly, I don't have a firm opinion about the conversions done by Foobar, they did sound fine to me in the past but I'm not sure how well they will stack up now compared with native DSD from the Oppo. I guess I'll just have to do some listening tests. I'm thinking I'll also have to do a number of conversions with different settings and compare them to each other and to the Oppo as well. Sounds like a lot of work, more things to add to my to do list. I was hoping that someone here would have the perfect and low cost recipe!

Another idea, although it seems rather counterintuitive would be to simply record from the Oppo's analogue outputs to the computer's sound card, that might work well unless the high frequency noise negatively affects the recording maybe causing aliasing and more audible noise? Not a bit for bit process but the pure digital solution isn't really either!

 

[JediJoker]

Saracon isn't as superlative as it used to be. Other SRCs have caught up. See for yourself here.

 

[newslane]

I have read a lot of par4ken's posts over the years. He's a pretty straight shooter when it comes to describing what he hears. When he first stated his DSD vs PCM remarks in the original "Holy Cow" thread, I too thought there might be some bias afoot, especially since there was no true A/B testing involved, and in view of my experience with comparing DSD and DSD converted to PCM not agreeing with his observations.

I'm coming to the conclusion that he may well be describing the reality of the situation correctly. He is speaking about an audible difference when using an on the fly conversion of DSD to PCM within his Oppo player. Something that would be harder to evaluate A/B style.

Early on in my SACD ripping education, I tried to test for audible differences in DSD vs DSD converted to PCM. I wanted some reasonable A/B method. I ended up comparing the following:

Optical SACD playback through my Oppo BDP-83 SE using its internal DAC and inputting analog audio to my pre pro
VS.
A 24/88.2kHz PCM conversion of the same tracks played via Kodi on my HTPC with the HDMI sent to the same pre/pro and using its internal DACs for decoding.

I tried to use predominately 4.0 SACDs to eliminate any issue with LFE level settings.

This way I could set the two sources to start playing at more or less the same time. I like to have a 3-5 second delay between them so I can hear a passage and then quickly re-play the same passage from the other source. I could set levels for each source separately and switch between the sources at will. This is the same setup I have used in the past to compare vinyl to digital, CD to Hi-Res, etc.

Result: I could not reliably perceive a difference in sound. Nor could the much younger ears of my son when he tried it. I know it wasn't a blind test. I know the levels were set subjectively. But it was enough for me to go ahead and feel good about converting all my DSD rips to PCM. (I kept all the DSD rips just in case).

What par4ken is talking about is different. He is referring to his Oppo using its internal DAC to convert SACD to PCM. This is not something I tested. It may well be that this process is flawed in some way. Hence, I cant refute it, and I'm willing to believe it until it is proven wrong.

I do want to get to the bottom of it though. And I also want to know I'm doing all i can to get the best PCM conversion from DSD sources possible.

I can add a couple of thoughts to these comments about A/B testing.

First, there is an Ethan Winer video on You Tube called "Audio Myths Workshop" (), and part of it contains a discussion about how to compare two different music sources. The comment I most remember is that the best way to do this is to compare one specific instrument when A/B testing, not the overall sound.

Second, I have A/B tested two different sources that same way LuvMyQuad describes in this post. A tweak I added was to show my wife where the two sources were plugged into my preamp, and to ask her to switch them (or not switch them) so I had no idea which source I was listening to. I used this method recently when testing the highly-rated Soncoz DAC with an entry level Cambridge Audio DAC. After three weeks of careful testing of dozens of CDs, I thought I could tell the tiniest difference in sound using the testing method described in the Audio Myths Workshop. I had chosen the Cambridge Audio DAC.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Of course I can!

I guess you can't see the the irony in that.

 

[jimfisheye]

A/B'ing two sources:

We humans hear louder as better short of a gross difference in sound quality and have a VERY short attention span for remembering fidelity nuance. That leads to needing to critically match levels between sources to compare and needing an instant seamless way to A/B between them.

A level discrepancy of 0.5db is enough to call the louder one better sounding. Even a moment between A and B when switching is enough to "forget" the fidelity. And if there's a chirp or click with the A/B switch you can absolutely forget it!

Trying to use stand alone disc players and click back and forth while trying to move the volume control on your preamp is beyond absurdity.

I use Reaper DAW. The solo buttons make clicks and thus can't be used for A/B trials. I'll mute one of the tracks. Then group the mutes between the two tracks. Now clicking either of them toggles the mutes between tracks. This is seamless and silent.

 

[mkt]

Another user of Saracon! I wish that I could afford it, I would likely have a bit of an expectation bias there. Any thoughts on using cheap/free converters like Foobar? What are the optimum settings to use? Are the optimum settings program dependant? Why are you not a fan of flac?

