[288920]

I am contemplating a major project, but I am looking for advice before I begin. Several years ago, I ripped my extensive CD collection (pop, rock, classical) to FLAC files. When I purchase downloads, I always purchase FLAC format, usually 44.1/16, but some are 24 bit. I listen exclusively via headphones, a FiiO M11s serves as the digital transport, and a FiiO K9Pro (AKM) is the DAC/Amp. Both support DSD up to 256. I would very much appreciate answers to the following questions:

1. Does the difference between DSD and FLAC represent a real improvement in sound quality?

2. Does converting (up-sampling?) a file from FLAC to DSD involve a reduction the of quality of the file? (Note: this would be my greatly preferred way, as it would (should?) preserve all of the corrections/enhancements I have made to the metadata tags in the ripped FLAC files over the last couple of years.)

3. Considering only sound quality, would I be better served by re-ripping the CDs directly to DSD?

4. How much larger are DSD files? (I know it would be an estimate but if a FLAC file is 100 MB, how large would a DSD file of the same CD track likely be?)

5. What would a good ripper/conversion tool be?

6. Finally, in your opinions, is the juice worth the squeeze? I do have the time, but I dislike wasted effort if there will not be a perceptible sonic improvement.


Thanks for reading and responding!

 

[earmonger]

Save your efforts.

You are not going to get better resolution than what is already on the CD or lossless FLAC. The best quality available is the original file or its lossless equivalent. Those are the bits carrying the music. Upsampling can't turn a CD into a higher-res recording. It would only take up more storage space.

If you have a DSD original, that's a different story.

 

[288920]

Thanks... I suspected as much.

 

[m-i-c-k-e-y]

Let me have a take on this. I am no expert but will share my personal experience.
First of all, IMO/E, recording is the key. I will take a well recorded CD than a crappy DSD material anytime.
I don't know how sensitive your ears are or your equipment, but here are nice comparison of various format on the same recorded music for you to compare. They are free:
https://www.soundliaison.com/index.php/6-compare-formats
https://bluecoastmusic.com/free-downloads
https://www.nativedsd.com/free-dsd-download/

Then you'll be the judge, if it is worth it or not. For your time, HD space etc.

TLDR: On my case, not worth it.

Longer version:

File format is also the key. To my ears DSD is cleaner, PCM has more impact/dynamics. Between FLAC and WAV PCM, WAV sounds better. On buying new materials on well recorded songs, if there are multiple file format, bit depth and rate, will get the highest of which is recorded. If it is recorded in DSD then DSD256/512. If its in DXD then WAV DXD. It is different however if you convert your existing CD library to DSD.

Let me answer your questions.

1. Does the difference between DSD and FLAC represent a real improvement in sound quality?

As I said, to my ears DSD is cleaner, PCM has more impact/dynamics. This is in the case if I will compare DSD64 and DXD. If you are talking to CD FLAC vs DSD64 (or higher) then DSD (when converted) has better SQ (cleaner). It is different when purchased directly because most of DSD versions of the original materials are all remastered ones.

2. Does converting (up-sampling?) a file from FLAC to DSD involve a reduction the of quality of the file? (Note: this would be my greatly preferred way, as it would (should?) preserve all of the corrections/enhancements I have made to the metadata tags in the ripped FLAC files over the last couple of years.)

No it does not. On the contrary it pushes noise on the higher frequencies (as do all higher resolution format) resulting on a much cleaner sound, more definition. On meta tags it depends on your converter software.

3. Considering only sound quality, would I be better served by re-ripping the CDs directly to DSD?

SQ wise DSD. Worth it? The SQ percentage it brings (minimal IMO), storage, the time and effort I will induldge? Not worth it.

4. How much larger are DSD files? (I know it would be an estimate but if a FLAC file is 100 MB, how large would a DSD file of the same CD track likely be?)

About 6x larger for DSD64.

5. What would a good ripper/conversion tool be?

Hands down Signalyst HQPlayer 4 Pro. For day to day I use Poikosoft's EZ CD Audio Converter for more than a decade now. IMO better than dbPoweramp, EAC overall.
I has a very nice UI, its quick and a very good meta info editor/downloader.

6. Finally, in your opinions, is the juice worth the squeeze? I do have the time, but I dislike wasted effort if there will not be a perceptible sonic improvement.

You will not be critically listening all the time. If so, better buy better recorded/remastered ones in high res. But enjoying the music, as stated at the beginning, not worth it. You're using a DAP. Meaning you will be mobile. You can't here the difference with noises around you.

Again, no expert, just my experiences on this journey...

 

[tomb]

I can't see any benefit at all with converting PCM FLAC to DSD. DSD and PCM are totally different digital music algorithms. To convert one to the other, you would lose the advantages of both.

I vehemently disagree with m-i-c-k-e-y's opinion that "WAV" sounds better than "FLAC." FLAC is completely lossless compression. An analogy would be deleting the white paper background around a printed sheet of text. All the text is still there, but the space taken up by the white space has been removed. By definition, ANY music app/player has to decode and decompress a FLAC file into a PCM music stream. If the FLAC - by definition - is completely lossless compression, then the decode results in an absolutely bit-perfect, resolution-perfect PCM music stream that is then decoded by a PCM-compatible DAC chip.

