[JfTM]

I'm curious, who's using what and why?

I've been using uncompressed FLAC, but I haven't really compared the two.

[brj]

Can you clarify your reference to "uncompressed FLAC"?  FLAC is a compressed (though lossless) format, and essentially decompresses to WAV.

For what it's worth, I prefer AIFF.  The data "chunk" in the AIFF container format is the identical RIFF LPCM bitstream block found in WAV files, but you have the benefit of ID3 tags.  It is an uncompressed format, but I'm willing to pay the penalty in hard drive space.

[JfTM]

dbPoweramp now offers a FLAC lossless uncompressed option

[JfTM]

And poweramp tags both (although so far poweramp docent seem to be nearly as good as iTunes for tagging)

[brj]

Interesting - I'll have to look that up to see how that's implemented.  Thanks.

Note that the tag fields formally defined in the WAV container specification are fairly limited, and don't include many of the common fields that users expect.  Work-arounds using other fields/chunks supported are supported by the most common applications, however, making this a non-issue for most people.  That said, the WAV field extensions do get abused by some software programs and can thus cause compatibility problems on occasion.  I try to keep data storage as standardized and future-proof as possible, however, which is why the more extensive (ID3v2 based) tagging defined within the AIFF specification appealed to me.

(Likewise, FLAC and ALAC also have more extensive tag fields defined as part of their specifications.)

[totoro]

Can you clarify your reference to "uncompressed FLAC"?  FLAC is a compressed (though lossless) format, and essentially decompresses to WAV.

For what it's worth, I prefer AIFF.  The data "chunk" in the AIFF container format is the identical RIFF LPCM bitstream block found in WAV files, but you have the benefit of ID3 tags.  It is an uncompressed format, but I'm willing to pay the penalty in hard drive space.

But what do you gain by doing this over just using flac? I've never understood this. You get better tags in flac, you get exactly your original bits back at decompression time (provably), and the encoding is designed to be easier to decode than encode: what's not to like?

[brj]

Possibly nothing, depending on your specific needs, but it may depend on what else you're doing with your music.

In my case, I also want to have my music on my phone, which doesn't support FLAC.  For the moment, I have enough space on my home network and my iPhone that I can leave the music of interest in AIFF format with no penalty.  When I do start to run out of space on either one, I can consider ALAC, which has the exact same benefits as FLAC.

Some people have stated that the added computational overhead of decompression can be heard on a sensitive enough system, especially with hi-res files.  Whether that is due to the added CPU overhead needed to decompress the files causing higher current draw which then creates more electrical noise, I don't know.  I haven't had a reason to make the comparison in my own system.

[terrycym]

There was a massive non-debate about the very subject here a month or so ago

Also, you may wish to read this...
http://www.audiostream.com/content/cut-flac
And more here...

http://www.audiostream.com/content/dbpoweramps-flac-lossless-uncompressed-wish-come-true