AIFF or FLAC?

I use FLAC exclusively. Sounds as good as wav to me and easier to use as its almost universal and supports tags. AIFF is Mac codec only I think.

~
Based on my limited understanding of things, I've chosen to rip my collection to AIFF. I'm Mac-based, and AIFF could easily be converted back to another format if required.

FLAC needs to be decoded/decompressed along the way, a potential source of issues. AIFF is an uncompressed format similar to WAV, but unlike WAV also has the benefit of supporting metadata and cover art.

Although I too have a PWDac, I've opted not to go with the Bridge and Elyric; I've heard about too many troubles with both, so I feed my PWD with a Mac Mini. I've been using iTunes for years, and didn't want to learn a new library.

With my system, I do sometimes hear a difference between WAV and AIFF on some recordings, but have decided that it's not enough of a difference to sacrifice metadata and the ease-of-use in iTunes/PureMusic.

I guess there is no easy answer at this point. A lot depends on your system, your own ears, and the amount of effort you're willing to put in, but if it helps at all.... I went with AIFF.

If you use iTunes for both library management and playback, you need to stick with AIFF. iTunes cannot play FLAC files.

If you are willing to use a 3rd party playback software, then FLAC is the way to go for storage and ease of use. Both Audirvana + and Pure Music use iTunes for library management, even though iTunes isn't acutally the playback software. They do this by creating "pointer files" (my term) that look as if they're in iTunes but actually reside on your HD.

This would be my preferred route if using a Mac.

I use a Mac and Apple Lossless because it integrates with Itunes.

Early on with Itunes I heard a difference between lossless and AIFF but on Audirvana I cant via casual listening. I suspect the reason is Audirvana decompresses into memory prior to playback so whatever was making AIFF sound better is a non issue.

Thanks
Bill

~

I believe the only caveat to using Pure Music in front of iTunes to play FLAC files is that once you load the FLACs into iTunes via Pure Music, you mustn't move the folder location.

It seems there are more benefits to using Pure Music in front of iTunes anyway, one of which is upsampling. As Catastrofe said, with the PM/iTunes combination, iTunes becomes just the library catalogue system, with no involvement in the actual playing of the file ; Pure Music handles that.

Again as Catastrofe says, if you'd prefer not to use Pure Music or Audirvana+ (and if you want metadata), stick with AIFF. Storage is cheap.

Chris at computeraudiophile years ago had me use AIFF when I went to a computer based source,YMMV,Bob

AIFF is not compressed. I figure the less the computer has to do (I use Audirvana) like decompress to play the better. Even if I can't hear a difference.

Programs like dbPoweramp will let you select the degree to which FLAC files are compressed and there is also a setting to not compress your FLAC files at all.

I would just try both options on whatever you are going to be using to see if you can tell a difference in sound before going through all the work of ripping or changing format. Whether or not there is a difference in sound seems to be very subjective based on one's software and hardware.