ALAC to AIFF
Jun 23, 2016 at 8:06 PM Post #16 of 21
   
Sorry to disagree with you you but AIFF files are NOT compressed at all. They are windows version of WAV files.

 
Audio Interchange File Format (AIFF) was developed by Apple. It's not specific to any particular operating system but has mostly been used with Macs since Apple was the originator. It's true they are, like WAV files, not compressed. Their biggest advantage over WAV files is that AIFF files can store metadata. Metadata with WAV's is much more hit and miss. dbPoweramp will put metadata on your WAV files.
 
There was an article floating around the internet years ago wherein the author swore there was a slight but audible difference between music files ripped straight to WAV or AIFF and music files that had been ripped to FLAC or ALAC and then converted to WAV or AIFF. A lot of people ridiculed it but some agreed. It can be a surprisingly emotional subject. 
 
This might be worth a read: http://www.head-fi.org/t/366271/flac-vs-wav-format-surprising-quality-differences
 
I converted my CD collection to FLAC several years ago. I accidentally burned one disc as a WAV file. Using a pair of Event monitors and a Focusrite sound card, I compared it to the FLAC file that I'd also burned. I was surprised and disappointed to find that the WAV file seemed to sound better. I'd already burned everything to FLAC and had limited disc space so there was no going back. Tons of people on line will tell you you're a flaming *bleep* if you think you can detect a difference between compressed-but-non-lossy formats and uncompressed formats but you may find that there is a difference. Why? I don't know. Processing load for the CPU? Possibly, but I don't know. 
 
Is there enough detectable difference between the formats to bother converting all your ALAC's to AIFF? Only your ears can say. Storage is cheap so I'd say go for it and switch between the two to see if you notice any benefit. 
 
Jun 23, 2016 at 11:10 PM Post #17 of 21
Thank you. That's the best advice I've received so far. With my 8 year old $300 adaptive USB DAC, (HeadRoom Micro) I will be surprised if I hear enough improvement to reformat over 5000 songs. Plus everything was ripped off Redbook CD (16/44.1) format. Plus my 'phones are HiFiMAN HE-400's which are very nice, but not exactly Sennheiser HD-800S's.
Best,
Chris
 
Jun 24, 2016 at 7:27 AM Post #18 of 21
No one here has offered any evidence at all that there's a difference in sound between competing lossless formats. Why would there be? The various points about "timing" and "processing" are ill informed and are like someone saying that the wax you use on your car make a HUGE difference in how fast it goes: It just doesn't make sense.

As I said before, some people claim they hear differences from all manner of different tweaks. There are some fairly good reasons that people believe they hear differences, even if they aren't really there. I can offer some references if anyone if really interested.

The world of sound reproduction and perception is certainly complex. But it's not a scientific mystery. Without proof of some kind, all of this talk is just idle speculation about "magic".

Brian.
 
Jun 24, 2016 at 8:26 AM Post #19 of 21
No one here has offered any evidence at all that there's a difference in sound between competing lossless formats. Why would there be? The various points about "timing" and "processing" are ill informed and are like someone saying that the wax you use on your car make a HUGE difference in how fast it goes: It just doesn't make sense.

As I said before, some people claim they hear differences from all manner of different tweaks. There are some fairly good reasons that people believe they hear differences, even if they aren't really there. I can offer some references if anyone if really interested.

The world of sound reproduction and perception is certainly complex. But it's not a scientific mystery. Without proof of some kind, all of this talk is just idle speculation about "magic".

Brian.


Exactly. Instead I suggest flac based on its space saving properties, great platform support and great tools for archival purposes including integrity checking.
 
Jun 24, 2016 at 7:20 PM Post #20 of 21
Why not just take a few of your favorite tunes and convert them to compare. You'd know for sure then if converting would be worth the little time and effort it would take to convert your whole library. If you don't have iTunes you could first download it and use it as your conversion device for really fast conversion, about 1.5 seconds per tune average for a 3 minute song.
 
May 3, 2017 at 12:00 PM Post #21 of 21
Ok so here is my opinion. I am a 66 yr old male and due to some upper hearing range loss I wear a very expensive pair of digital hearing aids. But I am posting comments that apply to my hearing aids on and off. Over the years I have been told there is nothing better than FLAC for conversion of CD's or through sites providing same. Well I can tell you this without a doubt. The method of conversion DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE! My wife by the way has normal hearing and she can tell the audio difference too. Then again you must have the player that supports high resolution files like FLAC, ALAC, or AIFF otherwise its a waste.

By the way I use the following equipment when listening to my music that I believe helps too: Sony Walkman High Res Audio Player NWZ-A17 set to Sony's High Res encoding. Additionally I use the wireless Bowers and Wilkins P5 headset and the Bose QC 35 headset.

When I listen to FLAC, ALAC, AND AIFF songs I have converted from an original audio CD I find that there is no difference between FLAC and ALAC, BUT there is a big difference in tonal range and soundstage with the AIFF. And if I can tell the difference you should too given my hearing loss, but then again my wife hears it too. The music seems to sound as originally recorded. This is especially true on older 50's, 60's music! And with hard drives of 4 GB going for $100 or so how can you not have the space and not afford to do it. Last, I have over 240 gigs of music I have collected and I have no problem storing it on separate usb hard drives so I don't use up my computer's hard drive.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top