I wasn't clear. I am a fan of flac, but not a fan of converting from DSD to flac, exactly because it's lossy, and I don't know the "best" method, which probably says more about my brain than anything else.

This is from 2015: "Bottom line: No need to worry about the sonic output from any of these converters IMO."
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/04/analysis-dsd-decoders-2015-windows-mac.html

 

[par4ken]

I wasn't clear. I am a fan of flac, but not a fan of converting from DSD to flac, exactly because it's lossy, and I don't know the "best" method, which probably says more about my brain than anything else.

This is from 2015: "Bottom line: No need to worry about the sonic output from any of these converters IMO."
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/04/analysis-dsd-decoders-2015-windows-mac.html

What you are saying is pretty much my consensus as well. DSD is best left as DSD. However more searching has led my to this page with a couple if installable filters for Foobar, Saracon and others. Those filters might make an audible difference.
S-Audio.Systems // DSD Filter

 

[himey]

how do you go about that. is it a different plug in, or a different method all together?

It is just an app that does conversions. It does have a batch mode.

The conversion to PCM makes my library much more convenient. I do keep the original DSD for those times when I think I need that extra quality which is rare.

The difference in quality between recordings and mixes is so much greater than any minor differences in the conversion.

 

[himey]

Of course I can!

If you know from beginning what you are listening to there will always be a bias.

Blind tests reveal truly how large the differences are unlike the ear trust method. Also, a test without bias, can reveal that any differences are actually a negative. Just because you can hear a difference doesn't mean one sounds better than the other as I mentioned before.

 

[himey]

I never said that anything sounded bad but I did say that native DSD did sound much much better and yes "IMHO native DSD blows away SACD converted to PCM" at least via my two Oppo's.

I might have to look into Saracon as well as other conversion tools as well. As I mentioned earlier even Foobar has many different settings, finding the best one might make all the difference. It is nice to be able to extract to PCM so that the mix can be altered, and for compatibility.
Edit: Did a search for "Saracon" priced at $2500 CAD totally out of my budget, I would hope that it works as claimed!

I've made CD's in the past from DSD files converted to PCM (by Foobar), they sounded better than commercially produced CD's but that's mainly due to the loudness war! Many recently produced CD's do sound truly bad!

I used to convert my SACD's to flac and never noticed a difference in quality but my old players all converted DSD to PCM. It was only with the Oppo BDP-103, playing DSD natively did I hear the difference! That is what I continue to "preach" about!

I am having trouble wrapping my head around how the sound can "blow away" the conversion without the conversion sounding poor in some way.

 

[par4ken]

If you know from beginning what you are listening to there will always be a bias.

Blind tests reveal truly how large the differences are unlike the ear trust method. Also, a test without bias, can reveal that any differences are actually a negative. Just because you can hear a difference doesn't mean one sounds better than the other as I mentioned before.

I totally disagree with that!

 

[par4ken]

I am having trouble wrapping my head around how the sound can "blow away" the conversion without the conversion sounding poor in some way.

What don't you understand? It's very simple, while SACD played via PCM sounded OK or very good the DSD playback "still totally blows the other away". I suspect that you don't agree with my terminology. It's the best way that I can describe the difference (and it is based on emotion), I could tame my language for you but sorry I won't! Just as I won't apologise to Ssully for using the term "magical". Nor will I apologize to Owen for saying that mp3's sound gritty! Colourful language is the best way to communicate what we are experiencing subjectively, sorry if that's not scientific enough for you. And we are primarily talking about DSD to PCM on the fly as performed by the Oppo!

Initial listening was from The Guess Who "Wheatfield Soul and Canned Wheat" DV SACD the PCM sounded a bit tapeish, I thought that I was hearing anormalities of the original master tape which would now be some fifty or more years old. After switching to DSD from PCM I was stunned! The difference in sound was completely unexpected (again I'm repeating myself), it was a bit harsher (some people might not prefer that) but more dynamic sounding, it no longer sounded like a tape the anormalities seemed to disappear. That native DSD sound "blew me away" and is why I started the Holy Cow thread! I don't doubt that if Dutton had mastered the disc to PCM instead of DSD and released it on Blu-ray that it too would sound amazing.

DSD and PCM are two different animals why would you expect there to be absolutely no difference in the sound? Not having experienced native DSD I basically bought into the false idea that it could simply be converted to PCM losslessly. I didn't get my Oppo to hear DSD, that became a happy accident!

 

[himey]

What don't you understand? It's very simple, while SACD played via PCM sounded OK or very good the DSD playback "still totally blows the other away". I suspect that you don't agree with my terminology. It's the best way that I can describe the difference (and it is based on emotion), I could tame my language for you but sorry I won't! Just as I won't apologise to Ssully for using the term "magical". Nor will I apologize to Owen for saying that mp3's sound gritty! Colourful language is the best way to communicate what we are experiencing subjectively, sorry if that's not scientific enough for you. And we are primarily talking about DSD to PCM on the fly as performed by the Oppo!

