Best audio converter? A must have question.

[zaval80]

If you want to do so to save space, it depends on whether you are able to hear any difference. Do your conversion but save the original files to find out.

[JosRem]

For Apple users on an iMac or MacBook Sound Studio is one of the best. Available in the App Store.

[Martin85]

Ok, I'll try. Thanks!

[inacastyetagain]

My favorite Mac audio converter is Amadeus Pro, which allows the user to create batch processors as droplets and supports many different file types. Not free but very worth it, I use it every day.

[Egg_Crisis]

Hi. I don't want to open a new thread so I'm asking here.
I have some 24/96 flac files and was thinking of converting them all to 16/44. Is it worth it? I mean, do I lose or distort anything by doing this?
I've read that there's not much difference between 24/96 and 16/44, but I don't know if by converting I'm ruining the file or something.
Thanks!

When I've done that conversion I've converted 24/96 to 16/48.

It might be nonsense, but it seems to me that it's an easier calculation going from 96 to 48 (it's probably throwing away every other data point?) and a more complex calculation to convert from 96 to 44.1 so it's less likely to make it sound funny. (And the difference between a 48 file and a 44.1 is so small it's not worth quibbling over.)

Obviously 48 isn't CD compliant but as I don't burn them as cd's it's not a problem for me, so if you intend burning as a cd then it'd have to be 44.1.

[harrylime]

It’s not a calculation, you generate a signal from the samples, then resample that. Hence why it’s called resampling and not sample conversion or sample recalculation. So by Shannon-Nyquist you simply lose all the detail with frequencies over the cutoff of the new sampling frequency, whether you go to a clean divisor (48) or not (44.1) is irrelevant. The whole idea of artifacts and other ‘funny’ effects stems from badly designed samplers from the early days, it isn’t inherently part of the process. Same way a scaled down digital photo nowadays looks fine even on low resolution, while in the 90s it looked like a tile mosaic. It’s not the resolution itself but the process of the scaling that determines that difference, which has been vastly improved over time.

[Refugee]

It really comes down to the codecs being used. Dithering does make a difference, especially at 16/44.1. I tend to use MediaMonkey for convenience as it's my primary player, but it doesn't have any options for dithering. I use Audacity when I want (what I consider to be) the best results.