# Transferring SACD to disk, current workflow + questions.



## TonyBombassolo (Dec 2, 2021)

Currently I am in the process of transferring my SACDs to redundant backup drives for a variety of reasons, primarily the ability to access them through either software or hardware that can play the raw DSD content that is on the actual SACD's themselves, without having to hot swap them in and out as I move between content.

For the most part I've used the instructions located at https://www.psaudio.com/copper/article/down-the-rabbit-hole-of-sacd-ripping-and-dsd-extraction/

My question is, when I then convert said .dsf files to .wav via AudioGate (this is just the software I have to be able to allow me to stay lossless, even if downsampled, primarily when I dont have hardware that can convert that type of content), what is the best container format I should be using?

Conceptually, depending on how it was originally recorded, 96/192 .wav files seem best for non-DSD hardware. However, if the content came from the pre-digital era, the recordings were never actually at those higher bit depths and sample rates.

So for current digital era content such as








I use audiogate to convert the .dsf to a 96/192 .wav

But what about the recordings Warner did in 2011

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Warner_Premium_Sound_series

These are older tech and probably would have maxed out at best at 24/96, given that we know the Doors was done on a four-track tape machine in 1966. So let's say I was going to convert that from a .DSF file. Am I forced to review every recording to look at the headroom before converting accordingly?

Any help is greatly appreciated.


----------



## TonyBombassolo (Dec 2, 2021)

Not sure why I attached that Beethoven pic or how to edit it sorry.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

TonyBombassolo said:


> Not sure why I attached that Beethoven pic or how to edit it sorry.


Never mind it's a beautiful recording .


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

176.4 and 88.2 are actually the most direct sampling rates for DSD to PCM conversion. My Oppo and Sony players use these rates for direct, on the fly PCM transcoding.


----------



## robertzombie (May 7, 2021)

WAV uses PCM encoding, not the same as DSD. In order to "play the raw DSD content that is on the actual SACD's themselves, without having to hot swap them in and out as I move between content", you will need to avoid converting to WAV.


----------



## Mathias Broucek (Feb 18, 2020)

I’ve often wondered about doing this, but life is too short….


----------



## TonyBombassolo (Dec 2, 2021)

robertzombie said:


> WAV uses PCM encoding, not the same as DSD. In order to "play the raw DSD content that is on the actual SACD's themselves, without having to hot swap them in and out as I move between content", you will need to avoid converting to WAV.


Indeed, but sometimes I do not have a player that can play SACDs or DSD files, and in those cases, the downsampled wave files are just fine.

For the DSD files I keep the raw .DSF for when I do have a player that can play that type of content. It just isn't typically in my car, which can play DVD-A files, just not DSD ones  so I convert to flac for space and play those there 

So I have the .wav for a lossless player with no DSD/SACD functionality and the .DSF for anything that can handle those.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Mathias Broucek said:


> I've often wondered about doing this, but life is too short….


That is actually true, before yo know it ... times up


----------



## robertzombie (May 7, 2021)

TonyBombassolo said:


> Indeed, but sometimes I do not have a player that can play SACDs or DSD files, and in those cases, the downsampled wave files are just fine.
> 
> For the DSD files I keep the raw .DSF for when I do have a player that can play that type of content. It just isn't typically in my car, which can play DVD-A files, just not DSD ones  so I convert to flac for space and play those there
> 
> So I have the .wav for a lossless player with no DSD/SACD functionality and the .DSF for anything that can handle those.


If you're listening in the car then I wouldn't bother with anything higher than CD resolution when converting.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

robertzombie said:


> If you're listening in the car then I wouldn't bother with anything higher than CD resolution when converting.


It's not as if higher resolutions require any additional effort. If anything, CD quality would require more effort. With such a drastic bitrate reduction, additional steps must be taken to prevent it sounding like garbage.


----------



## robertzombie (May 7, 2021)

progmatist said:


> With such a drastic bitrate reduction, additional steps must be taken to prevent it sounding like garbage.


Ok, Such as...???


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

robertzombie said:


> Ok, Such as...???


Such as properly setting up the resampling algorithm, to maximize sound quality and minimize artifacting. Such as setting up optimal dithering type and level, which varies widely by specific recordings.


----------



## TonyBombassolo (Dec 2, 2021)

progmatist said:


> Such as properly setting up the resampling algorithm, to maximize sound quality and minimize artifacting. Such as setting up optimal dithering type and level, which varies widely by specific recordings.


Exactly, the sample rate and the bit depth would be reduced to 16/44 rather than the raw files which are much higher in resolution. To do that would be an extra step, as I am already keeping the highest possible sample rate and bit depth files, regardless.

I've used programs like iZotope SRC 64 bit SRC for the sample rate and iZotope MBIT+ Dither for the bit depth in the past and that additional step requires a significant time of processing, and to do that simply to have smaller, inferior car quality isn't worth it.


----------



## robertzombie (May 7, 2021)

Even with no dither, any quantisation noise would be imperceptible in a car.


----------



## robertzombie (May 7, 2021)

TonyBombassolo said:


> Exactly, the sample rate and the bit depth would be reduced to 16/44 *rather than the raw files which are much higher in resolution*. To do that would be an extra step, as I am already keeping the highest possible sample rate and bit depth files, regardless.


Are you not converting from DSD to PCM? These are two different digital recording systems. Once you convert, you are not "keeping the highest possible sample rate and bit depth files". One cannot speak about DSD using PCM terms.

The convention is to use 88 or 176 kHz sampling rate when converting from DSD to PCM. But that's unnecessary for car audio. It's also unnecessary for conventional listening. Look at the recording's frequency response in a programme like Spek and you'll see how much sampling rate is required for specific recordings.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

robertzombie said:


> Are you not converting from DSD to PCM? These are two different digital recording systems. Once you convert, you are not "keeping the highest possible sample rate and bit depth files". One cannot speak about DSD using PCM terms.
> 
> The convention is to use 88 or 176 kHz sampling rate when converting from DSD to PCM. But that's unnecessary for car audio. It's also unnecessary for conventional listening. Look at the recording's frequency response in a programme like Spek and you'll see how much sampling rate is required for specific recordings.


I beg to differ with the common notion sound improvement in Hi-Res is based entirely on frequency. I myself balk at "Hi-Res" headphones as a marketing gimmick. The improvement in sound quality is less of the subtlety being lost to digital truncation. The fact Hi-Res is "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies is neither here nor there. Analog tape running at 15 or 30 inches per second is also "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies, but that never crossed anyone's mind.

In the case of 176.4 being downsampled to 88.2, or 192 to 96, it's a case of more even math. Going from 192 to 88.2 for example will generate more remainders, and consequently more artifacting.


----------



## TonyBombassolo (Dec 2, 2021)

Rogerx said:


> Never mind it's a beautiful recording .


wow you weren't kidding! finally got around to listening to the BluRay of this, what a gem!!!


----------

