• QuadraphonicQuad welcomes you and encourages your participation! Treat all members with respect. Please keep all discussions civil, even when you have a strong opinion on a particular topic.

    Do not offer for free, offer for sale, offer for trade, or request copies or files of copyrighted material - no matter how rare or unavailable to the public they might be. We do not condone the illegal sharing of music. There are many places on the internet where you can participate in such transactions, but QuadraphonicQuad is not one of them. We are here to encourage and support new multichannel releases from those companies that still provide them and as such the distribution of illegal copies of recordings is counter-productive to that effort. Any posts of this sort will be deleted without notification.

    Please try to avoid discussions that pit one format against another. Hint for new users: make liberal use of the search facilities here at QuadraphonicQuad. Our message base is an incredibly rich resource of detailed information on virtually all topics pertaining to surround-sound. You will be surprised at what you can find with a little digging!

How Long to Convert SACD ISO Files?

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

GOS

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
13,264
Location
Central Illinois
I've always felt like it takes forever for me to convert my newly ripped SACD (iso file) to flac. For example, I just converted a 19 song disc (ended up being 3.02 GB) and it took 35 minutes. I use Foobar by the way.

Does this seem like a long time? If yes, what on earth is slowing it down so much? Anyone else have comments about conversion times?
 

marpow

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
3,300
Location
San Mateo CA
I've always felt like it takes forever for me to convert my newly ripped SACD (iso file) to flac. For example, I just converted a 19 song disc (ended up being 3.02 GB) and it took 35 minutes. I use Foobar by the way.

Does this seem like a long time? If yes, what on earth is slowing it down so much? Anyone else have comments about conversion times?
I use the SONORE ISO and OPPO105, a single stereo SACD takes about 15-20 mins a MCH SACD a little more.
 

GOS

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
13,264
Location
Central Illinois
I use the SONORE ISO and OPPO105, a single stereo SACD takes about 15-20 mins a MCH SACD a little more.
Remember, I'm talking about the conversion of ISO to flac. Not the ripping part. But, you made me think. I'm getting ready to rip another disc, I'll time it and also time the conversion to flac. Probably I'm just too impatient.
 

marpow

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
3,300
Location
San Mateo CA
Remember, I'm talking about the conversion of ISO to flac. Not the ripping part. But, you made me think. I'm getting ready to rip another disc, I'll time it and also time the conversion to flac. Probably I'm just too impatient.
I see, meaning like taking a DSF file and convert it to a FLAC file? I have never done that.
 

sbrom

500 Club - QQ All-Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
551
Location
US
Yes, I rip all my files as is and then play them as is.
I do the same, but I’m considering a mass conversion to FLAC simply to get all my files into the same format. I don’t really have a good technical reason though.
 

GOS

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
13,264
Location
Central Illinois
Just ripped another Vocalion disc. There were 40 total songs (20 stereo & 20 MCH). It was 2.23 GB and took 14 minutes via Sonore and my Oppo. Now I'll convert iso to flac....and it took 31 minutes.
 
Last edited:

J. PUPSTER

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
4,304
Location
CALIFORNIA (CENTRAL)
Just ripped another Vocalion disc. There were 40 total songs (20 stereo & 10 MCH). It was 2.23 GB and took 14 minutes via Sonore and my Oppo. Now I'll convert iso to flac....and it took 31 minutes.
Those flac files ~24/96 take up a whole lot less room than the ripped dsf files, but then can you here the difference in the music; (a lot less 0s & 1s- makes you wonder that something should be missing?)
Personally I just rip to dsf and keep it there; I believe I hear more of the quietness between the instruments yadda yadda :devilish:
At my age I'm lucky if I can hear a cymbal crash -LOL
 

GOS

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
13,264
Location
Central Illinois
I'll be damned. I've never once heard a difference. LOL! Maybe I can't hear. Anyway, if I leave as a DSF or whatever it's called....my laptop doesn't handle them too well. They skip.......not sure why. Never skip with flac.
 

Jim the Oldbie

800 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Messages
880
Location
Midwest USA
Hi Gene, I'm right in the middle of doing all this with Miles' Live Evil which I just got yesterday.

Using Foobar, Disc 1 took 15:45 (including 5 stereo and 5 multichannel tracks), with PCM Samplerate set to 176K and DSD2PCM Mode set to Multistage (64p). I think I read somewhere that this mode is the most accurate, but also uses the most processing power. Dunno if output sample rate has any effect on processing time.

