FLAC to AAC Bit Depth Conversion Issues

[sigma1]

Hi,

I rip my CDs to Flac and apply the DSP setting 96/24 (side note: Does this really improve the sound quality over a conventional CD, I haven't compared to 44.1/16 Flac) and then I convert it to AAC with the Nero encoder with the DSP setting 48/24. However, the dbpoweramp reports the file to have a 48/16 rate. Why is this? Is Nero limited to 16 bit? My DSP settings are correct, and I am using the latest version with the Nero encoder 1.5.4.0.

Thanks.

PS: When I rip AAC files from CDs, it rips it at 48/16, even though the DSP specified 48/24. Is this a limitation of Nero or AAC? Or am I doing something wrong?

[Spoon]

Re: FLAC to AAC Bit Depth Conversion Issues

>side note: Does this really improve the sound quality over a conventional CD,

No it does not, it actually looses quality, as frequency conversion is a lossy process.

Lossy formats (aac, mp3), are bit depth independent.

[garym]

Re: FLAC to AAC Bit Depth Conversion Issues

Hi,

I rip my CDs to Flac and apply the DSP setting 96/24 (side note: Does this really improve the sound quality over a conventional CD, I haven't compared to 44.1/16 Flac) and then I convert it to AAC with the Nero encoder with the DSP setting 48/24. However, the dbpoweramp reports the file to have a 48/16 rate. Why is this? Is Nero limited to 16 bit? My DSP settings are correct, and I am using the latest version with the Nero encoder 1.5.4.0.

Thanks.



PS: When I rip AAC files from CDs, it rips it at 48/16, even though the DSP specified 48/24. Is this a limitation of Nero or AAC? Or am I doing something wrong?

It's a bad idea to change from 16/44.1 in all your examples. You gain nothing and probably lose quality. You can't turn a 16/44.1 rip into high res by doing what you are doing. I fear you've been reading too much bad info on the audiophool websites. ;-)

[pablogm123]

Re: FLAC to AAC Bit Depth Conversion Issues

You are getting bigger music files uselessly, and you aren't gaining audio quality, because the original quality of studio master (192/96 KHz, 24 bit, for example) gone forever when was downsampled to 44,1 KHz/16 bit for CD mastering. The pristine original high quality master lost information in the conversion process, which you cannot recover magically upsampling a 44,1 KHz/16 bit file.

[sigma1]

Re: FLAC to AAC Bit Depth Conversion Issues

Wow. I feel like like a total fool...hehe. Thankfully, I've just started my ripping, and it'll only take an hour to redo my 7 CDs at 44.1/16. On a side note, how can I rip 96/24 in a proper, true lossless way? Would I have to buy SACD/DVD Audio and rip those? I'm not too familiar with PC compatible SACD/DVD Audio drives.

On a side note, my good friend purchased an Empirical Audio DAC and they suggest ripping to Flac and resampling with Adobe Audition. Is that pointless too? What is the most cost effective way to get 96/24 Flac files? I prefer having a physical disc, however, I'm open to suggestions if it will save me significant costs.

Thanks.

PS: So changing Bit depth is pointless too I take it...?

[Spoon]

Re: FLAC to AAC Bit Depth Conversion Issues

Only a hacked PS3 can rips SACDs, nothing on a PC can do this.

[pablogm123]

Re: FLAC to AAC Bit Depth Conversion Issues

SACD: You cannot use a PC drive to extract this format (the DSD audio stream, because Redbook [CDDA] layer can be ripped as a conventional CD). As stated, you need a hacked fat old PS3 console.

DVD-A: Can be extracted, as far I know.

Another option is buy legally high definition music, offered by some websites.

Changing bit depth itself is pointless too, because that doesn't add new information, just pad samples with zeroed samples (the least significative byte) to convert a 16 bit sample into 24 bit. That process is lossless provided that you don't perform more modifications to the audio stream (resampling, changing volume...), and you don't apply dithering when converting back to 16 bit.

[garym]

Re: FLAC to AAC Bit Depth Conversion Issues

Wow. I feel like like a total fool...hehe. Thankfully, I've just started my ripping, and it'll only take an hour to redo my 7 CDs at 44.1/16. On a side note, how can I rip 96/24 in a proper, true lossless way? Would I have to buy SACD/DVD Audio and rip those? I'm not too familiar with PC compatible SACD/DVD Audio drives.

On a side note, my good friend purchased an Empirical Audio DAC and they suggest ripping to Flac and resampling with Adobe Audition. Is that pointless too? What is the most cost effective way to get 96/24 Flac files? I prefer having a physical disc, however, I'm open to suggestions if it will save me significant costs.

Thanks.

PS: So changing Bit depth is pointless too I take it...?

ripping to FLAC and resampling with Adobe Audition is more voodoo. changing bit depth is a fools errand. Rip to flac with dbpa, do NOT resample, and you'll have bit perfect rips.

I'm not aware of being able to buy 24/96 files in any way other than downloading from stores that sell these online. redbook CDs are all 16/44.1.

As a side note, I hope you understand that in many (all?) controlled experiments, no human being has been able to distinguish between 16/44.1 and 24/96 (or 24/192) tracks. In the cases where people think the 24/96 sounds better, it is because the 24/96 version is from a *different* master. So there may be differences related to different masters being used, etc. But if the identical recording is done as 16/44.1 and 24/96 or 192, there is lots of rigorous evidence that no detectible differences exist. 24/96 or 24/192 is a very valuable thing to have for doing mixing, etc. For the end listener, 24/96 or higher is irrelevant. It is of course relevant for the *seller* who would like to extract more $$$$ from the customer. I have bought 24/96 tracks when they are either the same price and I didn't already own or more often when there is a new/different mix and it is released only as 24/96, etc.

See hydrogenaudio.org forums for more information. Here you will find a science based audio community that is largely immune from the nonsense perpetrated on the "audiophile" community in many other audio forums and magazines.

[sigma1]

Re: FLAC to AAC Bit Depth Conversion Issues

Thanks, that cleared a lot up. I'll stick with my 44.1/16 rips for now. I don't feel like repurchasing my albums again for a difference that I may not hear. However, when I have better equipment, I'll try some of these better masters and see if a different truly persists.

All this time, I was under the impression that these better masters held way more information. For example, when streaming a sample of Hotel California, I heard things that my AAC file from iTunes did not even have. I know I'm comparing lossless to lossy, but this blew me away. Maybe those were different masters though.

Anyways, thanks everyone for your help!

[garym]

Re: FLAC to AAC Bit Depth Conversion Issues

Thanks, that cleared a lot up. I'll stick with my 44.1/16 rips for now. I don't feel like repurchasing my albums again for a difference that I may not hear. However, when I have better equipment, I'll try some of these better masters and see if a different truly persists.

All this time, I was under the impression that these better masters held way more information. For example, when streaming a sample of Hotel California, I heard things that my AAC file from iTunes did not even have. I know I'm comparing lossless to lossy, but this blew me away. Maybe those were different masters though.

Anyways, thanks everyone for your help!

could have been different mastering as I think there have been of that Eagles album. And if a 128kbs AAC file, that is *potentially* quite a bit different from a lossless file. All my discussions above are in the realm of LOSSLESS (16/44.1 FLAC vs 24/96 FLAC).