Recommend Windows Software to convert SACD ISO and DSF files to (tagged) flac

Brucemck2

Member Sponsor
May 10, 2010
240
0
0
Houston area
#1
I run J River 20 on a Windows 8 server, with the output going to an MSB stack.

I use Acourate room/speaker correction within J River.

Acourate will only process files up to 192k; Acourate won't process SACD or DSF files that aren't first converted to PCM. Currently, I use J River's sample rate manager to covert those higher sample rate files to 176 or 192, and then process with the Acourate filters.

I suspect that I'd get better results if I did the sample rate conversion offline. (I already do the convolution offline via AcourateNAS.)

Hence my question ...

Any recommendations for Windows software to convert SACD ISO file (around 100) and DSF files (around two dozen) to high quality FLAC files? Ideally it would have a marked quality advantage over J River's built in routines, run a large batch of files, and keep, where already available, the tags.

Thanks.
 

Ki Choi

Member Sponsor
May 13, 2010
744
1
18
Seattle WA area
#2
Bruce:

You should try downloading Audiogate from Korg site and get a MR-2000S or MR-1 DSD/PCM recorder to activate the software. It will do what you want.

Ki
 

Brucemck2

Member Sponsor
May 10, 2010
240
0
0
Houston area
#3
Will it mount/convert directly from an ISO file? In the user documentation I saw DSS and DSF files types listed, but not ISO images.
 

tailspn

New Member
Jun 28, 2011
169
0
0
#4
JRiver does play ISO DSD files, but I don't know if it will convert them to PCM. You can use sacd_extract.exe to convert from ISO to either dff or dsf, then Audiogate. Google it, and also get Ted's SACD Ripping Guide while you're there.
 
Last edited:
Nov 3, 2014
405
0
0
#5
I run J River 20 on a Windows 8 server, with the output going to an MSB stack.

I use Acourate room/speaker correction within J River.

Acourate will only process files up to 192k; Acourate won't process SACD or DSF files that aren't first converted to PCM. Currently, I use J River's sample rate manager to covert those higher sample rate files to 176 or 192, and then process with the Acourate filters.

I suspect that I'd get better results if I did the sample rate conversion offline. (I already do the convolution offline via AcourateNAS.)

Hence my question ...

Any recommendations for Windows software to convert SACD ISO file (around 100) and DSF files (around two dozen) to high quality FLAC files? Ideally it would have a marked quality advantage over J River's built in routines, run a large batch of files, and keep, where already available, the tags.

Thanks.
Here is one man's view of what is best:

http://archimago.blogspot.com

I think he is one of the sanest commentators on Computer Audio, maybe one of only a very few.
 

Brucemck2

Member Sponsor
May 10, 2010
240
0
0
Houston area
#6
Fitzcaraldo, thanks. To date I've used J River, and have not been disappointed, so I guess I can stop obsessing over finding a much better solution.
 
Nov 3, 2014
405
0
0
#7
Fitzcaraldo, thanks. To date I've used J River, and have not been disappointed, so I guess I can stop obsessing over finding a much better solution.
FWIW, I use JRiver on the fly conversion of DSF files with output to Dirac Live and my Exasound e28 DAC. I am quite blissfully happy with my sound. It is far any away the best I have ever had. Resource consumption during playback on my I7 PC is trivial and not a concern. Plus, I do not relish the idea of converting over 2,000 Mch DSFs to Flac, which superficial listening has revealed to not sound as good. At least, no compelling reason has ever emerged to warrant conversion.

I also found that on my system, on the fly conversion to 88k PCM was preferable to 176k. There might be a lot of valid reasons for that, but further investigation is not worth it to me. I would rather just keep on listening with great pleasure.
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 11, 2010
3,151
0
36
Smyrna, GA
#8
FWIW, I use JRiver on the fly conversion of DSF files with output to Dirac Live and my Exasound e28 DAC. I am quite blissfully happy with my sound. It is far any away the best I have ever had. Resource consumption during playback on my I7 PC is trivial and not a concern. Plus, I do not relish the idea of converting over 2,000 Mch DSFs to Flac, which superficial listening has revealed to not sound as good. At least, no compelling reason has ever emerged to warrant conversion.

I also found that on my system, on the fly conversion to 88k PCM was preferable to 176k. There might be a lot of valid reasons for that, but further investigation is not worth it to me. I would rather just keep on listening with great pleasure.
Same here, except I run into a stack of DACs using Lynx output card.

