apple loseless vs. aiff files for music

stump4545 · « **on:** 24 Jan 2010, 06:37 pm »

which type of file is better to store uncompressed music for a mini?

dB Cooper · « **Reply #1 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 06:50 pm »

Well, lossless isn't uncompressed but is supposed to preserve the sound quality fully (depending on who you ask). File sizes will be 40-50% smaller than AIFF. Same deal with FLAC, another lossless format.

Crimson · « **Reply #2 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 06:51 pm »

Theoretically they are the same. Some claim to hear differences due to extra processor load while decompressing ALAC files in real time. If disc space is not an issue, rip to AIFF.

tomjtx · « **Reply #3 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 07:12 pm »

There shouldn't be a diff.
Many people have compared the files of AIFF and ALAC and they are bit identical, period.

However some claim to hear a diff. and we are audiofools, so who's to say

My files are converted to WAV from ALAC and then streamed to my Transporter which , IIRC, are cached.
So extra processing power likely isn't a factor.
I can say that I have done sighted and blind testing and have never heard a diff. with my set up ,FWIW.

Try both and see if you hear a dif.
Hard Drives are so cheap now we don't really need ALAC or FLAC anymore for home systems from an expense POV.

Atlplasma · « **Reply #4 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 07:22 pm »

I have files in AIFF and ALAC. Likewise I don't hear any difference in playback, but I have had some technical issues with ALAC tracks. On some discs and tracks, I would hear a clicking/popping sound that was pretty annoying. After a lot of futzing around, the best solution seems to be to reimport the disc into AIFF. It's now my default import method.

ted_b · « **Reply #5 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 07:26 pm »

Yes, as I posted over on Computer Audiophile, there is a real debate about hearing differences in supposedly identical lossless (compressed or uncompressed) codecs. Me, I like WAV way better than AIFF or Apple Lossless...much clearer and better microdynamics, and harmonic structures kept in tact. Maybe it's the processor, maybe its Core Audio's handling of codecs (MAC), dunno. Although I felt the same way on Windows Squeeze Center , too (liked PCM/WAV sent from the server rather than FLAC decoded at the client). I wish I didn't like WAV better cuz it's lack of metadata storage is real problematic.

Anyway, maybe both sides of the debate are correct; it's just that some folks hear differently than others. Dunno. What's important, IMO, in these public forums, is to acknowledge that there is life to both sides of the argument...and then have a good debate about it.

daz_bike · « **Reply #6 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 07:41 pm »

I have been testing AIFF, WAV this weekend as my collection is stored as FLAC. I heard a clear difference between AIFF and WAV. I do agree with Ted_b's comments about WAV. I found WAV clearly better that FLAC (streaming direct to my Modwright Transporter and better than transcoding FLAC to WAV on PC for streaming to the Transporter). AIFF sounded similar to FLAC for some reason and had an edginess that was .... well annoying.

I have tagged my WAV through DBpoweramp and the Transporter handles it well. With the size and cost of hard drives I can easily convert my collection over to WAV, which I am in the process of doing.

I think your system and ears are the key whether you hear a difference or not. I do hear a difference and thats all I need to make my choice. If you do not hear, then don't worry about it and stick to whatever format suits you.

Mike Nomad · « **Reply #7 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 07:59 pm »

Interesting spread through this thread. I've found FLAC to be preferable over AAC, AIFF, and WAV. When it comes to files at 16/48 or lower resolution, AIFF sounds better to me than WAV. The WAV files have a sharp, jagged (lacking a better term) quality to them.

However, when it comes to 24/96 and up, WAV is definitely the way to go. I've tried Hi-Rez AIFF through Audacity. Horrible results.

Looking over the comments, I think I have a few less links in the chain then some. I'm using iTunes w/ error correction to rip, and saving at 16/48. Files are created on an external drive, connected via FireWire 400. For control, iTunes on whatever Mac I have the drive connected to (via FireWire).

