Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[InflatableMouse]

Looking for tips here. I'm playing around with some SACD rips. The ISO's import and play fine in MC but its not really handy as move/rename doesn't work for instance.

I can extract the tracks as .dff. I only care for 2-channel audio. The tool can do DST or DSD. One is compressed and the other isn't, but they are both called .dff and are the same size?

I assume compressed is lossless but its hard to find good reliable info. Does this matter if I convert to flac?

Should I leave it as .dff or convert to flac? Is there really a reason not to convert to flac?

I've read:
- .dff may experience timing issues
- converting to wave sounds better, at least on paper (but really, I'd like to avoid any debate on this so maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it )

I'd choose flac because:
- they are smaller
- I believe will sound identical
- have better compatibility than dff / handled easier than 1 large ISO

I don't know about the following:
- The proper settings for converting to flac (raw, wave, wave-ex, 24-bit or higher?, dithering?, 6dB Gain?).
- About the 6dB gain, I read +6dB restores it to its original level, but reduces dynamic range and may cause peaks to clip. Is it best to leave it at 0 gain and use replaygain in MC?
- About the frequency, do people pick 88.2 because its a 'square' conversion (clean divide by 32 or is that coincidence?).  What's the rule here? Why not pick 96, 176.4 or even 192?

Love to hear from those having experience with this.

Thanks guys!

[eddyshere]

I am also interested to learn more on that topic. For the moment i extract all SACD iso to dsf as it prooved to work perfectly with tags in the library. I play them back at 352.8/32 on my main htpc but was also wondering how to best convert them to flac (dont want wav because of tagging) to take them along on my mobile player.

[sla]

You will have to leave them in either dff or dsf to achieve true sacd quality. converting to flac is way harder as it requires converting DSD signals to PCM,

[eddyshere]

You will have to leave them in either dff or dsf to achieve true sacd quality. converting to flac is way harder as it requires converting DSD signals to PCM,

I talk about portability. My korg mr1 has tiny space for native dsf or dff so flac is a good compromise. On the htpc I of course don't convert. Why would a conversion to flac be harder ?

[sla]

because it is a totally different format... [88 or 176 are the best sample rates], one need to avoid clipping when converting to FLAC [that means messing with the volume control/trimming - volume in DSD and PCM formats are handled differently], and one has to remove last couple samples to avoid pops/cracks...

there are some automated scripts though...

[sla]

I can extract the tracks as .dff. I only care for 2-channel audio. The tool can do DST or DSD. One is compressed and the other isn't, but they are both called .dff and are the same size?

I assume compressed is lossless but its hard to find good reliable info. Does this matter if I convert to flac?

.dff is Philips format, it can contain uncompress or compress (DST - lossless) audio. it does not have native tagging support. [some workaround solutions are possible]
.dsd is SONY format, it can only contain uncompress audio. it supports tagging

if original SACD is DST compressed then the resulting files are .dff compressed, usual compression ratio 800MB versus 2GB.

[InflatableMouse]

Thanks.

I'm afraid I already dumped the entire idea for several reasons. Too big too much hassle, little support in MC other than import and play. But more importantly, I find that virtually every SACD I have tried and compared against the better CD versions (ie, not the silly remasters but original releases, japanese or MFSL), the CD wins hands down. Nothing to do with the format, I believe its the mastering process ... but hey, what do I know .. I'm just the idiot in the livingroom   .

[kstuart]

Thanks.

I'm afraid I already dumped the entire idea for several reasons. Too big too much hassle, little support in MC other than import and play. But more importantly, I find that virtually every SACD I have tried and compared against the better CD versions (ie, not the silly remasters but original releases, japanese or MFSL), the CD wins hands down. Nothing to do with the format, I believe its the mastering process ... but hey, what do I know .. I'm just the idiot in the livingroom   .

I find that there are no generalizations that can be made about "best versions of albums".

For one album, the original 1980s CD is best.
For another, the 1990s small label DCC, MFSL, AF, AP or Japanese CD is best.
For another, the ten year old SACD is best.
For another, the 2012 MFSL SACD is best.
For another, the 2011 HDtracks is best.
For another, a 24/96 vinyl rip of the 1966 original pressing LP is best.

It all depends on what was done by the human beings involved in the above releases.

It also depends on your listening equipment, situation in which you do your listening, and your personal taste.

[InflatableMouse]

I wasn't generalizing, or at least I didn't mean to. I meant just the ones I tried for which I had other non-SACD versions.

[sla]

I would safely assume that the SACD released by the band around 2003-2005 and recorded in DSD [so for example SONY or ZOE label...] beats hands down any other releases by long shot.

[InflatableMouse]

I asumed for a long time that recent remasters of older albums were better. Over the past couple of years I've made purchases that I now very much regret because I gave many of my old CD's away in favor of remastered editions. For me personally, and in particular for the albums I've checked (I'm not generalizing ) in every case I preferred my original releases or, where I am lucky to have them, a Japanese or MFSL release (but even that is not a given as kstuart said as well). And then in yet another case there was no discernable difference to me at all.

It all comes down to personal taste and there's really no point in debating it. I prefer the more old fashioned approach . But I've learned one thing: make no assumptions but sit down and listen. It has cost me a lot of money over the years and a lot of trouble recently getting things back the way I want it (and I'm missing a lot still!).

[kstuart]

If you have a particular album where you are wondering which particular release has the best sound, go to stevehoffman.tv Music Forum and put the name of the album into Search and click on "thread titles only".

You won't necessarily get a definitive (or short) answer, but if that album matters to you, it is a good place to start.

[sla]

now, that's only half the fun. Check vinyl and so called hot stampers... That's the reasons people buy several copies of the same vinyl. Grant lee phillips, 3 doors down, snow patrol, keane these are great sacd realeases imho...