What format do you have your digital files in?

uglymusic

I have nearly all AIFF because I understand this is 'raw' PCM (as is WAV), but there are advantages to having ALAC (Apple Lossless) files in that apps like Bliss can manipulate the files' metadata.

I also think I can hear a marginal improvement in the sound of AIFF over ALAC.

Where do you stand and why?

Docfoster

FLAC.
Cos I was told and I believed it.
I convert to high bit rate MP3 for iPhone. Probably not the best, but it works for me.

uglymusic

OK. So you're in the 'lossless compression' camp - FLAC~ALAC.

Have you tried WAV?

Brain_Dead

Hi I tried lots and found FLAC and WAV sounded better to me but the analog on the vinyl was far better it felt alive and not just a reflection. I even preferred 8 Track with the noise to digital lies.

But FLAC and WAV from the digital lies selection sounded better than most.

There you go analog is analog but the digital lies bandits cant even find a standard that is correct.

Sorry rant over need coffee

Alan

I use AIFF, for much the same reasons as Dave states. I seem to recall AIFF was recommended in the Computer Audiophile ripping methodology, which I followed carefully when getting into computer audio.

I have since read that WAV sounds marginally better than AIFF (although many do not believe this), and I may have converted my music library to WAV on the strength of this, except WAV has poor metadata support.

Interestingly, ALAC is no longer locked into Apple and is capable of exactly the same results as AIFF, so I would expect no difference between them. AIFF is an old format that is not supported anymore, while ALAC is a current format so I shall likely have to make a change sometime.

uglymusic

Hi I tried lots and found FLAC and WAV sounded better to me but the analog on the vinyl was far better it felt alive and not just a reflection. I even preferred 8 Track with the noise to digital lies.

But FLAC and WAV from the digital lies selection sounded better than most.

There you go analog is analog but the digital lies bandits cant even find a standard that is correct.

Sorry rant over need coffee

What about those analogue lies, Col? Those ones where vinyl users convince themselves they have a closed system with no losses and distortions along the way? :-)

uglymusic

I use AIFF, for much the same reasons as Dave states. I seem to recall AIFF was recommended in the Computer Audiophile ripping methodology, which I followed carefully when getting into computer audio.

I have since read that WAV sounds marginally better than AIFF (although many do not believe this), and I may have converted my music library to WAV on the strength of this, except WAV has poor metadata support.

Interestingly, ALAC is no longer locked into Apple and is capable of exactly the same results as AIFF, so I would expect no difference between them. AIFF is an old format that is not supported anymore, while ALAC is a current format so I shall likely have to make a change sometime.

Re CARM: I think he does recommend AIFF. I follow my own version of it, ending up with a FLAC archive and an AIFF playable file.

As both WAV and AIFF are raw PCM, the 'WAV sounds better' brigade are surely arguing that the metadata is affecting the sound. Unlikely, unless the software they're using for playback is doing something very bizarre.

Where did you get the idea that AIFF is an old format?

Alan

AIFF was developed in 1998, it is 'vintage' in a sense (as is wav, both are only inyteresting to audio geeks and professionals). ALAC is more recent and is supported and used by apple, AIFF doesn't seem to figure at all anymore, not officially at least.

The clincher is the fact that ALAC recently went open source. That means the standard format for the worlds largest music store (iTunes), which is also compatible on the most ubiquitous music players (iPods) can now be used on all sorts of devices and by all sorts of users. Think of the implications, I would be surprised if even FLAC survives in the end.

So AIFF is old, rarely used, not pushed by its owner but still locked down by licensing... it's basically irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. ALAC does nearly the same thing anyway and many audiophiles use it now (it is losslessly compressed rather than losslessly uncompressed - like FLAC generally is).

I see no reason to go ALAC, nor any reason not to, but so long as they both remain compatible I shall use AIFF. I play my second system from my FLAC backups and that works fine. I'd only want to change format if there was a real SQ difference.

uglymusic

AIFF was developed in 1998, it is 'vintage' in a sense (as is wav, both are only inyteresting to audio geeks and professionals). ALAC is more recent and is supported and used by apple, AIFF doesn't seem to figure at all anymore, not officially at least.

The clincher is the fact that ALAC recently went open source. That means the standard format for the worlds largest music store (iTunes), which is also compatible on the most ubiquitous music players (iPods) can now be used on all sorts of devices and by all sorts of users. Think of the implications, I would be surprised if even FLAC survives in the end.

So AIFF is old, rarely used, not pushed by its owner but still locked down by licensing... it's basically irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. ALAC does nearly the same thing anyway and many audiophiles use it now (it is losslessly compressed rather than losslessly uncompressed - like FLAC generally is).

I see no reason to go ALAC, nor any reason not to, but so long as they both remain compatible I shall use AIFF. I play my second system from my FLAC backups and that works fine. I'd only want to change format if there was a real SQ difference.

I don't think I read the AIFF situation in the same way as you do.

