24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

[Hotdog]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

Presumably to offer them in case anyone fancies doing restoration, as I believe 24 bit is best for that.

I'll probably just do them at 44.1, I doubt there'll be a noticeable difference. I also want to share them with friends who use Apple software too.

[mville]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

I'm not entirely sure why these old 78's have been recorded at 24-bit, 96kHz in the first place and having listened to 1 or 2 it seems a little absurd to me. Anyway, I guess that is a debate for another day.

I wouldn't get bogged down with this. If you must have the flacs, over the mp3's and are really not sure what to do, just download one flac file, convert it to 16-bit (with Triangular (TPDF) dither), at 48kHz and at 44.1kHz, then listen to both. Decide which sample rate you prefer, and convert at that rate. Done!

[Hotdog]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

Thanks for the replies. Yes, I have previously burnt audio CDs of Apple Lossless files to CD-R for friends who have had no trouble playing them. I used iTunes to burn the discs.

If I convert these files to 48kHz, surely iTunes won't be able to burn them to CD-R?

The recordings are here: https://archive.org/search.php?query...georgeblood%22
Public Domain so I don't mind sharing the link. But if you look at one of the download pages, you'll see that the files are either available in 24-Bit FLAC or MP3. 24-Bit is not supported by my iPod and probably won't burn to CD-R either. I can see the merit in keeping those versions if I wanted to do restoration later. For everyday listening and compatibility with CD-R/iPod, 16-Bit ALAC is my preferred format; I avoid MP3 these days. The user on the Archive website has uploaded hundreds of audio transfers, so it seems a bit much to ask him to make them all available at 16-bit, although I think they should be, because 24-bit 78rpm rips are unwanted by anyone except sound restoration engineers.

Reading around online, I suspect that one would not hear the "rounding errors" involved when converting from 96 to 44.1kHz, rather than 48kHz. There are conflicting opinions as to whether this is "right" or "wrong". Also, Spoon seems to recommend Triangular (TPDF) dither when reducing to 16 bits. No-one in the thread linked to (started by "twochordcool") suggested that files at 96 need converting to 48, when the user suggested 44(.1).

[mville]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

Or you can use music converter in dbpoweramp to convert the files, which is what he was asking. I simply told him how to do that with the best possible audio results.

Agreed, but to imply/suggest that the OP will somehow get inaccurate audio files, by resampling to 44.1kHz and not at 48kHz, without knowledge of the dBpoweramp resample algorithms, is not helpful and might not be true.

Down-sampling, IMO is not ideal, but I doubt anyone is going to hear the difference between the resulting resampled files at 44.1kHz and 48kHz.

So, to my question, which was just a thought:
Can you not simply ask for the files to be made available at 16-bit, 44.1kHz?

If they are not available, the OP might want to consider the mp3 files, which are available. Depending on the quality/bitrates etc., the mp3 files may be more than adequate for use on an iPod with headphones/earphones/earbuds.

[mville]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

That's what happens when you don't read the whole thread. I've already told him that to make an audio CD requires aiff or wav files.

What makes you think I haven't read the whole thread? I was responding specifically to your statement, which is misleading/incorrect. There are other users that read these threads, that don't need mis-information.

While we are it, your following statement is also incorrect:
An audio CD can only be made with aiff or wav files.

[jfkaess]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

Can you not simply ask for the files to be made available at 16-bit, 44.1kHz?

Or you can use music converter in dbpoweramp to convert the files, which is what he was asking. I simply told him how to do that with the best possible audio results.

[jfkaess]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

Rubbish. You can create audio CDs, as long as the software you use supports the creation of red book audio CDs.

That's what happens when you don't read the whole thread. I've already told him that to make an audio CD requires aiff or wav files. Software can do this, but it does it by converting the apple lossless files to wav files. That's a function of a software program for burning audio CD's and has nothing to do with his original question about how to use dbpoweramp to convert hi-res files to 16 bit ALAC files.

[mville]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

I've downloaded a bunch of 78rpm rips which have been transferred at 24-bit and made available as FLAC files in lossless or mp3.

Can you not simply ask for the files to be made available at 16-bit, 44.1kHz?

[mville]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

Burning files to a CD-r makes a data disk, not an audio disk.

Rubbish. You can create audio CDs, as long as the software you use supports the creation of red book audio CDs.

[jfkaess]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

Burning files to a CD-r makes a data disk, not an audio disk. You can burn ANY type of file to a CD-R, it doesn't matter what type of file. You don't have to believe me. If you're happy with inaccurate audio files, knock yourself out. Just don't pretend your choices are based on trying to get the best audio possible.

[Hotdog]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

I've had no problem burning Apple Lossless tracks to CD-R before. Whether it would work with 48kHz tracks is another matter.

[jfkaess]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

Thanks for the info. But then what if I wanted to burn those tracks to CD?

An audio CD can only be made with aiff or wav files. A data Cd can be made with any kind of file.

[Hotdog]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

Thanks for the info. But then what if I wanted to burn those tracks to CD?

[jfkaess]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

Does it make much difference? I'd prefer to keep to the red book standard.

I was waiting for someone else to jump in, but since no one has:

1. Does it make a difference? Yes. Math is math. Even division with no rounding is better than division which involves rounding. Is the difference audible? That depends on who is listening and what gear they have.

2. The red book is designed as a standard for making CD's.

Given an analog source, it is extremely likely that the difference between a file converted to digital at 44.1 khz and one at 48khz would be completely inaudible to anyone. However, when dealing with a master which is digital instead of analog, there is rounding (aka approximations) which occurs when converting a 96 khz or 192 khz file to 44.1 instead of 48 khz. Why not opt for the process which gives you the cleanest most accurate digital file as long as the Apple infrastructure (itunes, iphone, ipod and ipad) all support 48khz (and they do)?

I don't use 96 khz or 192 khz files because itunes and my ipad and ipod do not support those resolutions. So when i buy a hi-res file from HDtracks or 7digital, i convert the files to 16/48, save the originals in case things change in the future, and use the 16/48 files. BTW, even though Apple claims to support 24 bit files, in reality, they do not. They simply truncate the 24 bits to 16 bits which is highly inaccurate and results in data loss instead of using triangular dither to make the transformation to 16 bits. Dbpoweramp can make all these transformations quickly and accurately.

[Hotdog]

Re: 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit ALAC (Apple Lossless)

If your goal is to play in itunes and/or on an iPod or iPhone or iPad, don't convert to 44.1, instead convert to 48.000. 48k is fully supported in the entire Apple infrastructure and it eliminates the approximations needed to resample to a rate which is not an even reduction by 2.

Does it make much difference? I'd prefer to keep to the red book standard.