2. pc-audio
  3. 1255365659

AIFF vs Apple Lossless Ripping

I have a large music collection that I have ripped using Apple Lossless and error correction turned on. I have recently seen several postings saying that AIFF (with error correction turned on)is the way to go. Would anyone care to address the superiority of AIFF vs Lossless, and if possible, explain why one would potentially be better than the other? And, if AIFF results in a larger file, approximately how much larger (percentage). I'm trying to decide if it's worthwhile to re-rip a 1400 cd collection.
rabco
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,150 posts
 
It's not worth the effort to re-rip. Apple Lossless is supposed to be sonically equal to AIFF, although some golden ears report very slight to slight differences. Other respected listeners report no differences that they can discern. An Apple Loseless file is somewhere around 50-60% the size of the equivalent AIFF file.

I ripped my files using AIFF because I couldn't find a compelling reason to do otherwise.
rabco OP
49 posts
 
Thanks, Onhwy61.
I thought I had researched this several years ago, and the prevailing opinion seemed to be no aural difference. I probably have the storage space available.....but it took me about 3 months to re-rip the last time I did, eliminating mp3's & converting everything to Lossless.
One downside, I suppose, altho for me not completely overiding, is it would result in fewer songs on my Nano, due to file size.....
restock
831 posts
 
Rabco, you can simple convert the Lossless back to AIFF without loss (no need to re-rip your collection). You could try re-ripping a few and try a checksum on the file and it should be identical.

Most of the differences (if at all) between AIFF and Lossless seem to come from the on the fly conversion from Lossless into PCM on streaming a file, the additional noise introduced etc.
More to discover