Also, the above figure doesn't include Replay Gain calculation time, which took an additional 1:23.

The .iso file is 3.7 GB, the 176K FLAC files add up to 6.3 GB. I could probably get by just fine with 88K sample rate, but since my hardware resamples everything to 96K, I guess my thinking is I'd rather have it downsampling instead of up. Of course I have no solid data to back up this theory. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have the same problem with trying to do this during playback; my otherwise-adequate little cheap netbook struggles with it.

[EDIT] Oops! At first I thought my numbers were comparable to yours, but I was misreading; mine seems to go more quickly. This is on a desktop with a quad-core 3.2 GHz processor, so maybe we're just seeing a difference in processor power here. This particular task is pretty number-crunchy, typically maxing out all available processor time - just the sort of thing that tends to reveal the true top speed (or lack of same) of a lot of laptops/netbooks.
 
Last edited:

Jim the Oldbie

800 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Messages
880
Location
Midwest USA
Okay so just fer shits & giggles I copied the same .iso over to the little netbook, set up the same parameters, and the same conversion took almost 47 minutes, and about 2:20 for the ReplayGain thing. So yeah, I'd say processor is the main bottleneck here. Poor netbook actually smelled a bit hot when it was finished - I haven't worked it that hard in its whole little life. :oops:

While I was waiting, I went back to the desktop to weed out my Stupid Videos folder, and actually dozed off with my finger on the ENTER key. Woke up to discover I had started I don't know how many hundred instances of the SAME F890ING CAT VIDEO. The desktop is so jammed up right now, I need to look for a piece of stiff cardboard to cut up the chunks. Sheesh...
 

HomerJAU

Moderator: MCH Media Players
Staff member
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
3,019
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Foobar does multi threaded conversions. An 8 core processor does 8 files at at same time, but HDD write speed is the major bottleneck with even an 8 core processor.

Notebook hard drives are pretty slow, unless you have a modern one with an SSD drive. Many older notebooks have only 5400rpm drives, where faster spinning drives are 7200rpm.
 

HomerJAU

Moderator: MCH Media Players
Staff member
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
3,019
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I just did an SACD ISO with 12 tracks 5.1 to FLAC in 2min and 25 seconds:

My all 8 cores of my CPU at 100%. Source and destination drives are NVME SSDs capable of read writing at over 1800MB/sec. A fast conventional HDD may go to 130MB/sec. Over a network to a NAS maybe 100MB/sec or less on a 1GBE LAN, less for most wireless networks.


Here's my Windows Task manager showing all 8 cores at 100%:
FoobarSACDtoFLAC.PNG
 
Last edited:

Snood

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
3,526
Location
Snoodville
Yeah GOS that sounds about right for time if you are using a HDD (disc) Hard drive - but also Homer is right that a SSD would be super faster.

Snood has converted a few ISOs to flac and it not fast of my HDD :rolleyes:
 

Jim the Oldbie

800 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Messages
880
Location
Midwest USA
My desktop has spinning discs, while the netbook has an SSD - the desktop still finished in about 1/3 the time.

In Windows, if I watch Resource Monitor while Foobar is running this conversion, all cores are absolutely pegged at 100% on both machines, while disk access is somewhat leisurely by comparison. My desktop has 4 cores @ 3.2 GHz, the netbook has 2 cores @ 1.6, for about 4:1 speed-wise. The 2 conversions came out about 3:1, which looks about right if we factor in the SSD vs HD difference.

Seems to me that since the cores are maxed at 100%, then that must be the bottleneck - they wouldn't be able to run flat out like that if they had to wait for the network or the drives.
 

HomerJAU

Moderator: MCH Media Players
Staff member
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
3,019
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Seems to me that since the cores are maxed at 100%, then that must be the bottleneck
For sure Jim.

On my PC with 8 cores @ 4+GHz the SSDs made a difference, especially since I often do multiple tasks not just convert a single disc to FLAC.

Now that I'm doing quite a few Penteo upmixes I'm copying my original source stereo FLACs to one of my PCs SSDs to process from there, once I've done a few I copy the new UMs back to my surround folder on my NAS for playback, there;s always something hungry for disc resources!
 
2
Top