I'm playing FLAC files through VLC.

Daedalus Audio · « **Reply #8 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 08:03 pm »

hey Ted, I'll have to try WAV again. I've been using AIFF and some FLAC

as for Apple lossless, the difference is not subtle, and even if one doesn't hear the dif at this time, saving files in a compressed format just doesn't make sense to me. often the source cd's etc are sold or unavailable and later when you may very well hear the difference you are stuck with a collection of music that is not as good a source as you want.

lou

Daedalus Audio · « **Reply #9 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 08:05 pm »

daz-bike, do you convert AIFF & FLAC to WAV and have you heard the dif with the converted files? I'm mac user, any clues how would I do a conversion?

thanks,
lou

oneinthepipe · « **Reply #10 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 08:28 pm »

Don't you lose the metadata with WAV? I have been burning everything in AIFF for that reason, or what I thought was that reason.

ted_b · « **Reply #11 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 08:34 pm »

Quote from: oneinthepipe on 24 Jan 2010, 08:28 pm

Don't you lose the metadata with WAV? I have been burning everything in AIFF for that reason, or what I thought was that reason.

Yes! That's why I said

Quote from: ted_b on 24 Jan 2010, 07:26 pm

I wish I didn't like WAV better cuz it's lack of metadata storage is real problematic.

oneinthepipe · « **Reply #12 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 08:36 pm »

Quote from: ted_b on 24 Jan 2010, 08:34 pm

Yes! That's why I said

Oy! Sorry.

tomjtx · « **Reply #13 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 08:37 pm »

These are all interesting observations.

Theoretically all lossless formats should sound the same.

It looks like all of us have hi-rez systems and are experienced listeners . It would be interesting if researchers got to the bottom of this other than simply surmising it is placebo.

oneinthepipe · « **Reply #14 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 09:23 pm »

Quote from: tomjtx on 24 Jan 2010, 08:37 pm

It looks like all of us have hi-rez systems and are experienced listeners .

I have a hi-rez "capable" system, but I don't have a single track of hi-rez music. I am also not certain which music is truly hi-rez and which music is merely re-mastered redbook. If the music wasn't originally recorded and mastered in a hi-rez format, is there any benefit from listening to music re-mastered in a hi-rez format?

ted_b · « **Reply #15 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 09:48 pm »

Quote from: oneinthepipe on 24 Jan 2010, 09:23 pm

I have a hi-rez "capable" system, but I don't have a single track of hi-rez music. I am also not certain which music is truly hi-rez and which music is merely re-mastered redbook. If the music wasn't originally recorded and mastered in a hi-rez format, is there any benefit from listening to music re-mastered in a hi-rez format?

Most (90%+) are truly hirez sources (or analog tapes). We have a whole thread on HiRez Circle to report "faux" hirez.

ted_b · « **Reply #16 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 09:50 pm »

Quote from: daz_bike on 24 Jan 2010, 07:41 pm

I have tagged my WAV through DBpoweramp

How do you do that? My DBPoweramp does not open WAV files for saving tags (and WAV does not have an internal metadata layer).

K Shep · « **Reply #17 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 09:52 pm »

Quote from: stump4545 on 24 Jan 2010, 06:37 pm

which type of file is better to store uncompressed music for a mini?

AIFF

tomjtx · « **Reply #18 on:** 24 Jan 2010, 10:55 pm »

Quote from: oneinthepipe on 24 Jan 2010, 09:23 pm

I have a hi-rez "capable" system, but I don't have a single track of hi-rez music. I am also not certain which music is truly hi-rez and which music is merely re-mastered redbook. If the music wasn't originally recorded and mastered in a hi-rez format, is there any benefit from listening to music re-mastered in a hi-rez format?

Sorry, I just meant a high resolution system , I wasn't referring to the Hi-Rez formats.

Mike Nomad · « **Reply #19 on:** 25 Jan 2010, 03:45 am »