AIFF or Apple Lossless

[Larry_Elliott]

Just over a week ago I knew next to nothing about Music Servers etc and then I stumbled upon this website. We had 3 Macs each with their own iTunes Library - many of the same tracks - which we listened to via the computer speakers - hardly even Lo-Fi - or via Airport Express to the lounge stereo.

 

Now we have a Mac Mini with all of the audio files from the 3 Macs on a dedicated external drive. The Mac Mini is directly connected to our stereo - will be getting an external DAC in the next few days. An AE feeds a set of speakers in the family room. Control of the Mac Mini is via a laptop or an iPhone.

 

I haven’t made a final choice for the DAC, but it is likely to be an Apogee Duet.

 

I am now wanting to rip (I hate that term as it implies stealing) all my CDs and am confused as to if there is really a difference between AIFF and Apple Lossless. I would be most grateful for comments from members of this group.

 

As I have mentioned in another post - this group is one of the most helpful and non critical audio communities I have experienced on the Internet. Long may it remain that way.

 

Thanks so much

 

Larry Elliott

Auckland NZ

 

[Lizard_King]

Larry,

 

I am not into macs, I find them to be so inferior. AIFF is the Apple version of WAV, fully uncompressed 16 bit 44.1 Khz files. You can encode the AIFF to aa lossess file which makes it a data file then compresses the file without fidelity loss. Apple lossles at 1,411 kbps is good yet FLAC is the most widley supported lossless encoder out there.

 

[Ashley James]

Larry

 

It's my understanding that Lossless files including Flacs are the same and sound the same. The difference is the bits of information tagged to them and whether or not they have DRM. I wouldn't worry about it, just use what suits you. If you're going to attach the DAC to the computer, I'd consider the Edirol UA25, bearing in mind that the Mini sounds pretty good anyway and can be used to make sure the DAC you buy is better.

 

Lizard King

 

You may not like Apple, but their computers are better designed and built to a higher standard than PCs, they are better quality than quite a lot of high end audio too. This is presumably because Apple supply both the hardware and the software, while PC manufacturers are competing on price and having to pay a hefty chunk of the take to Microsoft for a license.

 

IMO for most people and their media, Apple is a better choice, because it's much easier for the whole family to use and doesn't get virus's. It also looks nice in people's homes.

 

One other factor that I think needs to be considered is how much trouble many people have with Window's PCs. We're dealing with up to a 100 enquiries a day, most have decided to switch to Apple for the home, usually because they use PCs at work, others are IT experts and enjoy Windows, but the average person finds it so difficult to cope with it that it's putting them off using a computer for Media. Others have had to switch to Vista and they can't use it because it's so different to XP! IMO it's not surprising that Microsoft is rumoured to be laying off 15,000.

 

You're probably very able and can make a Windows do exactly what you want and you can modify or upgrade it more cheaply than an Apple, but it doesn't mean everyone can.

 

Ash

 

[Ridge Street Audio Designs]

Hi Larry from NZ.

 

Welcome to Computeraudiophile, I'm new here myself. Also became a Mac user in 2007.

 

"I am now wanting to rip (I hate that term as it implies stealing) all my CDs and am confused as to if there is really a difference between AIFF and Apple Lossless. I would be most grateful for comments from members of this group. "

 

Sonically, there is a difference. When I first started ripping my CD collection I originally used Apple Lossless. Thought it sounded good - didn't really pay attention to AIFF. Once I learned what AIFF was, I did some direct comparisons between Lossless and AIFF. AIFF sounds better. Comparitively, Lossless files sound kind of dead and flat. Downside of AIFF if it's an issue is that the files are larger being that they are not compressed files like Lossless.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Cheers!

 

[1975DCS]

Hi,

 

I've read in several magazines (German and Dutch) that ALAC is not as good sounding as AIFF or WAV, despite being lossless. I also found some people via a Google search that feel about the same about FLAC versus WAV and a are now turning back to the later... BTW: iTunes won the Stereo contest when it came to ripping, beating the famous EAC...

 

[poop]

Seems to be a fair bit of 'he said she said' going on in this thread. Let your ears decide! It always amazes me that 'audiophile' communities and their members get wound up in simple things like the difference between audio codecs and formats. It would have to be one of the few simple, inexpensive areas left in the audio world that anyone can try for themselves - so why do so few people make the friggin effort?!!!!

 

Just rip an album or two, have a listen, see (or hear) what you think, and put it all behind you! If you're all that worried about it - just use WAV files... storage costs nothing compared to most of our systems, and when all's said and done, most of us are ripping audio from a floored medium anyway...

 

[Ashley James]

Poo

 

I can understand where you're coming from, but it's worth making the point again that the Lossless formats are just that, so won't sound different. However our ears play tricks on us so we might think they do!

