Print

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

[Azintrepid]

Question:Does it make a difference to encode straight from cd vs. encoded from an already encoded file?

I want to encode my music from various formats, ie., Flac, MP3, Aif, Aac, mp4, etc to DSF files. for the high end file type and encode same to the less Mp3 file types.  The higher end DSF files are for my Hiby and the lower end files will be for my Ipod. 

1) Should I rip and encode directly from cd's to DSF and repeat process and rip again from cd's to the MP3 VBR?  Or;
2) could I encode existing music files to the preferred file type; Such as encode my MP3's to DSF or my Flac or Aif files to the DSF or MP3 file types?

3) Finally if it is ok to encode from an already ripped file type to different file types, is there a way to have JRiver do the entire process for me?  I'm currently re-ripping my entire cd collection to DSF and then again to the MP3 VBR 

Thank you!

[JimH]

It's not a good idea to convert any lossy format to lossless.  MP3 and AAC are lossy.

It's also not necessary to convert files to DSF, and it provides no advantage.

[Azintrepid]

Thank you JimH.  Can JRiver convert all my files at once?  Such as add all my files to Library, select them all and select my options to convert?

[JimH]

You can select files, right click and choose convert.  Try a few before you do very many.

[Azintrepid]

Ok.  Thanks!

[Spike1000]

Did you pick up Jim's comment?

"It's also not necessary to convert files to DSF, and it provides no advantage."

I can add that it provides a number of disadvantages into the bargain (no DSP without converting back to PCM for example. . . ) . To save yourself time I suggest you read into what you intend to do before starting. If you're still happy then crack on, but converting a lossless format to another lossless format that's only bigger and potentially has worse tagging support (would have to look into what DSF can offer these days) doesn't have any positives in my book. If your 1 bit conversion process sounds better (to your ears) than the multi-bit process then you are enjoying the sounds of your DAC not the sound of the source. If the 1 bit DAC was expensive it's likely to sound wonderful due to cognitive bias but it will have nothing to do with the source format.

Lossy formats are best alone.

Spike

[Awesome Donkey]

Converting lossless (or worse lossy) PCM files to DSD (DSF) is a waste of hard drive space, in my opinion.

[dtc]

potentially has worse tagging support (would have to look into what DSF can offer these days.

DSF files have full tagging support, including using user defined MC tags. This is not a disadvantage.  DFF files, like wav files, are not good for tagging, but most people avoid them for the same reasons they avoid wav files.

If your 1 bit conversion process sounds better (to your ears) than the multi-bit process then you are enjoying the sounds of your DAC not the sound of the source. If the 1 bit DAC was expensive it's likely to sound wonderful due to cognitive bias but it will have nothing to do with the source format.

The DSD playback process is different than the PCM process, exactly because it is a 1 bit source not a multibit source. Many people believe that process produces a different sound. And, the only way to do that process is from a 1 bit source format. DSD playback can sound different than PCM playback, even from an inexpensive DSD DAC. It is not just cognitive bias based on price.  And it is indeed dependent on the source format, unless of course the software or the DAC converts to single bit format as part of its playback process (like HQplayer).

That said, the sound of a DSD DAC can vary significantly depending on implementation. Many standard DSD implementations use off the shelf DAC chips that are not optimal implementations. And those often sound little different than the PCM the same DAC produces. However, there are many DSD DACs that use custom algorithms that do produce a different sound from PCM DACs. The difference is often in the implementation of the filters, and that applies to both DSD and PCM DACs. Some people can hear the difference in these implementations and some people cannot. Of course some people cannot hear the differences between PCM DACs and others cannot. It depends on the person's hearing and on the equipment used.

One of the delights of this hobby is people have different tastes in the type of music they like and in the type of sound they like. That is why there is so much different equipment available. People like to tune the sound to their own tastes. DSD and PCM DACs are just one way to do that. There is no single solution to what people like to listen to. 

My tube pre-amp just developed a problem in its power supply and I had to revert to a AVR for my pre-amp. OMG.  The difference is huge and not to my liking. I cannot wait to get the pre-amp fixed. I wish I could not hear the difference - it would be a lot cheaper.

If the OP has decided that DSD is preferable, then go for it.

[kr4]

DSD files have full tagging support, including using user defined MC tags. This is not a disadvantage. 

DSF files have full tagging support, including using user defined MC tags. This is not a disadvantage. 

DSF files, like wav files, are not good for tagging, but most people avoid them for the same reasons they avoid wav files.

DFF files, like wav files, are not good for tagging, but most people avoid them for the same reasons they avoid wav files.

[dtc]

Thanks Kal. Careless. Will correct.