WAV vs. AIFF

tbg, why maximum avoidance of error correction with WAV?

Too get the best read???

So in your experience not using error correction when ripping CDs to a HD or server results in a better read? My reason for asking is that I'm about to rip some CDs to my MAC. I was planning on using AIFF with error correction. Your post has me rethinking that or perhaps trying it both ways.

Clio09, although I have much experience with Window ripping, I have always been a Mac user. But my Exemplar Music Server uses Windows. As weird as ripping to a hard-drive is, I can only suggest that you try it both ways.

I have done extensive listening tests on rippers, ripping specs and options and playback software comparing WAV vs. AIFF vs. FLAC......hours of testing....hours upon hours as I was convinced WAV or AIFF has to sound better since it has no compression. (techincally, they should ALL sound identical since they are bit perfect at the output, but I wanted to test it to make sure)

Reality: FLAC sounds no different than either WAV or AIFF. WAV is a pain in the a** to deal with as it does not hold tags, sounds no different and takes more space than FLAC. AIFF is like WAV but it can hold tags. Reality is there is no reason to use WAV or AIFF....if you Must use WAV or AIFF, use AIFF....it holds tags. But you should really just use FLAC.