Howdy all,
Checking google and finding it confusing.
I have many uncompressed WAV files (1141 kbps) and I would like to convert them to FLAC (192 kbps).
Anyone have experience with a good converter?
I am on a Windows 10 machine and I created these files recording some old cassette tapes (totally out of print and not on any streaming services) using an old program called CoolEdit 2000.
I just want to ensure getting 192kbps flac files from the uncompressed wav files.
Thanks!
-Gil
dBpoweramp is a traditional recommendation. As an alternative, you could also use Foobar2000. There should be plenty of decent guides floating around online.
+1 Re: dBpoweramp. Its a great, and easy to use, ripping/converter tool.
Good luck.
+2 for dBpowerampâŚ
Ummm⌠the thing about FLAC is you canât guarantee any particular size of the output file. Because the L stands for Lossless, there are limits to the compression you can perform.
You can adjust the amount of CPU effort your FLAC encoder applies towards getting smaller file sizes (as a trade-off against the amount of time it takes to do the encoding) but youâre not going to get 85% reduction unless your original audio is mostly silence or pure sines.
If you want good-sounding 192kbps, use AAC. It wonât be lossless though.
I am curious as to how you arrived at this 192 figure?
FLAC allows different compression levels, from none to maximum. With hard drive costs what they are I donât need any compression. But instead of using FLAC I choose AIFF.
AIFF is One Louder than FLAC.
On Windows, definitely dBpoweramp. On a Mac, XLDâŚ
If youâre an old-time Windows user like me and are comfortable using command-line tools then you might like to consider the âofficialâ FLAC command-line toolset found at FLAC - What is FLAC?
Some programs like Exact Audio Copy for example actually use these FLAC tools to optionally compress after ripping.
I know the tools you are talking about and I donât miss them at all after buying dBPoweramp. No sir. Much bother, zero gain. Spend $50 and live easy. Sometimes pennies are better spent.
Hey @aangen, I got the 192 figure based on some of the resolutions I see via Qobuz.
BUT, I have since realized that when I recorded these cassette tapes to my computer, I did so at CD resolution ( 44.1kHz/16bit), so, I am content to go with this as the resolution. I am just using a very low compression ration (8) when transferring the uncompressed WAV files to FLAC.
I love dBpoweramp! I love the metadata editing and how it can find the album covers in DISCOGS.
So far, this is working great on my Eversolo-DMP-A6.
I am also now starting to explore the wonders of DSD too. I had some test files and have those over on my DMP-A6 via a USB stick. Have yet to buy and an install an ssd drive for the DMP-A6.
I have used DBPoweramp to rip CDs to DSD. I cannot hear a difference between that and ripping them to AIFF.
Ah that clears up some earlier confusion.
What you see on Qobuz is â192kHzâ, meaning that the digital file provides 192000 24-bit samples of the audio waveform every second.
Thatâs very different from 192kbps which means that your audio file only requires 192000 bits of storage for every second of audio. The â192â is just coincidence.
FLAC is basically âzipâ for audio data. It doesnât care whether your sample rate is 44.1kHz or 192kHz and your sample depth is 16 or 24 bits. It just lets you store and retrieve that audio data while using a bit less disk space than WAV or AIFF, plus it allows you to put metadata like title/artist/album and an image in the file too.
Sounds like you have your process worked out, which is great!
Right here.
AIFF sounds better than FLAC, I spent a lot of time on this comparison back in the day before I ripped everything.
i remember the first time I saw @aangen mention his preference for AIFF over FLAC, and I quickly went and re-ripped a good CD and listened and tried my damndest to discern some kind of difference between the two.
I couldnât and I havenât worried my pretty little head about it one whit since.
If I want REALLY good sound I will play an SACD and I will sit in my chair convinced it sounds better but also with the calm realization that i probably couldnât accurately pick A over B in a blind test.
Good stuff, yeah as long as you do the testing before ripping hundreds of discs.
Could also be that more modern streaming setups help too. I did this back in like 2008 with the original PWD dac fed by a Mac mini.
The tracks that sold me were some Bob Marley songs where the hand drums sustained a lot longer with AIFF vs flac.
If the format you rip to is lossless then you can convert to whatever format you later like best at any time. There are a lot of good tools to do the conversions from one format to another, dBpoweramp among them.
well, this was after ripping like 1000, so Iâm sure that had something to do with my need to not hear a difference
This reminds me of an old joke:
What is the difference between capitalism and communism?
Answer: Under capitalism it is dog-eat-dog, and under communism it is the reverse.
Seriously though, there are so many variables involved (e.g., FLAC compression level (0 to 8), the software used to encode FLAC, the FLAC and AIFF playback software, the file playback deviceâs operating system and processing power, the media on which the files are stored (e.g., spinning HDD, SSD, SD card, USB thumb drive)) that it is difficult to make sweeping generalizations about lossless format sound quality.
By contrast, it would be equally difficult to quibble with a statement such as âAIFF sounds better than FLAC to my ears when played on my system.â
Weâve had this debate a couple of times before. FLAC vs AIFF vs WAV. Most people do not hear any differences between them. But there are some that do, although the differences are very subtle, and their systems are very sensitive to any changes. In my system I do hear just a little more presence in the presentation, I must emphasize, very subtle, but itâs there, between FLAC and AIFF. Between AIFF and WAV, I hear no difference at all. For those that do not hear any difference between any of this, I say donât worry about it, itâs no big deal. FlAC is an excellent format also.
Someone else started that discussion, I was all FLAC all the time. I switched to AIFF the same time I built a 50 TB NAS. Who cares about file size.
I am not certain itâs better, but it isnât worse.