It's important to distinguish that FLAC is a lossless compression file format for PCM recordings. It is not the recording method itself. Likewise, WAV is a file format for PCM recordings, but it is not compressed at all. There are many other file formats for PCM recordings, most notably MP3, but it is a lossy compression.

PCM and DSD are digital recording methods, not file formats, and are not the same. It takes the DAC chip itself to be compatible in decoding either PCM or DSD streams. WAV cannot be used to store actual DSD data (DSF or DFF is used instead). If one of these other formats have been used to store a DSD music stream, it is no longer DSD but has been converted to something else (ultimately, PCM).

WAV for PCM is analogous to DSF for DSD. It is an uncompressed file format for PCM recordings.
DSF for DSD is analogous to WAV for PCM. It is an uncompressed file format for DSD recordings.
FLAC for PCM is analogous to DFF for DSD. It is lossless compression file format for PCM recordings.
DFF for DSD is analogous to FLAC for PCM. It is lossless compression file format for DSD recordings.

It should be noted that DFF is far from an officially registered media type, so its use may involve loss of information if the defacto consumer standard is not followed when coding.

Anyway, just trying to clear up the mixing of apples and oranges ...

 

[m-i-c-k-e-y]

I know bro. That WAS my belief and what's in papaer. Tried ABing DXD FLAC vs WAV?

I have posted the links.. Let your ears decide...

 

[castleofargh]

I am contemplating a major project, but I am looking for advice before I begin. Several years ago, I ripped my extensive CD collection (pop, rock, classical) to FLAC files. When I purchase downloads, I always purchase FLAC format, usually 44.1/16, but some are 24 bit. I listen exclusively via headphones, a FiiO M11s serves as the digital transport, and a FiiO K9Pro (AKM) is the DAC/Amp. Both support DSD up to 256. I would very much appreciate answers to the following questions:

1. Does the difference between DSD and FLAC represent a real improvement in sound quality?

2. Does converting (up-sampling?) a file from FLAC to DSD involve a reduction the of quality of the file? (Note: this would be my greatly preferred way, as it would (should?) preserve all of the corrections/enhancements I have made to the metadata tags in the ripped FLAC files over the last couple of years.)

3. Considering only sound quality, would I be better served by re-ripping the CDs directly to DSD?

4. How much larger are DSD files? (I know it would be an estimate but if a FLAC file is 100 MB, how large would a DSD file of the same CD track likely be?)

5. What would a good ripper/conversion tool be?

6. Finally, in your opinions, is the juice worth the squeeze? I do have the time, but I dislike wasted effort if there will not be a perceptible sonic improvement.


Thanks for reading and responding!

Bad idea. I also don't agree with a few opinions from mickey.
1. The resolution of DSD(if it was a native DSD recording which is not what you're discussing) will give you something similar to hires PCM(wav, flac...). So it's objectively above your 44.1kHz files. Obviously converting 44.1kHz PCM to DSD will still at best contain the data that was in the 44.1kHz file. You can't increase the resolution of a file by converting it. In effect you would win nothing and lose storage space.

2. You would probably lose a little or at best gain nothing. I won't argue if someone says he likes it more after converting his file to whatever, that could come from a variety of factors, psychological bias(most likely thanks to total lack of properly controlled testing), or the DAC using a different chip with different methods and filtering leading to a somewhat different sound(shouldn't be audible if done correctly, but obviously some designers might ensure it is audible to better sell a narrative of hires formats sounding different). At some point it could even have something to do with how much ultrasonic crap was generated to reconstruct the DSD into analog(a one bit format is dumb), and that, if poorly filtered could be bouncing back into the audible range through distortions. Maybe the converter itself does something it probably shouldn't or gives you options you should never touch? So I couldn't honestly claim that it will sound the same. But no matter what subjective impression someone gets, there is no objective basis for converting any format into DSD.


No point addressing the rest really. Just stay with flac, it's a lossless format that's convenient in term of storage space. IMO You did good picking that up in the first place(I started ripping my CDs into OGG right when it came out almost 20 years ago, it was lossy and most of my DAPs wouldn't play it ). You future proofed your library. I still wasn't sure about FLAC 10 years ago, but now it seems clear that it is here to stay a while longer. It's like MP3 or AAC, almost everything can read play it.
I do expect some AI to find a better algorithm someday, but it will only make the file even smaller, it won't improve over lossless.

 

[288920]

You will not be critically listening all the time. If so, better buy better recorded/remastered ones in high res. But enjoying the music, as stated at the beginning, not worth it. You're using a DAP. Meaning you will be mobile. You can't here the difference with noises around you.

Again, no expert, just my experiences on this journey...

First, thank you for your thorough reply, much appreciated.
To be clear, I will NOT be mobile. The DAP serves as the source (transport, if you will) only. Feeds directly to my FiiO k9 DAC/Amp. Most of my listening IS critical, in the sense that I am sitting down specifically to listen, not out and about using music as background.