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
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.
rabco OP
49 posts
 
Restock,
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!
sidssp
1,077 posts
 
Rabco, If there is no theoretical advantage in converting, why do you think AIFF files have more information?
rabco OP
49 posts
 
Sidssp,
I was under the impression that ripping a cd into AIFF results in a larger data file (more information), than ripping a cd into Lossless. Smaller file, less information, despite the Lossless name.

I wasn't sure I understood why you would want to convert Lossless (smaller file) into a "larger" file format--AIFF.

Seems to me if you're going to do anything, it's get the larger file in the first place, if its really sonically superior.

Or am I confused and don't know it? ;-)
More to discover