AIFF vs Apple Lossless Ripping

AIFF files do not have "more information" than lossless, there is no "missing information" in a lossless file, hence the name lossless. The data is there, it just compressed similar to a zipped data file. As stated, you can convert back and forth with no loss or errors.

Some people claim they can hear a difference and attribute this to the process of decoding the lossless file as the music is playing. I agree you should convert some and give it a listen to decide whether it is worth the effort.

Probably no theoretical advantage in converting Lossless to AIFF, as the source material done first in AIFF would be a larger file (more "information", audible or not).
If the missing data made a difference I could hear (an improvement), I'd consider re-ripping the collection. It certainly wouldn't be the first time!

As Herman stated - there is no missing information. Think of it as compacing something in a zip file and then unzipping it. You could compare the unzipped file to the original bit for bit and not find a difference.

Anyway, if you go over to Computerasylum you will find many comments from people that did find a difference and pretty much everyone is attributing it to the real time unzipping as the data send do your DAC is in PCM format. For WAV/AIFF there is no conversion at all, so no additional processes when playing, thus a possible advantage.

Nevertheless for your stored files you can simply convert the files back from Lossless to AIFF and it should be identical to an original AIFF file if you compare bit for bit.

I have always wondered about the file differences. I have used AppleLossless because it was suggested here, but, what about WAV or FLAC files? Are they any better than the AIFF or AppleLossless?

I am about to start digitizing my vinyl and I am wondering what files will have the best fidelity, or do I just do it all AppleLossless as I have my CD's?

good string, btw, excellent info.

If in doubt stick to AIFF or WAVs when ripping. Then you will be able to rest peacefully. These days hard drives are large and cheap so why bother with the compression process?

If you want to fit more on your ipod, why not open a folder and put compressed versions in there?

The advantage of AIFF over WAV on a mac is that it keeps the meta data safe. Otherwise they both sound the same as long as the sample rate is correct.

The advantage of AIFF over WAV on a mac is that it keeps the meta data safe. Otherwise they both sound the same as long as the sample rate is correct.

This is a good point and cannot be stressed enough. I would strongly encourage choosing AIFF over WAV on a Mac, based on my own experiences. You will save yourself a whole lot of hassles in the long run, especially if you ever need to restore your files, copy files, or want to add artwork to your existing files.

As far as which is superior...let your own ears be the judge. I have heard differences in file types, especially when comparing files ripped in EAC to those ripped in iTunes (the former sounded better and I could pick it out blind repeatedly). Can't explain it. Don't give a rats ass whether it's bit-for-bit identical - the two files sounded different to me, and that's what matters to me. Alas, I don't use a PC thought so I still rip to AIFF in iTunes. To determine whether you can hear any differences yourself, and if those differences mean enough to you to convert your files, I'd suggest you make your own judgments rather than relying on the ears of others. Try it on a few of your favorite files and do some listening. You might save yourself a whole lot of time converting.