[dvenardos]

Yes, check error correction. It will import faster without it but you want the error correction on.

Also should the error correction box be checked in the import setup of itunes. The wavelength site says yes, other references don't mention it.

[patricksalter]

I'm still confused.  I have a fairly good understanding of file formats, pros and cons of each, but I've never heard somebody claim that anything sounds better than flac.  Are we talking about a big difference, or a subtle difference?  20% vs 1 %?  While I get that flac is compressed, its lossless compression which should result in an absolutely faithful version of the original.  While I could care less about how much space they can chew up because lets face it, hard drives are dirt cheap, I just went through and re-encoded my entire cd library to FLAC not too long ago.  How is it possible that AIFF or any other file format sounds better than FLAC.  While I'm not necessarily opposed to re-re-reencoding my music library, I'm getting tired of doing it (this would mark the 3rd time I've done it over the years, the first time was when MP3's first came out I did MP3's, then moved to WMA Lossless, then moved to FLAC a couple of years ago.)  I just don't want to do this again, because it takes forever because I have a collection of 1,000+ cd's! 

[skunark]

I'm still confused.  I have a fairly good understanding of file formats, pros and cons of each, but I've never heard somebody claim that anything sounds better than flac.  Are we talking about a big difference, or a subtle difference?  20% vs 1 %?  While I get that flac is compressed, its lossless compression which should result in an absolutely faithful version of the original.  While I could care less about how much space they can chew up because lets face it, hard drives are dirt cheap, I just went through and re-encoded my entire cd library to FLAC not too long ago.  How is it possible that AIFF or any other file format sounds better than FLAC.  While I'm not necessarily opposed to re-re-reencoding my music library, I'm getting tired of doing it (this would mark the 3rd time I've done it over the years, the first time was when MP3's first came out I did MP3's, then moved to WMA Lossless, then moved to FLAC a couple of years ago.)  I just don't want to do this again, because it takes forever because I have a collection of 1,000+ cd's!

AIFF, WAV, FLAC, and ALAC all have the ability to represent data such that it is bit-equivalent to the CD.  I assume WMA Lossless does as well but it's not a file format I've ever considered so I've never researched it.

With that said, if someone indicates that one file format sound better than the other then they most likely are not getting bit-transparent playback in their setup between the various formats. 

There's a lot of variables that could cause this, but most likely this is just set up issues or products that stream music typically convert and might even normalize the volume before streaming.   

We can only hope that one day radio shack will sell a product to test for this ...   

[2bigears]

  AIFF is the way to go.just went with a Drobo 4 bay and 2 internal 2TB hd's.two more slots in the Drobo for future.anyone using this stuff ????   some say 64 bit is the way to go, ?? how do you do this with the mini-mac ????   

[lowtech]

With that said, if someone indicates that one file format sound better than the other then they most likely are not getting bit-transparent playback in their setup between the various formats.

Or... they really have no idea what they are talking about... which I find is the case the majority of the time.  Reminds me of those who categorically state that computer playback using Apple hardware sounds better, or running OSX in 64-bit mode sounds better.