To my knowledge, Dirac is resticted to 96/24, so 176K conversion is not really an option. I am converting at 96/24. It may be worth a try converting at 88/24 instead. Have you compared this?
 
Nov 3, 2014
405
0
0
#9
Same here, except I run into a stack of DACs using Lynx output card.

To my knowledge, Dirac is resticted to 96/24, so 176K conversion is not really an option. I am converting at 96/24. It may be worth a try converting at 88/24 instead. Have you compared this?
Dirac now supports 176 and 192k. I use those with Dirac if that is the native resolution of the recording from BD-A or download.

I have also tried DSD64, DSD128, PCM 192 and DXD 352, all mastered from the same analog source straight into the Exasound, bypassing Dirac. Ho, hum. Hardly any difference at all. And, DSD64 converted to 88k PCM coupled with Dirac and bass management into my sub is head and shoulders above them all on my system.

Non-rigorous testing of 96k vs. 88k for DSD conversion leaves me with a preference for 88k, although it is not night/day. Perhaps a bigger difference was there than with 176k conversion vs. 88. It may be that my cognition prefers 88 over 96 because it is an even multiple. Obviously, it is a snap to change this in JRiver and try different settings. But, again, life is short and I have a lot of music to listen to for pure enjoyment.
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 11, 2010
3,151
0
36
Smyrna, GA
#10
Dirac now supports 176 and 192k. I use those with Dirac if that is the native resolution of the recording from BD-A or download.

I have also tried DSD64, DSD128, PCM 192 and DXD 352, all mastered from the same analog source straight into the Exasound, bypassing Dirac. Ho, hum. Hardly any difference at all. And, DSD64 converted to 88k PCM coupled with Dirac and bass management into my sub is head and shoulders above them all on my system.

Non-rigorous testing of 96k vs. 88k for DSD conversion leaves me with a preference for 88k, although it is not night/day. Perhaps a bigger difference was there than with 176k conversion vs. 88. It may be that my cognition prefers 88 over 96 because it is an even multiple. Obviously, it is a snap to change this in JRiver and try different settings. But, again, life is short and I have a lot of music to listen to for pure enjoyment.
Thanks. I had no idea. I guess I need to download new Dirac calibration tool and engine software and do a new calibration (from what I recall, you specifiy the supprted sample rates before calibration measurement. I'll ask the guys at Dirace. I presume I can do this using my existing license. I would run all PCM sources in native resolution.

So have you compared converting DSD64 to 192/24 or 176/24 instead of 88/24, since Dirac now supports the higher resolution?
 
Nov 3, 2014
405
0
0
#11
You need not do a new calibration unless something in the room has changed. If not, then the latest calibration tool will let you reload the old mike sweep and recalculate the filters using the higher resolutions as well as the old ones. That is all I did.

I did try 176k conversion from DSD for an extended period, and I concluded that 88k sounded slightly better. We can speculate on end as to why. There are plenty of plausible reasons. I saw no reason to try 192k. I think there is, without definitive evidence on my part, a mathematical reason to prefer the integer multiples of 44.1k. Trying176k vs. 192k? We are splitting hairs. Like camera pixels, car HP, and most all other things, we tend to think that the bigger the number, the better. T'aint necessarily so, in my opinion.
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 11, 2010
3,151
0
36
Smyrna, GA
#12
You need not do a new calibration unless something in the room has changed. If not, then the latest calibration tool will let you reload the old mike sweep and recalculate the filters using the higher resolutions as well as the old ones. That is all I did.

I did try 176k conversion from DSD for an extended period, and I concluded that 88k sounded slightly better. We can speculate on end as to why. There are plenty of plausible reasons. I saw no reason to try 192k. I think there is, without definitive evidence on my part, a mathematical reason to prefer the integer multiples of 44.1k. Trying176k vs. 192k? We are splitting hairs. Like camera pixels, car HP, and most all other things, we tend to think that the bigger the number, the better. T'aint necessarily so, in my opinion.
OK. For DSD conversions I won't need the higher reolution Dirac version then. Not sure I even have 192/24 PCM (I buy downloads in 96/24), so I may not even have any use for the higher reolution. Probably will get it anyway.
 
Nov 3, 2014
405
0
0
#13
OK. For DSD conversions I won't need the higher reolution Dirac version then. Not sure I even have 192/24 PCM (I buy downloads in 96/24), so I may not even have any use for the higher reolution. Probably will get it anyway.
AFAIK, it is a free update for Dirac licensees.
 

Members online

About us

  • Founded in 2010 What's Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing