What's your favorite audio codec?

Why would anyone want to compress files more? Well, to save hard drive space obviously, and to be able to use tagging, integrity checksums and so on. I've written extensively about this in another thread so I won't go into it again. :)

Short version: lossless compression does not in any way alter the sonics of a file. It can easily be proven as well, and I've done so in the other thread on compression just a few weeks ago.

I personally will buy more storage if it meant improving sonics since it is so cheap, so moot point. Unless your worried about space on an iPod itself or other portable player. This is the very reason I like ALAC. Although in my trials I could not hear any difference between FLAC AND ALAC, if you can you're a better ear than me. Although I feel I heard better with WAV, could be in my head.

Anyway, I have no interest in worrying about compressing my audio files more on my home system, particularly where I have a TB of space.I worry about space-saving for music that travels, which is only worthy of headphones anyway.

Apple Lossless is as good if not better than all you swear are the better here in this thread, sorry to say. I am well versed on the subject as well, and I work very closely with this technology. Also in case you weren't aware, I have a USB DAC with a tubed output, so all my music is HDD based, all ALAC, with error correction, and it sounds better than the actual CD on a Meridian G08 CD player. Go figure...

AAC 128 is darn good...AAC 256 is almost undetectable from uncompressed CD quality, IMHO

07-19-07: Shadorne
AAC 128 is darn good...AAC 256 is almost undetectable from uncompressed CD quality, IMHO

On a portable player, yes (I use 224 AAC on my iPod when not using Apple Lossless for well-recorded stuff), but on a music server played through a hi-end home system, discernable 100 out of 100 times easily. That's the problem; a resolving dedicated home system can spot lossy compression a mile away.

S-VHS looked great on a 19" monitor, but on my 110" Stewart screen it was basically unwatchable.

I have to agree with Osgorth here. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying Jc51373, and I think you may have been mislead.

ALAC is not 1:1, it is lossless compression, just like FLAC or Monkey's. (That's why it's called Apple Lossless Audio Codec, like FLAC is called Free Lossless Audio Codec). WAV and AIFF are uncompressed. However, all lossless compression is MATHEMATICALLY IDENTICAL to uncompressed audio. That means that WAV sounds EXACTLY like ALAC which sounds EXACTLY like FLAC which sounds EXACTLY like Monkey's. So the only difference between these is encoding speed (how quickly your computer can convert the file into ALAC or FLAC or whatever) and size.

This being said, why wouldn't you go for the smallest lossless compression? It's smaller, and still sounds IDENTICAL to the original WAV. ALAC already compresses, but just not as well as FLAC. Sure storage space may be cheap, but it's not free. Lossless compression will save you a lot of money and will still sound exactly like the CD.

There is absolutely no difference in how WAV sounds compared with lossless compression.