Windows Audio File Conversion Software

[Apesbrain]

72 software Sample Rate Converters put to the test

Sorry, here it is the original plots: https://dropfile.to/msk45 As far as the "missing" colors, they are perfectly superimposed plots. Thanks for the link Yea, I got that they were perfectly superimposed but it's knowing which plots they are superimposed on is where the confusion lies - some...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I wrote a long post, but I think instead I'll just agree with @BeerBear above. Anyway, if you like foobar2000 as a tool but want to use triangular dither, there is a component for that.

I disagree. For one, because it involves a reduction to 16bit (with dithering)

Speaking from my own experience, the only thing I use a resampler for is to reduce "hi-res" to 16/44 (with dithering).

 

[ZolaIII]

@ZolaIII I did see your post with those screenshots in the link.
It just shows two different noise profiles of two different dither settings. It says nothing about resampling quality.


PS: I don't think the OP of this thread cares about either resampling or dithering. He seems interested in converting to lossy formats.

But it does have everything to do with that. All popular lossy formats do it as they are limited regarding sample rates they support and even dBpoweramp won't help there. Of course it will be rare that you really have real high quality matrix over CD quality to start with but when you do;

AAC's quality...

So, let's go First : - did I say that AAC 320 is in the developer statements, or would be better than AAC 256 ? Never, I only told you that Tidal was using AAC 320 VBR until now (which may change as they start to use 160 now that they are seperating turning Hifi into AAC+FLAC(and MQA 16bit) and...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Found WavPack lossy hybrid (with correction file containing what ever whose cut out) the only one which won't mess regarding that or anything else. But gains are small on regular 44100 Hz 16 bit materials (which count in for 90% to say at least). Future more it's relatively hardware demanding and availability isn't great (it's part of FFmpeg and Foobar2000 for long but doesn't have native support on most platforms).
At least that whose my assessment.

 

[pseudoid]

I am realizing that there maybe differences in the encoder selected...

Almost all of them are based on FFmpeg, and maybe LAME for MP3 so the differences are usually in the user interface and the formats that they choose to support.

The FLACs files (that @Apesbrain wants to convert) probably did NOT originate as FLAC files and were already previously encoded, at least once.
Wouldn't it be best to not keep converting them over and over again, especially given that there are "differences" in all encoders??
Unless it really is imperative to reduce file size(s).

 

[Philbo King]

An interesting tool for this:

REAPER | Download

It is a digital audio workstation (DAW) that has a batch processor and reads/writes pretty much every audio format out there.

I recently used it to convert an 80GB music collection to consistent loudness levels for use in the car. It did take 3 days, but that was on a 12 year old 3 core PC.

 

[ZolaIII]

An interesting tool for this:

REAPER | Download

It is a digital audio workstation (DAW) that has a batch processor and reads/writes pretty much every audio format out there.

I recently used it to convert an 80GB music collection to consistent loudness levels for use in the car. It did take 3 days, but that was on a 12 year old 3 core PC.

Probably because EBU R128 eating a lot of CPU cycles (but worth it if you ask me) at least it's slow with JRiver disregarding of the speed of storage SSD.