 

Try to imagine and enormous book and how many time the word "The" might appear in it. An awful lot of space can be saved by just using a simple code for the word and a number for how many times it appears and that's a simplified explanation of why Lossless, AIFF or Flacs are smaller files than WAVs but are not compression and will all sound the same. Only the information that comes with each of them is different.

 

Ash

 

[tfarney]

Lossless is....lossless. Period.

 

Tim

 

[radar2886]

Larry,

I would say if space is not an issue go with AIFF. I have done comparisons between the two and found AIFF to sound a little better. I found with lossless the bass became a little one note and vocals were a little hashy. To be honest if I was not doing a back to back comparison I do not know if I would be able to tell the difference.

 

[radar2886]

Larry,

I would say if space is not an issue go with AIFF. I have done comparisons between the two and found AIFF to sound a little better. I found with lossless the bass became a little one note and vocals were a little hashy. To be honest if I was not doing a back to back comparison I do not know if I would be able to tell the difference.

 

[radar2886]

Larry,

I would say if space is not an issue go with AIFF. I have done comparisons between the two and found AIFF to sound a little better. I found with lossless the bass became a little one note and vocals were a little hashy. To be honest if I was not doing a back to back comparison I do not know if I would be able to tell the difference.

 

[radar2886]

Larry,

I would say if space is not an issue go with AIFF. I have done comparisons between the two and found AIFF to sound a little better. I found with lossless the bass became a little one note and vocals were a little hashy. To be honest if I was not doing a back to back comparison I do not know if I would be able to tell the difference.

 

[radar2886]

Sorry about the quad posts guys. I am typing from my iPhone and am having trouble with the wireless network I am using.

 

[1975DCS]

Oh I use FLAC at this moment (without worries since I use Foobar2000 instread of VLC and WMP).

However I can think of one thing making the difference: the process of bringing it back to music, could maybe be the difference, just like people can tell the difference between WMP, Foobar2000, Monkey, VLC, Wavelab, etc...

 

[davip]

Hello Larry;

 

Here's something to think about given the nature of the replies you're getting. Once you get past the Apple fanboy stuff and suggestions that people's ears are being tricked into hearing non-existent differences, consider how you hear a losslessly-compressed file on playback

 

Apple Lossless and FLAC both require 'recomposition' to play (the analogy being the un-zipping of a file). This is done on-the-fly, and while you don't hear any delay it does take processing power to do this in real-time. Doesn't matter what lossless format you use or whether your PMP/ PC / MAC uses hardware or software decoding, there will be a physical penalty in terms of processor and power use

 

If, as seems to be the case, some people can 'hear' this then more power to them (with little cause for some of the MAC respondents to suggest that this is without meaning -- an aspect I see increasingly on CA threads). Frankly, with storage getting bigger and cheaper all the time, I can't see why people don't use uncompressed WAV or AIFF; compression is all about getting it to the end user, not storage any more

 

As an aside / question, the WAV format is not just proprietary to PCs -- it is the file format that any burning program can turn straight back into a full RedBook CD. I don't know if AIFF is the same, but if it isn't I would think about sticking with WAV

 

For some of the respondents, a win-Win situation seems unpalatable however good it is. Incidentally, Macs have 'no viruses' because the user base is too small to justify their creation (unlike Windows). If more people used them, the problems would be the same as for PCs

 

cheers,

Dave

 

[BobH]

In my tests, FWIW, I preferred straight wav to either Flac or Apple Lossless. No idea why but I concur with an earlier post that said it just sounded a bit 'flat', a bit lifeless. To be honest, though, the difference was more noticeable on my son's system, with it's higher resolution speakers, than on my system. (AvanteGarde Duo's vs Lowther single driver cabs). But, storage is cheap and ripping cd's is an awful, boring, tedious, mind-numbing, (is that enough?), job!! Do it properly, do it once!

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

Larry,

 

As was posted recently in a separate post on another section of the forum,

here are some possible reasons to use AIFF versus Apple Lossless:

 

1) Apple Lossless (ALAC) and FLAC (or other lossless formats) require on-the-fly decoding by the computer's processor. At least one CA member has posted that in his case this extra processing impacted the quality of sound, altho the processor in question was not today's dual/quad core standards.

 

2) AIFF files are more easily supported with regards to metadata/tagging than are FLAC/WAV files, especially using iTunes.

 

The choice of ALAC/FLAC versus AIFF is more about convenience and file storage requirements than sound quality.

 

For someone like yourself who is already using a Mac, I can see no reason to use WAV files instead of AIFF, as WAV files do NOT support metadata/tagging well, to put it mildly (even on Windows, where it is often touted as the preferable format). AIFF is Apple's implementation of WAV, and integrates well with iTunes, or other OS X music players.

