FLAC, WAV or AIFF question

I started with my entire CD library ripped to wav; sounded better than FLAC for local hard drive play. However once you try to stream music WAV sucks big time for meta data tagging and no sound difference versus streaming lossless FLAC; all mys music is now FLAC. Since AIFF is an Apple only, evil empire format I'll never use it...

For myself, I download WAV because I think it sounds better than FLAC. Once I have the files on my hard drive, I transcode to FLAC and MP-3. From there, I put the WAV files on a backup HD, so if there's ever a problem, I can go back to them and start over. This way, you don't have to make any sacrifices.

Thank you all for your responses. This is very helpful since I'd like to try some downloads from sound liaison.

I am concerned with sound quality and so after listening and comparing wav was my choice. Many of us tend to make these choices based on the current state of our systems which at this stage may not be revealing enough to show up the differences. Even so, I'd listen and decide for myself.

I would also add too that how you rip, including what software you rip with along with how optimized your computer is, is critically important too. Believe me, it's painful to find out your errors after you have ripped over 6k cds. IME, some of these overlooked details can bring as much dividends as major component upgrades.

Hew, very true. We need bitperfect rips.

For Mac, free app XLD guarantees bitperfect ripping, and points out errors if they occur. Sometimes cleaning the CD will correct errors found during rips.

Davide, AIFF is Apple created, but not really Apple-only, since most software programs will recognize it. Although I appreciate any "empire-crushing sentiment", when ripping my library I found that AIFF was a better compromise because of having family members who are Apple enthusiasts, apple-friendly car stereo etc. AIFF let me stay with lossless sonics and less conversions to do when sharing with family on or off shared network. Cheers,

Spencer