Apple Macintosh Music System

I use Mac as well. A few suggestions, and you may not like one: I've done quite a bit of experimenting and listening comparisons. I am only suggesting this because you stated you want to squeeze out every bit of musical pleasure for those zeros and ones. You may want to try ripping a few files to AIFF using the latest version of iTunes and see if it makes any difference to your ears and on your system. Yes, I know AL is lossless. I was particularly struck in differences between the sound of a file ripped in AL compared to the same file ripped using EAC (a PC-only software). You can find various debate and discussion on this topic on this and other sites. The only reasonable explanation I've heard for it is that the algorithms used to compress and decompress AL may account for differences in the files sound. Reportedly the latest version of iTunes addresses this to some extent, but this is hearsay and I've not actually compared rips on the newer version to those from the previous version. It may be worth trying yourself if you want to determine what works for you. Results will largely be dependent upon how revealing your system is, as well as your personal discrimination. Additionally, I've always preferred coax to optical, but the best optical I've tried has been a Wireworld Supernova (I think it is only a version 3). Perhaps I'll have to revisit that. Again, whatever works best for you. The best digital I've heard via computer files is far and away via the Modwright Transporter, which is a wireless server as well as a DAC (disclaimer: Modwright is a client - I do their photography and graphic design). I recently did comparisons with a friend to Empirical's Pace Car and Empirical modded Northstar DAC, as well as an Electrocompaniet EMC1-UP player and MHDT Havana DAC. The MW TP bested all in numerous blind tests we each did, unanimously and without hesitation. This was in a very revealing system using a wide variety of music. There are of course many other options to compare it to, but that's what I'd recommend given my experience. The other one I'd be curious to audition is the Berkley Alpha DAC. I have not heard it though.

Thing that sucks is, I then tried to convert an Apple Lossless file to AIFF within ITunes to see if I still had a future option of AIFF if I go ahead with Apple Lossless right now (you'd think it would work and compare equally to a direct AIFF rip from a CD). Not quite. AIFF conversion from Apple Lossless sounded the worst of all when done this way.

I missed this post to this old thread.

Thanks for your observations here. It's always interesting to hear what others impressions are with their systems. This last observation (above) surprises me though as that conversion should, in theory, be bit-for-bit without any possibility of mechanical/physical error of the reading of a disc. I haven't tried it myself though. I just rip to AIFF from the get go (in the past I've used all three formats so have all three in my library). I haven't found WAV files to sound inferior, but they are damned inconvenient on a Mac as they do not support metadata, so moving them around often becomes a royal pita. WAV is a format optimized for PC while AIFF is optimized for Mac and does support metadata and is much easier to deal with on a Mac and in iTunes in my experience. Can't speak to PC's or other file management software.

There was some buzz at CES, or was it the last RMAF, about computer-based systems using Amarra software (a very expensive plug-in for iTunes). Has anyone tried this? I would find it very difficult to justify the $900 price tag for the plug-in (unless I'm not understanding the pricing structure on their website correctly - a "mini" version is available for $300). Can anyone comment on this software? Is it an improvement sonically over iTunes? Does it alter the ripping process at all?

I have experimented no issues working with WAV files on the MAC so far, all track names, art cover and extended file info (like star rating) are there....

Try adding your own artwork to a WAV file. Try copying a few WAV files to a thumb drive and moving them to a different computer in your house. I hope you never have to restore your entire library from a backup, but if so, I don't envy the task if using Mac+WAV. AIFF is optimized for Mac and is basically the same type of bit-for-bit full-rez file as WAV. It is so much easier to deal with on a Mac, and will support all the critical metadata outside of the iTunes interface (which the WAV files depend upon to keep that data organized). You may not have run into problems yet, but I'd once again warn you that this may not always be the case. I have found in the past that WAV are no fun at all to deal with on a MAC.

Jax2 - now I am scared!!! :-)

Is there any way to convert my WAV files at iTunes to AIFF in a seamless way?

Be afraid. I'm not sure how well this works. In iTunes you can highlight the WAV files and then go to the menu Advanced>Create AIFF Version. I've not tried it, but I imagine it's pretty direct and that you'll probably then have to delete the WAV files manually as it implies that you are creating a duplicate. Perhaps someone else has done this and can comment?

I do not know what effect these conversions you are accomplishing within iTunes will have on the SQ of the files. I have not tried it myself. More important is using Error Correction on the original rip, as well as the ripping software that implements that correction. As far as the double conversions, in theory, all those file types are bit-for-bit. You may want to try one, then rip the same file directly to AIFF and compare the two to see if there is a loss in SQ. Just a thought.

I originally switched to WAV due to very clear improvement in sound quality compared to LossLess formats

Since the lossless files are supposedly bit-for-bit, the only explanation I can come up for this difference you are hearing (and I have heard in the past in some instances), is that it takes some processing power from the computer to decompress AL, whereas the WAV file requires no decompression. Other than that they should be the same. But what I've been finding with computer audio, much like conventional analog audio, is that virtually everything you do makes a difference.