WAV vs. AIFF

Don't use wav. It does not hold tags and will bite you later. Wait till you have 20,000 songs (I have 26,000 in apple lossless) and want to put them on a new computer/server. Use AIFF if it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling.... Lossless sounds the same to me (mac mini, Dac1).

PS. IPhones make a great remote for iTunes!!!

I have been using my mac mini for about 2 years as my main musical source (all transports GONE :) I did very heavy comparisons of AAC/WAV/AIFF and m4a(Apple lossless) my findings are that while Apple Lossless is very very good, you lose some air and overall dimensionality of the music seems to suffer. I do not use Apple Lossless for my home system, but it is what I use on my iPod touch and on my portable HDD for the car...etc. I keep redundant copies of my music (an A.L. and AIFF version) because HDD space is very very cheap these days.

Now WAV is very good, but after a lot of testing I found that WAV files generated by iTunes (this was iTunes 8.x, not 9 (can't remember the exact version)) do not seem to sound as good as AIFF. I then used a program called MAX which is very very good for doing all kinds of musical file conversions and found that the WAV files and AIFF were virtually indistinguishable.

Currently as stated above I use AIFF, primarily because iTunes tags everything for me. I would say they are about equal but I would NOT use iTunes to create my WAV files. I use a Meitner Bidat for DA duties and the sound is ... :)

I have been told that Apple Lossless sounds just like uncompressed files (even one of the so-called golden stereophile guys claimed this a few years back). I believe the people making the claim believe that, it may be the limitation of their system or their ears, but I can definitely hear the difference. Now in the car...I don't care, I am just passively listening to the music as I also listen to engine when down shifting into 3rd but I digress! Happy Listening!!!

I have been told that Apple Lossless sounds just like uncompressed files (even one of the so-called golden stereophile guys claimed this a few years back). I believe the people making the claim believe that, it may be the limitation of their system or their ears, but I can definitely hear the difference.

I certainly don't claim to be an expert and have no problem being corrected, but Apple Lossless isn't a compressed file, from what I understand. The music is simply stored another way that takes less space. If this being so, the only reason I could see a difference in sound, if there is, is the way one's gear converts it vs. other formats because all the same info is there.

It absolutely is compressed (think about it, if it were not, it would be the same size as the original) BUT..every bit which is removed is replaced when it is played back unlike lossy compression inwhich files never return to the original state and are forever molested. So why might there be a difference in sound? The most obvious reason would be the increased processing which needs to be performed on the file in order to restore it to the original uncompressed format.

It is subtle but it comes across as a reduction in the relaxed nature of the musical presentation. As I stated earlier, when ;istening the car, I am not privy to the effect, but in either of my 2 home systems, I can (on most songs) readily identify the lossless file. I have some songs which I was absolutely unable to hear a difference, but not many. I suggest you perform a head to head test and determine for yourself. It is interesting, one thing is certain, Apple did a really good job with their compression algorithm, but for ultimate fidelity...uncompressed all the way.

It absolutely is compressed (think about it, if it were not, it would be the same size as the original) BUT..every bit which is removed is replaced when it is played back unlike lossy compression inwhich files never return to the original state and are forever molested.

Agreed. My bad in not stating myself better. There is compression where data is stripped and gone forever, which I believe is most peoples view of compression, and then there is "compression" whereby the data is stored in a manner that takes less space to store yet all the information is still fully there, such as Apple Lossless.

So why might there be a difference in sound? The most obvious reason would be the increased processing which needs to be performed on the file in order to restore it to the original uncompressed format.

It is subtle but...

This is where I believe some "may" get differing results from another and all the debates. Where not every system performs this processing the same, some gear may process the Apple Lossless back better than others. (This is purely speculation on my part.)

I suggest you perform a head to head test and determine for yourself.

I have and heard no difference. This is what causes all the debates. Those that hear a difference speculate that those who don't have a system that can't resolve it and those that don't hear any differnce specualte why others believe they do.

There is a lot to digital and after all these years there are still things being learned.

Here is something I took from the B&W site:

What is lossless?
Lossless audio files have not been subject to data compression such as mp3, which reduces file sizes by omitting significant quantities of information about the recorded sound. As such the sound quality is identical to that of a commercial CD.

What is Apple Lossless Compression?
Apple Lossless Compression (ALC) reduces the file size of music without skipping any sound information. When the audio is played back from ALC format it is re-encoded to WAV, which is the file format that CDs store music as.