AIFF vs Apple Lossless Ripping

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? ;-)

I am not a respected listener - I make no claims to golden ears at all.

I have tested redbook CD versus Apple Lossless (burned from said CD with error correction on) using a Toslink remote switcher (so without getting up from the listening chair).

I could not hear a difference - I tested about 30 tracks various types of music. I was using iTunes 9.01 - obviously a bug in a certain version of iTunes might cause errors - so my comments only apply to the version I tested and on a Mac Mini using Leopard latest operating system (but not Snow Leopard).

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.