Apple Lossless or AIFF Encoder?

[jtwrace]

I have my Mini set to AIFF Encoder but all the talk about lossless has me thinking...what is the difference and which is preferred? I will be using a USB DAC.

 

[jeffca]

If you need to save space, Apple Lossless is the way to go. AIFF files will offer greater compatibility with other audio applications, but, if you aren't DJ'ing or remastering the music (I sometimes make compilation CD's and re-EQ and level match the tunes), Lossless is the way to go.

 

The reasons to use lossloss are two-fold:

1) it takes up about half space so you can store more songs

2) you're hard drive will last longer since it has half as much data to read (this is a very minor benefit, but one none the less)

 

Just so you know, Apple Lossless does decode to a bit perfect copy of the original audio so it won't matter what DAC you are using. OS X's Core Audio layer transcodes the file way before it hits the USB cable.

 

I'm going to be getting a new Mini in a couple weeks for an animation project I'm ramping up for (it's going to be used for rendering 3D on the side). Once that's done, though, it'll be used for music and HTPC/DVR duty. What a wonderful, little machine!

 

jeff

 

[DavidJPettifor]

Go with either. Apple Lossless won't take up as much space as AIFF. The argument is that hard drive space is not as expensive nowadays, so choosing to use AIFF doesn't really matter, but lets face it, the bigger the drive the more Apple Lossless files you can put on it as opposed to AIFF! As regards compatibility, you can always convert to whatever format is appropriate for a given situation, though Apple Lossless will be fine for most people I'm sure.

 

For what it's worth, I use AIFF. The reason being my iPod Shuffle can't playback Apple Lossless but it can playback AIFF. I'm not someone who stores zillions of tracks on my digital audio player, tending to listen for up to roughly an hour or so at a time, so AIFF files fit fairly well on the Shuffle with that time frame in mind (depending on track length of course).

 

At the end of the day, lossless is lossless, so it's win, win either way!

 

--

djp

 

[jtwrace]

I've been ripping in AIFF. I'm very surprised how quick it is. I thought I read somewhere that it takes 8min per CD. Not here! It takes roughly 2min per CD. I even double checked to make sure that AIFF was set with error correction. It is.

 

Sound about right?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi JWtrace - If your CDs are clean and unscratched ripping in AIFF won't be slow. Ripping to a NAS is a little different as the data has to go over the network.

 

Wouldn't ripping in a lossless format take longer because of the encoding process?

 

[jtwrace]

Chris

 

I thought AIFF was Lossless?

 

[darrenwm]

Lossless is lossless.

 

Ripping to AIFF is simply a waste of space and money.

 

If you ever need to convert Apple Lossless in the future to something else it can be done easily with free software.

 

[jtwrace]

Why is it a complete waste of space and money?

 

 

 

[darrenwm]

AIFF uses more hard drive space for zero sonic improvement.

 

A lossless file will sound the same and take up about two thirds of the space, saving you money on hard drives.

 

[jtwrace]

Hmm. I've already started ripping in AIFF though.

 

[cfmsp]

not to worry about ripping to AIFF, unless you have a significant issue with disk space.

 

many people rip to AIFF. after all, disk drive space is cheap, and getting cheaper.

 

I use AIFF, Murphy's Law says - if things can go wrong, they will. There are more things that can go wrong with Lossless, either now, or in the future.

 

enjoy

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I've thought long and hard about this one and talked to more people than I can even recall about the topic. After all my research I decided AIFF was the best for me and I highly recommend it for everyone. In my opinion compression is a thing of the past. If you haven't read my article explaining my opinion here is a link.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/In-What-Format-Should-I-Rip-My-Music

 

[tmesselt]

Well since this topic has been debated several times over and over again on this site, I don't think its worth rehashing all that much. As far as a waste of space and money, the cost of a few terabytes is a drop in the bucket in comparison to what most of your other purchases in this hobby cost you.

 

I would imagine I could not tell the difference in an ALAC or AIFF, but if you have the choice and you are archiving your entire cd collection why would you go through all of that and compress??

 

But that is why this is so great, and everyone can make a decision for themselves based on what fits with their likes, and system preferences the best.

 

Good Day.

 

 

[DavidJPettifor]

jwtrace wrote:

Hmm. I've already started ripping in AIFF though.

 

It's very easy to convert to another format if you ever wish to utilize your hard drive space more effectively. iTunes for example, can convert quite easily from AIFF to Apple Lossless.

 

--

djp