FLAC, WAV or AIFF question

Goofy,

Audirvana+ latest versions: 2.1 and later 2.2. When Damien introduced version 2.1, he built in major database functionality that now allows for control of your library without running in the "iTunes Integrated mode". Without iTunes running the sound quality improvement is large! Now there is a good interface so most users won't miss the iTunes navigation.
Many users still have their Audirvana running version 1.5, and I suggest they upgrade. There are a couple of discussion threads on computeraudiophile.com discussing improvement suggestions (many already implemented) etc. The A+ designer reads those threads regularly if you run into any issues or want to suggest something for the future. Cheers,
Spencer

Yes Spencer, I agree but I didn't realize that V was for version. Anyhow, the new A+ (and there was just an upgrade a couple of days ago) is better than the 1.5 version however, it was possible to drop a list from iTunes into the A+ 1.5 menu and run A+ alone.
The sound of the newer A+ is slightly better than that of the 1.5 so I also recommend the upgrade but found that once I downloaded V2, that I also needed Yate.

I went with FLAC. Open source standard that can also be converted if need be. I’m not big on proprietary formats. Using something like EAC (Exact Audio Copy) you can make bit perfect lossless compressed copies for use virtually anywyere. If you want pristine bit-for-bit duplicates that don’t take up drive space needlessly, it’s the way to go.

Apple prejudices aside, I believe that AIFF gives equally good quality to WAV but with the huge advantage of including metadata.

Having ripped around a 1000 of my own CDs in AIFF, you don’t even want to think of the mess that WAV can create in term of organizing your collection.