AIFF is read by the most popular playback software in the world, and I'm not sure that the age of the format is that relevant. How long have .txt format files around? They're not on the way out.

The compressed formats used to be good when storage was expensive. They're now relevant from a downloading POV. But, from a hi-fi enthusiast with a big RAID NAS POV, why compress?

I don't think AIFF will die anytime soon.

Docfoster

I understand that a lot of this jibber-jabber is about Apple things...?
Using JRiver on a PC (TFS) as I do, what's the down side of FLAC? I use it cos Jason recommended it to me (on pain of torture) for CD ripping. Also, I notice music downloads tend to be in this. I've used WAV a few times when converting Audacity recorded LPs. Sounded fine to me, though never done any back to back comparisons with FLAC. May be I should...
Dave, why do you insist in injecting these seeds of doubt into a momentarily quiet mind...?
%-(

uglymusic

WAV has a downside to it, AFAIK. That's the problem with metadata. Apparently different apps handle it in different ways and you can find it all disappearing from your files.

There's no such metadata problem with FLAC, so many people - as I imagine Jason did - recommend FLAC for an easy life. 

The problem with FLAC and ALAC lies with them not being raw PCM. Some people in the recording industry, I've noticed, seem to think this leads to sonic degradation. 

Personally, I'd like to see the metadata tools made available to work on AIFF automatically, the way you can on ALAC and FLAC. Apparently there's some kind of Open Source library that much of the software in this area is built on, and that doesn't support AIFF. And there lies the problem.

Docfoster

Ah, so WAV is literally a copy of what's on the disk...?

WAV has a downside to it, AFAIK.

AFAIK - 'Another F***ing Audiophile Inspired Kodec'? Not yet another one Dave, stop confusing things.
)

uglymusic

Ah, so WAV is literally a copy of what's on the disk...?

WAV has a downside to it, AFAIK.

AFAIK - 'Another F***ing Audiophile Inspired Kodec'? Not yet another one Dave, stop confusing things.
)

"Literally"... I smell a can of worms!

I'm as confused as the next man.

uglymusic

Here's a layman's guide to WAV.
)

Alan

FLAC is fine Ben, as is ALAC (very similar thing). FLAC can be altogether lossless uncompressed now, I don't know if ALAC can also?

I don't think AIFF will die, it will just become even more a minority use codec, like WAV already is. I can't see either doing a thing commercially though, especially now Apple are pushing ALAC.

Brain_Dead

Hi I tried lots and found FLAC and WAV sounded better to me but the analog on the vinyl was far better it felt alive and not just a reflection. I even preferred 8 Track with the noise to digital lies.

But FLAC and WAV from the digital lies selection sounded better than most.

There you go analog is analog but the digital lies bandits cant even find a standard that is correct.

Sorry rant over need coffee

What about those analogue lies, Col? Those ones where vinyl users convince themselves they have a closed system with no losses and distortions along the way? :-)

But Dave they are analog not here and gone in a zero or one, real analog lies sound nice. Ask the government and see. he he  :-B

uglymusic

FLAC is fine Ben, as is ALAC (very similar thing). FLAC can be altogether lossless uncompressed now, I don't know if ALAC can also?

I don't think AIFF will die, it will just become even more a minority use codec, like WAV already is. I can't see either doing a thing commercially though, especially now Apple are pushing ALAC.

ALAC can be decompressed to AIFF ( or WAV) like FLAC to WAV.

How are Apple promoting ALAC? I know they open sourced it, but I haven't seen anything else.

ItemAudio

Without rehashing what has become a contentious issue, let's just say that Pascal would have ripped to WAV in Windows, and AIFF on Mac.

If he was short of space on his backup drive, he might have archived to FLAC in Windows, and ALAC on Mac. Pascal would definitely have had a third backup to optical media.

The Seals (think US Navy, not photogenic pinniped) also offer useful advice: “Three is two; two is one; and one is none”. In the Scouts, their backup motto is: 'Be prepared”. Hard drive failure is a case of 'when' not 'if'.

Alan

Thanks Mark, that seems to correlate to Chris Connaker's advice.

I have my AIFF library, an FLAC backup on an external drive and my discs in the loft. I also have another FLAC backup on my NAS (where the library is - useless waste of space really. I should get up the nerve to delete it).

The thing that worries me when I occasionally consider it is having all the data on one site.

uglymusic

I've been doing some more reading on this, and the way I understand it, Audirvana does all the work on the files, then dumps that bitstream into RAM, so what we listen to is independent of the file format and the processing.

This could explain why, in the past, I've heard differences between FLAC and ALAC, but I'm no longer hearing them.

uglymusic

Thanks Mark, that seems to correlate to Chris Connaker's advice.

I have my AIFF library, an FLAC backup on an external drive and my discs in the loft. I also have another FLAC backup on my NAS (where the library is - useless waste of space really. I should get up the nerve to delete it).