Initial listening was from The Guess Who "Wheatfield Soul and Canned Wheat" DV SACD the PCM sounded a bit tapeish, I thought that I was hearing anormalities of the original master tape which would now be some fifty or more years old. After switching to DSD from PCM I was stunned! The difference in sound was completely unexpected (again I'm repeating myself), it was a bit harsher (some people might not prefer that) but more dynamic sounding, it no longer sounded like a tape the anormalities seemed to disappear. That native DSD sound "blew me away" and is why I started the Holy Cow thread! I don't doubt that if Dutton had mastered the disc to PCM instead of DSD and released it on Blu-ray that it too would sound amazing.

DSD and PCM are two different animals why would you expect there to be absolutely no difference in the sound? Not having experienced native DSD I basically bought into the false idea that it could simply be converted to PCM losslessly. I didn't get my Oppo to hear DSD, that became a happy accident!

Nobody said they sounded the same. Good luck.
edit...many people think the conversion sounds better because they can take advantage of bass management, time alignment, room correction ect. If you want to "preach" against that, fine, but until you do a blind test, and at least take your obvious bias into consideration, you will continue to hear opposition to your opinion. Personally, as I mentioned, it is about compatibility. We all weigh the options and make concessions.

 

[par4ken]

Nobody said they sounded the same. Good luck.

Then what is all the fuss about? Many of you seem hell bent on proving me wrong!

For me it's about sound quality first, compatibility and convenience second. As for room correction time alignment ect. it's not that I'm against it just that I think it to be mostly unnecessary. I subscribe to the less is more theory as do a lot of the other "audiophile types" those that many of you seem to like to ridicule! That is why I talk of a schism between the audiophile types (I referred to them purists before) mostly the stereo only crowd and those that promote digital DSP based systems and surround sound utilising a never ending number of channels. I would rather use four large matched speakers than a room full of dicky little surrounds and mismatched front and centre speakers! Then try to patch things up with room correction and time alignment!

 

[himey]

Then what is all the fuss about? Many of you seem hell bent on proving me wrong! For me it's about sound quality first, compatibility and convenience second. As for room correction time alignment ect. it's not that I'm against it just that I think it to be mostly unnecessary. I subscribe to the less is more theory as do a lot of the other "Audiophile types" those that many of you seem to like to ridicule! That is why I talk of a schism between the audiophile types (I referred to them purists before) mostly the stereo only crowd and those that promote digital DSP based systems and surround sound utilising a never ending number of channels. I would rather use four large matched speakers than a room full of dicky little surrounds and mismatched front and centre speakers! Then try to patch things up with room correction and time alignment!

We all have opinions and make compromises. You used the term "preach". I don't consider my posts preaching. Glad you are so sure of your opinion, but it is only an opinion and for you to think it is the only way to get quality first is silly. Again, good luck.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

If you know from beginning what you are listening to there will always be a bias.

Blind tests reveal truly how large the differences are unlike the ear trust method. Also, a test without bias, can reveal that any differences are actually a negative. Just because you can hear a difference doesn't mean one sounds better than the other as I mentioned before.

I totally disagree with that!

Disagree all you like. There is plenty of rigorous scientific evidence to back up the bias argument. And its not just an audio related phenomena. Keep in mind, no one thinks they are being biased, it just happens. Refusing to at least acknowledge it is why you are getting so much static from other members.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I am having trouble wrapping my head around how the sound can "blow away" the conversion without the conversion sounding poor in some way.

What don't you understand? It's very simple, while SACD played via PCM sounded OK or very good the DSD playback "still totally blows the other away". I suspect that you don't agree with my terminology. It's the best way that I can describe the difference (and it is based on emotion), I could tame my language for you but sorry I won't! Just as I won't apologise to Ssully for using the term "magical". Nor will I apologize to Owen for saying that mp3's sound gritty! Colourful language is the best way to communicate what we are experiencing subjectively, sorry if that's not scientific enough for you. And we are primarily talking about DSD to PCM on the fly as performed by the Oppo!

Colorful language means nothing when describing audio. And it is far from the best way to describe audio, in fact its the worst. It reeks of an individual striving to impose his impression of something as better while not admitting anything that is provable or concrete.

If you say the high end is recessed, or the bass is boomy, most everyone knows what that means and they can focus on those aspects when evaluating something to see if they share the impression. Saying something blows away, or is night and day, or leaves it in the dust, or is magical, or any one of a hundred or more superlative sayings just says nothing of value. It denotes an emotional response without definition. Most members here know better than to take that kind of description seriously. That's another reason for the static.