Best file type for ulitmate quality (iTunes)

I started with ALAC [Apple Lossless], and eventually went with AIFF [which works just as well in terms of tagging with iTunes], but seems to me to have a small but useful quality gain over ALAC.

How I found that out was an effort to compare ALAC with AIFF in an A/B comparison of rips from the same CD. I could find no advantage so did not persist. A few weeks later I ripped a CD of a recording only previously known from its LP issues. I was surprised how fine this rip seemed, and I found that I had ripped it in AIFF having neglected to change the ripping setting back to ALAC [in iTunes].

So I made another rip in ALAC, and then I found the small but useful advantage of AIFF.

Some people might not find the same difference, but it is worth doing the experiment. Once I had found the characteristic improvement in one recording I then converted the existing ALAC rips to AIFF, and found the same improvement. 

ALAC is lossless in that the same file can be burned to a new CD that was ripped from the original, and be bit-perfect. However ALAC is compressed in data by removing so called redundant information, which is recreated at the time of playing, thus costing more effort from the computer in the process, and this is in theory [as a way of explaining why some people can hear a difference] because it is supposed to bring a higher [analogue, electronic] noise ratio [compared to the signal] than the uncompressed AIFF files, which require very much less work from the computer to make a digital output.

Both formats are said to be bit-perfect.

The difference is marginal though I think useful in my case. 

AIFF files tend to be larger than ALAC because of this filleting out redundant information when the file is stored. If storage capacity is an issue, it may well be the case that the sonic advantage that some have found with AIFF is not worth the effort.

It is possible to convert to AIFF from ALAC [and WAV] at any time after the initial rip.

I hope that helps.

ATB from George 

Agree with George wrt the Apple options - but there are others.

FLAC is the 'open' equivalent of ALAC, being lossless and compressed, and WAV is lossless uncompressed. Many people think WAV sounds better than FLAC but there can be a few issues with tagging. Some of us therefore rip to FLAC (to get good tagging and smaller file sizes) and 'transcode' on the fly to WAV (for the marginal SQ improvement). Best of both worlds. But opinions vary.

What is most important is that you rip to a lossless format as your 'master' copy - FLAC, WAV, AIFF, ALAC, etc. That way, you can always change format later. If you also need a lossy version (AAC, MP3) then do a conversion but keep the lossless master copy. DBPoweramp gives you that option.

Hope this helps!

Yep AIFF is the way to go if you are using iTunes or the Mac platform.  Its uncompressed and lossless, so if you use this format it is possible to convert or transcode into other formats in the future if you need to (for example, if you decide to use a Windows based system in da future...)

Jude

Back then…

I am pretty sure AIFF predates WAV. Back in those days (late 80s) MS was more less copying everything Apple was doing just to catchup. Pity they missed the metadata extensions on the format.

Today…

Playing back an AIFF is as taxing to the computer as an ALAC is.

Why!? I hear you saying…

Well, most computers today are little endian. It would take less effort to read (say) 1 million bytes and add the missing ones, than to read and swap twice (or even three times) as many bytes.

So, from a purely workload point of view WAV is preferable (even on the Mac).

Considering WAV's sizes and issues with metadata, 

if you are using a mac I would recommend ALAC

if you are using a PC I would recommend FLAC

if you are using a Naim streamer, and space is not an issue, I would recommend WAV, because (I believe) Naim gear is little endian.

Little endian?

Please explain.

On a MAC I have found no difference [with iTunes] between WAV and AIFF except the tagging that is much less easy with WAV.

The best way out of a MAC to Naim is via USB to a DAC V1. To better this would be a totally Naim based system with an NDS. I have not yet heard an NDX sounding better than a V1 when it was driving a good amplifier/speaker chain.

ATB from George

Wikipedia has a description of big vs. little endian that may be informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness

Lewis

Apple Lossless (ALAC) audio files are approx. 40-50% smaller compared to AIFF or WAV which may be a consideration if you want to use the same files on a portable player and thus avoid having the same music in multiple formats. Personally I find no difference in sound quality between ALAC and FLAC formats and use ALAC because I have an iPod Classic 160GB.

Dave

Too flipping technical for me by the second line.

All I know is my ears tell me that in iTunes AIFF is marginally preferable to ALAC, and not different to WAV except for the tagging issue with WAV.

But another issue does occupy my mind.

I recently heard music from a fully mounted NDS driving active S800s with the current [pre-Statement ] topline Naim system.

Clearly more detailed, but not - for me - more musically communicative than my AIFF iTunes DAC  V! system.

Morre detailed, but not more musical, or enjoyable.

Perhaps the recordings themselves only require so much resolution from the replay to be convincing?

ATB from George

I think your point might be moot, as Apple has changed its implementation of AIFF in the OSX era. It is, in fact, little endian - like WAV.

Reference "AIFF on OSX" in the AIFF Wikipedia article: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...erchange_File_Format

Ahh... Eloise beat me to it. An AIFF file should be just as taxing as a WAV file, which with its metadata capabilities is why it remains my preference.  Storage is extremely cheap now, much less than processing power and additional memory; just go for AIFF.

An excellent point George and one I'd never considered.

Good point.

Interesting the iTunes team changed the format. (I wasn't aware of it, thanks)

P.S.  

Apple didn't move to little endian processors with OS X, but quite a bit later when they adopted the Intel chips. So it would be interesting to find out which version of iTunes introduced that.

Each never got worse than the last, and might actually have got better ...

