Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod (Read 8033 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Bought me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLAC's from the Final Fantasy Distant Worlds II setlist.  I need to put them on my iPod, but iTunes says the 88.2KHz AAC's can't be copied.  Should I convert to 44.1KHz or 48KHz?

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #1 –
44.1

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #2 –
convert to 24/48 apple lossless. will work fine.

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #3 –
No, pdq is right. 44.1 kHz is preferable (though I doubt anyone could hear a difference either way), because it's an integer division of 88.2 kHz. Also, OP appears to want to convert to AAC; I presume s/he is keeping the originals, in which case ALAC will simply waste space and sound no different.

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #4 –
48 kHz will give you more bandwidth so why not choose that? The sample rate conversion from 88.2 to 48 kHz is more computationally intensive but it is not, in principle, any less accurate.

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Notat on
48 kHz will give you more bandwidth so why not choose that? The sample rate conversion from 88.2 to 48 kHz is more computationally intensive but it is not, in principle, any less accurate.

I suspect that the filter that is applied for 88.4 -> 48 is has a much wider impulse response than the one for 88.4 -> 44.1, so I believe that it is less accurate. Whether that is significant or not I don't know.

As for the bandwidth, you are talking about frequencies that are beyond audibility anyway.

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #6 –
Same filter theory applies here as to an ADC. To avoid affecting the 20 kHz passband, the 48 KHz filter does not need to be as steep as the 44.1 kHz filter. A less steep filter has a shorter impulse response. So I'm afraid you have it backwards.

The reason 48 is better than 44.1 kHz is not necessarily because of increased bandwidth but because of this more relaxed transition band for anti-aliasing.

The thing that the 44.1 kHz filter has going for it is that because of the 2:1 sample rate, it works out that many of the filter coefficients work out to be 0 and so the implementation is less compute intensive. If you're in a hurry, it would be the better choice.

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #7 –
Quote from: dv1989 on
Also, OP appears to want to convert to AAC; I presume s/he is keeping the originals, in which case ALAC will simply waste space and sound no different.


How will it waste space? The question was should s/he convert 88.2 FLAC to 44.1 or 48. Converting to ALAC will not be wasting space as the original files are lossless.

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #8 –
AAC files are smaller than ALAC files of identical duration. If the OP is keeping the original lossless files, IMO s/he may as well use transparent AAC files for the iPod, since they'll occupy less space.

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #9 –
Many lossy codecs are more highly tuned for 44.1 than for 48, IIRC. I'd recommend 44.1. 48 has more ultrasonics to bloat bitrate without providing any audible benefit anyhow.

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #10 –
I've always wondered why people care about audio higher than the Redbook standard (44.1KHz, 16 bits per sample).

Humans can't perceive 22,050Hz and they certainly can't hear when samples are 1/65535th higher or lower than they should be, so you're wasting bandwidth.
Mixing audio perfectly doesn't take more than onboard.

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #11 –
Quote from: X-Fi6 on
I've always wondered why people care about audio higher than the Redbook standard (44.1KHz, 16 bits per sample).

Wonder no longer. Simply scroll back and read my previous response (#7). There have been some credible cases where higher sample rates can be ABX'd. In all the cases I'm aware of, the audible difference has been determined to come from design compromises in the anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters.

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #12 –
IOW, those cases are unrelated to OP's iPod?

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #13 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
IOW, those cases are unrelated to OP's iPod?

The OP is going to be doing sample rate conversion. There will be anti-aliasing filtering involved. All else being equal, a 22.05 kHz filter will be more audible in the passband than a 24 kHz filter. I don't think any of this will be of significance if he then goes and pushes it through a lossy coder and listens to it on Apple earbuds.

The myth I was taking the opportunity to debunk here is that sample-rate conversion by an even 2:1 ratio will sound better than conversion through a more obscure ratio. Not true. The even ratio is less computationally intensive but is not any more accurate.

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #14 –
Quote from: Notat on
All else being equal, a 22.05 kHz filter will be more audible in the passband than a 24 kHz filter.

Adobe Audition, 96->44.1 conversion: the passband is flat up to 20+ kHz. I don't think that such anti-aliasing filter is audible...


Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Notat on
All else being equal, a 22.05 kHz filter will be more audible in the passband than a 24 kHz filter.

As per TOS #8, if you wish to comment on audible differences in sound quality, the onus is on to demonstrate them via ABX.

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Notat on
The myth I was taking the opportunity to debunk here is that sample-rate conversion by an even 2:1 ratio will sound better than conversion through a more obscure ratio. Not true. The even ratio is less computationally intensive but is not any more accurate.

Since I hinted at that, my mistake. I assumed that no interpolation is required (i.e. that one just ignores every other sample) and so less additional noise, etc. is introduced. This probably betrays my lack of knowledge regarding signal processing.

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #17 –
Quote
Since I hinted at that, my mistake. I assumed that no interpolation is required (i.e. that one just ignores every other sample) and so less additional noise, etc. is introduced. This probably betrays my lack of knowledge regarding signal processing.
I'm not a DSP expert, so the following might be wrong...  But, here's how I understand it:

You can simply throw-away every other sample, but you have to filter first. 

Imagine that you have a 30kHz signal sampled at 88.2kHz.  If you throw away half of the samples and reduce the clock to 44.1kHz, you will still have "something" there.  But, that "something" cannot be 30kHz...  It's now an alias.

 

Got me some 24-bit 88.2KHz FLACs. Need to get them onto an iPod

Reply #18 –
Greynol is right, I should not talk about audibility. These are not necessarily audible differences There are measurable differences between a steep and relaxed anti-aliasing filter - the former will have more passband ripple or attenuation and phase distortion near the cutoff.

lvqcl, your filter looks good in the passband but I can't see the stop band. You should also plot phase.

DVDdoug you are correct, to do a 2:1 downsampling, you can anti-alias filter and then remove every other sample. Sample-rate conversion is usually done in one combined filtering and decimation pass - it doesn't make sense to do the filter calculations for all the samples if you're only going to end up using half of them.