[Head Injury]

Quote:

Just use AIFF. Uncompressed lossless with support for artworks and ID tags =)

Who should use AIFF? And why?
 
Freeze should if his F1 supports it but not compressed lossless. No one else should.

 

[uelover]

Quote:

Who should use AIFF? And why?
 
Freeze should if his F1 supports it but not compressed lossless. No one else should.

Lol should is a very strong word.
 
I for one rips everything to AIFF.

 

[anetode]

Given your avatar pic, I'm not surprised.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Lol should is a very strong word.
 
I for one rips everything to AIFF.

Why though?

 

[keanex]

Freeze, burning a DVD as a data disc is bad in the first place, which is what I said. 
 
Also, man that sucks to have that much Wav. Must be fun finding things.

 

[Freeze]

dont think my head unit in my car reads aiff never tried
 
how is burning wavs as data bad, sounds perfect to me. If a 2000 dollar player cant read data off a disc right thatd be sad
 
and its easy file path goes <artist>/<album>/files named (track #)-(artist)-(track title).wav
 
mediamonkey sort files by filepath
 
boom everything in order and alphabetical  not hard tro find stuff
 
didnt know it took a genius to figure out how to sort things without tags

 

[TheAwesomesauceShow]

Wait.....music files are not data???????

 

[JamesMcProgger]

Quote:

dont think my head unit in my car reads aiff never tried
 
how is burning wavs as data bad, sounds perfect to me. If a 2000 dollar player cant read data off a disc right thatd be sad
 
and its easy file path goes <artist>/<album>/files named (track #)-(artist)-(track title).wav
 
mediamonkey sort files by filepath
 
boom everything in order and alphabetical  not hard tro find stuff
 
didnt know it took a genius to figure out how to sort things without tags

I have foobar set up to automatically re-allocate and rename everything like this
 
<artist>/<year> <album>/<track number> <track name>
 
year of the album and track number makes the whole difference if you decide to organize it alphabetically.

 

[zigy626]

Flac vs Wav not much difference in it. But a lot of difference between Apple Lossless and Wav. Apple lossless sounds so dull compared to the .wav format. 
 
Personally I am encoding everything in .wav knowing that if I had to get rid of my CD collection I can. Since .wav is an uncompressed format I know I can rebuild my Hard copy CD's if I choose to do so in the future. For listening personally I did not find any difference between a flac and wav file. Which is surprising as flac is a compressed format although be it lossless but then Apple is lossless is as well. But the big difference is that Flac is higher bit rate than the Apple lossless.
 
I am moving more and more away from iTunes as my interest in Music grows. No way will I buy anything on iTunes if I can get higher bit rate 320kbps from Spotify. For a true Audiophile iTunes is useless. And I really want to download music then I would go to Linn records to download true hi def music at 24/192. The first time I heard 24/192 it was a wow moment. No CD can come close to that kind of hi-def music as CD' are of much lower resolution 16//44khz.
 
Have heard the LP's are as good as hi-def music but dont have any way of finding out. But if you really want to hear a difference in your music and have a DAC that can handle 24/192khz try it. You will be amazed I wish all music would be that high quality. CD's are not the last word when it comes to high quality music far from it.  

 

[mich41]

http://www.head-fi.org/t/650804/is-apple-lossless-real-lossless

http://www.head-fi.org/t/650804/is-apple-lossless-real-lossless#post_9155654

 

[nodoubt]

i just got into this few months ago, and i cant for the life of me get my flac files to sound as good as my wav files.
ripping in db poweramp
sorry to bump this old of a thread, but it came up on google.

 

[71 dB]

And I really want to download music then I would go to Linn records to download true hi def music at 24/192. The first time I heard 24/192 it was a wow moment. No CD can come close to that kind of hi-def music as CD' are of much lower resolution 16//44khz.

For ears 16/44.1 has as much resolution as 24/192. 16/44.1 is all you need, because your ears can't use the extra dynamic or frequencies. You are not a bat. The difference of 24 bit and 16 bit music files is noise at extreme low level. People don't hear the difference. It's all marketing and placebo. 16/44.1 is all we need. It's already perfect for human ears. No more "resolution" needed.

 

[bigshot]

i just got into this few months ago, and i cant for the life of me get my flac files to sound as good as my wav files.

Try doing a blind test. I can be sure that you aren't doing that.

 

[nodoubt]

dont have to...
everything ive a-b listened to sounds better on wav files, whatever the music is
no headphones i should of state that.
just a good hi-fi set up with a good dac.
i did try a few at the max settings on flac, o% compression, and they are too close to call.
guess ill do all of them that way in the future.
file size ends up exactly the same as wav when done that way though...

 

[bigshot]

No doubt that you are experiencing expectation bias. Once FLAC is decoded, it is identical to WAV. Bit perfect in fact. If you are hearing a difference, either your equipment has trouble playing FLAC or your perception is naturally human. I doubt your equipment is the problem, unless you're using an ancient computer that can barely play sound at all.