- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Posts
- 92
- Likes
- 16
All things being equal, are FLAC and AIFF music files the same from an audio performance standpoint?
Questyle QP1
- Thread starter XVampireX
- Start date
chawya22
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2004
- Posts
- 715
- Likes
- 76
chawya22
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2004
- Posts
- 715
- Likes
- 76
The cost is the additional space required for AIFF files since they're not compressed.
jk47
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Posts
- 459
- Likes
- 285
fwiw i've read that flac level 5 gives the optimum trade off between compression and computational burden. apparently higher levels are only slightly more compressed, but require much more computation to unpack and thus drain battery life.
chawya22
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2004
- Posts
- 715
- Likes
- 76
But the OP mentioned iTunes which doesn't support FLAC. The other option would be ALAC which is compressed and supported in iTunes.
mwhals
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2015
- Posts
- 3,295
- Likes
- 2,184
All my music is coded as FLAC level 5 compression. I also have it all in iTunes as ALAC.
Gurashieruro
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Posts
- 688
- Likes
- 99
Since both FLAC and AIFF are both lossless, their "resolution quality" will be exactly the same. However, what makes them different is their workload on the CPU. Since, as it was already said, FLACs are compressed lossless, the CPU is required to unpack the information and then translate the audio stream. As stated, FLAC Comp. Level 5 is the best compromise for today's standard.
What about if the compression is too high for the CPU? There is still no degradation of resolution quality but the lags and stutters will occur within the data stream as the processor is unable to handle the workload. Kind of like stuffing 100 cars that require 5 lines to move smoothly down a 1 lane road. No data is lost but there will be a definite studder when the buffer becomes filled.
If you have the space, convert all the FLAC to AIFF. While I believe the QP1R's CPU should be able to easily handle compression, as I have FLACs and no AIFF, the conversions will relieve any kinds of worries you have. Processors now and days are quite powerful and can handle some pretty heavy compressions. On a side note, since I don't own any AIFF, does the format (AIFF) support tags and metadata like FLAC does?
What about if the compression is too high for the CPU? There is still no degradation of resolution quality but the lags and stutters will occur within the data stream as the processor is unable to handle the workload. Kind of like stuffing 100 cars that require 5 lines to move smoothly down a 1 lane road. No data is lost but there will be a definite studder when the buffer becomes filled.
If you have the space, convert all the FLAC to AIFF. While I believe the QP1R's CPU should be able to easily handle compression, as I have FLACs and no AIFF, the conversions will relieve any kinds of worries you have. Processors now and days are quite powerful and can handle some pretty heavy compressions. On a side note, since I don't own any AIFF, does the format (AIFF) support tags and metadata like FLAC does?
English... A language lost in translation....Sigh...
16/44.1 vs 24/96 etc......or whatever. Then we have DSD in whatever flavor 64/128/256......
Gurashieruro
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Posts
- 688
- Likes
- 99
What do you mean? I assumed the question was "Is there any difference in terms of audio fidelity between FLAC and AIFF". Unless if I missed something.
I was trying to make a point about higher resolution files, not try and compare different uncompressed formats.Somehow it moved over to a FLAC vs. AIFF conversation. Of course, then you compare different mastering sessions and you can have another variable to consider there as well.
The main thing is if someone is going to make a comment about the sound quality of a piece of gear, the being as specific as possible with what tracks you listened to is also very instructive to the reader.
I hope that makes sense...
Eric
The main thing is if someone is going to make a comment about the sound quality of a piece of gear, the being as specific as possible with what tracks you listened to is also very instructive to the reader.
I hope that makes sense...
Eric
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Posts
- 92
- Likes
- 16
Exactly what I want to know
Specifically when both formats are available with the same bit rate, which to choose
Gurashieruro
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Posts
- 688
- Likes
- 99
If I answered your question, then glad I was able to do so.
I guess a simple way of describing it is FLACs are like zip files, or any compression formats. They contain the same bits as a file/folder that is uncompressed except that the decompression must take place before accessing the data. While FLACs are a compression lossless format, I think you can keep it as a FLAC Compression None/0 and it will perform the same as an AIFF. I would need someone more intelligent on the matter for the answer to that question.
Jim, do you know if AIFF has the same metadata abilities as FLAC does. Its the main reason why I have my tracks in FLAC and not AIFF or some form of uncompressed lossless.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Posts
- 92
- Likes
- 16
Yes my AIFF files show album art on the QP1R
Users who are viewing this thread
