Converting 352k DSD to WAV files.

Ask questions on how to do this and that here.
Post Reply
dalethorn
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:46 pm

Converting 352k DSD to WAV files.

Post by dalethorn »

A Stereophile writer suggested I could buy DSD files that are not available in other formats, and easily convert those to WAV files that I could play in Foobar2000, or even convert them to 16/44 CD-equivalent WAV files to play on Apple iPhones etc. He suggested JRiverMC which I purchased, and so I've spent several days trying to get conversions that work.

The reason I'm posting this here before buying Xrecode is because the DSD-to-16/44 WAV files created by JRMC are equivalent in content to MP3 files, and the higher res files JRMC creates actually corrupt my Foobar install.

Does anyone know for sure that Xrecode can convert DSD-352 to WAV that retains all of the data? When I rip CDs to WAV, the WAV files compress to FLACs (using Foobar) that are about 60-65 percent the size of the WAV, but JRMC's 16/44 WAVs compress to 23 percent and play at 290 kbps.
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Converting 352k DSD to WAV files.

Post by admin »

It's very easy.
Add filed to the program.
Change the desired Sample Rate under SACD Settings
Select WAV as destination (do not change output settings)
Press start.
dalethorn
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:46 pm

Re: Converting 352k DSD to WAV files.

Post by dalethorn »

Thanks for replying. I'm sure as you described that Xrecode can generate the WAV files, but so did JRMC at a cost of $50 and 3 days of hard work. The problem is that JRMC's 16/44 WAV files are basically MP3 data in a WAV container. You were recommended by Marcus of Headfonics and HiFiHeadphonesUK, after I told him about my experience. I was hoping someone had actually done the conversion in Xrecode, then verified it by converting the WAVs to FLAC in Foobar or the equivalent.

Based on the replies I'm getting from the senior admins at JRMC, they think it's all a big joke and will not address the actual questions and issues. In other words, I'm suspicious that they're doing what they do on purpose, to preserve a form of DRM maybe? I don't know because nobody is talking.
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Converting 352k DSD to WAV files.

Post by admin »

I cannot comment about JRMC. XRECODE will conver DSD audio to PCM without any tricks involved.
Malcolm
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:15 am

Re: Converting 352k DSD to WAV files.

Post by Malcolm »

XRECODE will conver DSD audio to PCM without any tricks involved

I'd like that to happen but can't work out how. When I put in a 2.8MHz DSD file, I get out a 176kHz wav file. It has been resampled which is not what I want.
How can I get a 2.8MHz output file in a general PCM format which just exercises two values - ie a lossless replica of the original DSD file?
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Converting 352k DSD to WAV files.

Post by admin »

Huh, why would you need a 2.8MHz file? 2.8MHz DSD file is equivalent to a 176kHz wav (or, actually, 88Khz).
Malcolm
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:15 am

Re: Converting 352k DSD to WAV files.

Post by Malcolm »

Because that's what the DSD file actually is. It isn't sampled at 88kHz, nor 176kHz file but really is sampled at 2.8MHz.

I personally use xrecode to convert between file formats, not to perform signal processing. For example, if you kindly resample to 176kHz I'll lose all information about ultrasonic modulator noise above 100kHz. And it will have been your choice of resampling transfer function/quantisation, not my personal choice.
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Converting 352k DSD to WAV files.

Post by admin »

I'm afraid I cannot do this and I've not seen a dsd2pcm converted, which would do this.
Malcolm
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:15 am

Re: Converting 352k DSD to WAV files.

Post by Malcolm »

Thanks for being clear on the matter.
I doubt it would be much trouble for you (it boils down to skipping the decimation you're currently performing), however I also can't pretend the capability would have wide appeal so can sympathise with you not bothering.
Post Reply