The thing that worries me when I occasionally consider it is having all the data on one site.

I get Sam to take a set of backups on little pocket drives to work with her as an offsite backup. Maybe you could get a friend to store something for you. I'd be happy to do that, but you don't come my way very often.

Alan

Well, that can be easily adjusted! Is about 280GB on an external USB drive (FAT32) OK?

(Next year I will be fat 32..)

uglymusic

Sure. I can find some space on my shelf.

Two drives make best sense. Then one can be offsite and the other can be at your place ready for the next backup.

Alan

Thanks mate! I will let you know shortly. I just want to check if I can use server space at my mate's office first, which I visit often. If it all pans out I'll leave it there, and utilise his server too. Makes sense as it's closer and I pop in often.

uglymusic

Yup. The easier it is, the more likely you will do it.

ItemAudio

Thanks Mark, that seems to correlate to Chris Connaker's advice.

I have my AIFF library, an FLAC backup on an external drive and my discs in the loft. I also have another FLAC backup on my NAS (where the library is - useless waste of space really. I should get up the nerve to delete it).

The thing that worries me when I occasionally consider it is having all the data on one site.

Indeed: there seems to be an echo in here/online . . .

Alan

Indeed: there seems to be an echo in here/online . . .

Yeah, not like pfm... 

Docfoster

I have just noticed that JRiver MC18 to which I upgraded a couple of months ago is set to Monkey Audio APE as the default ripping format. Never heard of APE before. Tho' I have used Monkey Audio software in the past to convert FLAC files to MP3.
A little Googling tells me that APE is a lossless compression format (like FLAC) from which an identical copy of the original can be uncompressed. Apparently APE is a bit less compressed (?) than FLAC. And there my limit of understanding is passed.
I hadn't noticed that the few CDs that I have ripped in the past couple of months had been APE compressed (as opposed to FLAC to which previous MC editions had been set). Listening to Nik Bartsch 'Holon' ripped using APE moments ago, the APE version sounds fine. Impossible to make a direct comparison with FLAC without a FLAC alternative. And impossible to do that without losing a little bit of one's soul, I fear. If I get a spare while I may do so though.

Alan

I know what you mean Ben! Obsessing isn't a music lover's duty though, if there is a difference then the fact you haven't caught it yet indicates it is not worth worrying about. If I were you, I would crack open a beer and watch some rugby...

Monty

I'm using AIFF and use XLD to convert FLAC files to AIFF to use in iTunes.

Just downloaded the Peter Gabriel 'So' remaster in 24bit. I like the previous CD master better :0

uglymusic

How do the two compare? What's the weakness of the 24bit?

Alan

SO was B&W wasn't it? I let my membership lapse...

uglymusic

Not part of the free membership, if I remember rightly.

Alan

No, but I did a years worth, it lapsed in June/July this year. I thought I had heard SO came out on society of sound though.

uglymusic

I think it was discounted to SoS members. The free album was a live gig remastered as it was originally on DVD.

Monty

Hi 

Yes, got 'So' from Society Of Sound for £15. It comes free if you buy the box physical box set £115 !

I wouldn't say the 24bit was weak, but the CD version is a more forward sounding mix which sits better with me. 

uglymusic

No more information in the 24-bit?

I'll put my cards on the table. I'm not convinced that hi-res versions of old albums are always that good. But, at the same time, I'm surprised that B&W have put their name to a sub-standard reissue

Alan

I'm with you. A lot of recent hirez remasters have been 'hot', I preferred the the old CDs. I'm not buying much hirez at all now.

RobHolt

The vast majority of my collection is stored in Apple Lossless - about 95% of it.

The rest can be anything from 128 MP3 for spoken word to 24/192 uncompressed for the odd audiophile album or vinyl needle drop.

These days about 50% of my listening is on Spotify, so 320k and I find that's near as dammit close to 16/44.1 lossless as not to concern me.

Put it this way. I'd take a very slightly better mastering in lossy 320k over the standard one transcribed at 24/192 every time.

I subscribed to the B&W SOS for a while but tended to like the standard res files just as much as the high-res ones. Or should i say 'dislike' since I found most of the content not to my taste at all.

Rob

uglymusic

Now, how do I put this?

I find Spotify fine for listening to while I'm working, but it just doesn't stand up on the big rig. 

A good hi-res file is a wonderful thing, if you can find one.

Docfoster

I have some Marvin Gaye on hi-res. On that there are some crash cymbal strikes which are better than anything I've heard on redbook*, but other than that it's not great.
Similarly I have Hotel California and Band on The Run on hi-res. Neither of them blow me away, certainly I have CDs that sound better. On the other hand I have some hi-res Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald that is very nice on the ear.
As everyone is saying, there is more to the SQ than the bit rate of that final file on your PC/Apple.

*What an incredible audiophile arsehole I've become. Your influence Dave. ;-)

uglymusic

You make me so proud :-D