WAV or Apple Lossless Encoder?

Hi Conedison.

...but from every thing that I've read, Lossless is the superior solution.

Apple Lossless is a good solution if file size is the priority - Lossless files are quite a bit smaller. If having the best possible sounding files is priority then WAV is the best way to go but the files are larger.

For what it's worth I use a Mac Mini and I compared Apple's version of WAV - AIFF - to Apple Lossless. To my ears the sound quality difference wasn't subtle. Apple Lossless sounded less immediate, less open and a bit truncated.

Definitely appreciate you wanting to do this only once. I might suggest trying this for yourself: One CD (or even one song off of one of your CDs) ripped to Apple Lossless and then the same CD or song ripped to WAV. Compare for yourself. That's really the only way you'll know for sure in context of your listening values and system.

Hope that helps.

Cheers!

Robert
RSAD

You should just rip a couple of your favorite CD's in both formats and compare them yourself. It's going to be you who's making the call as to which you prefer, not someone else. Personally, in the few comparisons I've made, I could not hear much difference. One important issue you should be aware of in making the choice between the two: WAV files are much more problematic in terms of the way iTunes is able to handle them. They do not allow conventional tagging as do virtually all of the other formats. Therefore all of the peripheral information that goes with the CD (title, songs, album art, etc.) are dealt with in a different way. If you have to rescue some WAV files from a backup, or if you want to add your own album art, or migrate your library from one HD to another, you may run into some very frustrating obstacles. I'm not enough of an iTunes geek to explain this in detail, but there's discussions about it here and elsewhere if you search. A good friend is bringing over a couple of files tonight that he was surprised at hearing the difference between...I have no clue what the upshot of that is, but I'll post something after I hear the two files if it is relevant. I think he ripped one as a WAV using EAC and then converted it to lossless in itunes. Regardless, I'd do it yourself and see if you hear a difference. Apple lossless will take up significantly less HD space. Whichever format you choose, purchase at least one additional hard drive and back up your library and keep it backed up as it grows. This will be money well invested.

Hello,

Before you decide on a lossless format, I would decide on whether or not you can tell the difference between it and a LAME encoded MP3 v0 file. Foobar2000 is a music playing client that has a built in utility for an ABX (A B Blind) test. It also has a nifty encoder for an MP3 v0. Despite what the masses on this wonderful forum will tell you, there is about a 99.99% chance that you will not be able to tell the difference between the formats unless you're an acoustic engineer or can hear a dog whistle. I'm not saying that you won't be able to hear the difference, but I would test it first using a science rather than hearsay. You could save yourself a lot of disk space.

For most people the level of transparency (the level at which they believe a format is lossless) lies between a 128kps MP3 and a LAME encoded v2 MP3. If you do the blind test and can tell the difference, I would use FLAC encoding. There are 0 auditory differences between any lossless format, but FLAC supports a large amount of metadata which makes it fairly easy to organize. FLAC also takes up considerably less disk space than WAV files. I would also use EAC (Exact Audio Copy) to rip your CDs.

Hope this helps!

Oh and one more point: there are ZERO differences between any lossless formats in terms of sound quality. By no differences, I mean none whatsoever. You do not need to waste your time testing various lossless formats against each other. They are called lossless because NO INFORMATION IS MISSING meaning telling the difference is an impossibility.

To anyone who thinks they can tell the difference between lossless formats and wants to make a wager out of it, please let me know - I will even offer odds. You can even pick the recording and the equipment.

If there are no differences between compressed lossless like Apple lossless, and noncompressed formats like WAV or AIFF, then why do the different formats exist(other than the PC/Mac dichotomy)? Is it strictly a file size issue to save space, or is the compression also affecting sound quality somehow? Most posts I read say that the uncompressed files sound better, although there is debate as to the degree. Given that disc space is quite inexpensive now, I do not know why you would bother using any compression if there is even a possibility that compression affects sound quality. If you are only compressing and not removing data, I would think that they should all sound the same. However, so many people report differences, you have to wonder what is going on. I am interested to see the comments of people on this.