AIFF and RIFF/WAV are about the same age, and the were born from the Electronic Arts IFF format developed  in the mid 80s.

AIFF like WAV can have different data encoding types, but traditionally standard WAV PCM samples were stored the other way round to AIFF standard PCM samples.

Essentially AIFF and WAV are similar file constructs with different internal file section headings (Chunks)

ALAC is not dissimilar to FLAC. They are both lossless file types, but internally they are quite different unlike AIFF and WAV.

if AIFF sounds better than ALAC, then it is most likely down to the additional decoding electrical noise / timing affecting your audio somehow just as others here find with WAV and FLAC. 

Theoretically with perfect systems all four formats should sound the same. Back in the real world it will vary from system to system.

Simon

When using the bare ND5XS i preferred using AIFF/WAV over ALAC as there was a noticeable improvement in quality when using the former . Since I've added an external DAC and use the streamer as a transport i can't tell the difference anymore , i now use ALAC . This must be down to the shared workload of streamer and DAC. 

I received an email from an ex well respected member of this parish with some useful information on this subject.

AIFF is not WAV - AIFF is the original invented by Electronic Arts for the Amiga computer. Apple adopted it because like everything for the Amiga is was way ahead of its time. WAVE is essentially Microsoft's version. 

ALAC most definitely does not throw away information, it just stuffs it in to a small container: a bit like sitting on a suitcase to get an extra jumper in. 

All three are 100% bit perfect as in FLAC. 

The same data comes out of Mac irrespective of which one use and into the DAC. Any difference heard is down to something not working properly and injecting garbage in to the system. Personally, i have never heard this, but I can't say it is not there. 

https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...46#44225914255408046

DSD is the best way to record music, but DSF the format I use creates enormous files, which is its downside. 

However, poor Lewis is being fed totally misleading information. I hope he ignores this and gets his system working. Bit Perfect doesn't matter Steve S and Tony M never play bit perfect files because they use Amara Symphony which changes the bits on the fly to adapt to their listening room. This is my long term plan. It is an Exakt on the cheap and the small experiments I did with with Audirvana tell me jt is a good way to go. 

Far far better than the NDS ��

I think Robert Johnson sounds better as AAC. My copy if King of the Delta Blues Singers had lots of hisses from the original. Using a lossy format kept the music and lost the hisses. Sounds better to me. Worth trying with less than perfect recordings. 

Thanks guys, although it must be said that I am now totally confused! 

My set up is UnitiQute and Linn Kans. I don't care how much space the files take up all I care about is acheiving optimum sound quality. I have recorded around 40 CDs this weekend using Apple lossless. Have to say, comparing the sound quality to the radio via the UQ it just doesn't sound as good. Can't put a finger on it, but music via the radio definitely sounds better. I am playing the music via a hard drive into the front of my UQ. I can only think that perhaps the file type I a, using isn't as good as it should be. The music will be saved in this hard drive so I don't need it to be compressed I just want it to sound excellent! I know the UQ is capable of great sound via streamed files but i just can't  feel I am not getting it at the moment (ooo errr!)

Steve, almost correct but not that it really matters unless you lived through it all like yours truly, the IFF file format was developed by Electronic Arts in 1985, and was used on the Amiga / Commodore consoles and personal computers at the time.

iIn 1988 Apple created the Audio Interchange File Format (AIFF) which used the same file structure as IFF but developed a defined subset of specific chunk types for audio.

In 1991 IBM and Microsoft created the Resource Interchange File Format (RIFF) again built on the IFF structure, but it was a flexible general purpose multimedia file format. WAV files were a subset of the RIFF format specifically for audio  created my Microsoft and it was the audio file format of the then new Windows 3.1.  I consider AIFF and WAV files essentially very similar although were developed by competing organisations from a common ancestor.

Simon

Lewis,

Its good to know your system.  I don't use a Qute and have no experience of it.  However, I am aware that Naim streaming prouducts such as the Qute prefer the WAV format.  

There are lots of folk on the forum that use streamers, so you may get a better response if you start another thread with an explicit title, something like ,'..... Best file format via USB in to Qute....'. Of course, you may now a get an answer on this thread. 

HTH

Jude

I know it’s strange but what you hear is not an illusion. On my UQ2 320k iradio streaming sounds better than ipod or outboard hd playback too. If your music files are ripped in Alac they will not do justice to your UQ2. It does not matter if UQ2 takes over DAC duty of your ipod. When you construct a digital music library on a Nas do not expect that SQ would improve magically if your files are still Alac. Been there, done that, learned in a hard way.

If you have recently started ripping your CDs I’d recommend that you use Aiff or Wav for the better. Space and other issues might involve (if you are a Mac user). There is a lot of useful guidance here how to establish a proper streaming system from the get go.  

Ok thank you.  I understand they will not sound as good from an iPod as it's compressed, but uncompressed from an external HD it should sound as good as CD.  So basically I need to use AIFF or a WAV format to get what I want in terms of sound quality?  The sound is fine currently, but it's not quite the Naim sound.  By that I mean, it's so good that it makes you want to listen to your entire CD collection and re-visit everything.  That's how it was when I bought my Olive system, I was amazed!

God it took hours to do just the 40 CD's, but at least I am not 200 in when I found this out!

Thanks Jude.  So as above it needs to be AIFF or WAV then.  Should i check anything else when burning?  Like Khz etc?  I am a newb so forgive the question if it's a dumb ass one!