AIFF or FLAC?

I use FLAC exclusively. Sounds as good as wav to me and easier to use as its almost universal and supports tags. AIFF is Mac codec only I think.

~
Based on my limited understanding of things, I've chosen to rip my collection to AIFF. I'm Mac-based, and AIFF could easily be converted back to another format if required.

FLAC needs to be decoded/decompressed along the way, a potential source of issues. AIFF is an uncompressed format similar to WAV, but unlike WAV also has the benefit of supporting metadata and cover art.

Although I too have a PWDac, I've opted not to go with the Bridge and Elyric; I've heard about too many troubles with both, so I feed my PWD with a Mac Mini. I've been using iTunes for years, and didn't want to learn a new library.

With my system, I do sometimes hear a difference between WAV and AIFF on some recordings, but have decided that it's not enough of a difference to sacrifice metadata and the ease-of-use in iTunes/PureMusic.

I guess there is no easy answer at this point. A lot depends on your system, your own ears, and the amount of effort you're willing to put in, but if it helps at all.... I went with AIFF.

If you use iTunes for both library management and playback, you need to stick with AIFF. iTunes cannot play FLAC files.

If you are willing to use a 3rd party playback software, then FLAC is the way to go for storage and ease of use. Both Audirvana + and Pure Music use iTunes for library management, even though iTunes isn't acutally the playback software. They do this by creating "pointer files" (my term) that look as if they're in iTunes but actually reside on your HD.

This would be my preferred route if using a Mac.

Chris at computeraudiophile years ago had me use AIFF when I went to a computer based source,YMMV,Bob