 

FLAC is the preferred lossless codec for Windows users, but again, for those on OS X, Apple Lossless is the preferred codec, due to identical sound quality levels PLUS ease of integration with iTunes.

 

enjoy

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Larry_Elliott]

Thanks for all the comments - interesting and generally helpful.

 

On reflection I think that I will use AIFF and if necessary buy a larger drive for storage.

 

By profession I am an Acoustician so am very aware of psychoacoustics and the tricks that ear hearing system can produce.

 

As BobH said “storage is cheap and ripping cd's is an awful, boring, tedious, mind-numbing, (is that enough?), job!! Do it properly, do it once!“

 

Again, thanks for all the comments.

 

Larry

 

 

 

 

[1975DCS]

Interesting stuff! Out of curiosity: For those hearing the difference between Lossless and WAV, have some of you also tested a WAV file that was formerly an FLAC file (that was WAV before that)?

Ps. AIFF = Wav + ID tag richt? Same size too!

 

[mpmct]

Hm. If Apple markets their lossless format: "Lossless", and that might be found to be false, seems to me the legal fees would hardly be worth the proposition for them. A little common sense is probably in order here. ;-)

Any reasonably new Mac has way more than enough horsepower to decode a "Lossless" file on the fly, without issue. And of course one can 'un-Lossless" any Lossless file, with a click -- right back to AIFF or whatever.

I've done that. Matched the un-encoded file bit for bit to an original.

I was shocked to discover ... sorry, no shock. ;-)

 

[flatmap]

Rip the same disc with AIFF and with ALAC and do a comparison with your tastes and your equipment.

 

As some posters note above -- once the ALAC file is decompressed -- it has the same information as the original file. However your music player (iTunes in this case) has to perform the decompression of the ALAC file in the process of playing it.

 

It's easy to imagine that this real time decompression function, encompassing both the software and the hardware components that it addresses, will have some effect on what you hear.

 

If you do a comparison directly and hear no difference, you're in good shape. Just go with ALAC in that case. If you prefer the AIFF, as I do, then that's the way to go. Happily, if you go with ALAC now, but want to convert to AIFF in the future, that's possible. Of course it will be time consuming, but at least it is an option.

 

Good luck and enjoy your music!

 

[mpmct]

"It's easy to imagine that this real time decompression function, encompassing both the software and the hardware components that it addresses, will have some effect on what you hear."

 

Yes, and I think the key word is: "imagine."

 

Like Tim, the contributor here who looks remarkably like Van Morrison, I work

in marketing, and have for a long time. Believe me, bias

is like the old Saturday Night Live bit: The Subliminal Man.

Most of us are loathe to admit that we are biased by appearance

and suggestion. I am too! But I've made a good living maximizing both,

for many years. And there is nothing wrong with any of that. But one does

not 'look at sound', to paraphrase Chris.

 

Over 500 people could not tell the difference between high quality

SACD and DVD-A recordings, when they were re-sampled to 16/44 ...

 

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

 

It's important to acknowledge the power of bias. It is huge, really.

And my income depends on it! ( At the same time, past a certain point,

I do not accept money for blatant falsehoods, it's just too painful

an engagement. ) Point is ... think, read, and most of all: consider the source.

Nothing to lose. :-)

 

[davip]

 

Marketing? I don't think that a career in formalised artifice really helps the debate. The question was about perceptions in the audible range, and this site is about computer Audiophilia, an area of inquiry that maintains that not all ears are cut from the same Cloth.

 

[jimguess]

Larry,

 

I am also new to this site but have been using PC's and Mac's for audio playback for 5 years now. i have alot of time and money invested in this medium and IMO the Mac is superior to the PC in alot of ways. I have also compared AIFF to ALAC and can hear no difference. In the end storage being cheap and being that you are going to rip from CD I would go AIFF. I have over 1800 CD's ripped in apple lossless and listen to them through a Mac pro connected to a Benchmark DAC1 usb with a Ridgestreet Audio Poiema usb cable. The rest of my system consists of Ayre MXR mono's and K5 preamp with Dynaudio C2 speakers. I can say that if there was a difference in these two codecs I would be able to hear it with my rig and I cannot.

 

Hope this helps.

 

[jcbrum]

FWIW my present setup is MacBook Pro>RME Fireface (separately powered)>AVI 2ch sub>AVI Amp Paks>AVI Neutron 4s

Totally superb on Angela Gheorghiu - female classical opera, and on Pendulum In Silico - drum and bass. Easily blows away ATC 100s, which sound slow and woolly by comparison.

 

I use a £10 5m pro-spec no-name IEEE1394 cable, or standard £10 5m pro-spec no-name spdif opt, or an Airport Express.

 

Aiff, Wav, Alac, Flac, show no sonic advantages but Aiff is the preferred format for archival purposes due to much better tagging.

 

Regards to all and seasonal greetings, JCBrum.