|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
131.107.0.102
In Reply to: For the audiophiles looking for convenience? posted by MJC on February 21, 2007 at 13:34:46:
AIFF is uncompressed similar to WAV with different byte order. Apple lossless is similar to FLAC in the sense that it is a lossless compression scheme but the encoding is completely different from Flac.There is no benefit of an uncompressed format over a lossless format since you can always decode a lossless compressed file back to the uncompressed original.
If you are set on itunes then Apple lossless sounds like a good choice.
Cheers
Follow Ups:
So AIFF should be as good as Apple Lossless? If yes, I guess the only thing to matter is which one would rip faster?
If I rip with AIFF and then want to change to Apple Lossless that can be done too, right?
Your time limiting factor will be the speed of the drive not the compression. As an additional benefit you can tag files with lossless compression. AIFF or WAV files usually do not carry any meta data so when you move around these files you don't know what they contain.The compression ratio for lossless compression is roughly 2-1 so you can store twice the number of CDs in the same space.
Cheers
AIFF will be faster. Lossless compression uses the computer's computation cycles to make a smaller archive of the tracks on the compact disk. So indeed Apple Lossless will take longer. You can then change AIFF to Apple Lossless with some sort of application (I don't know which one to recommend). Most people transcode to lossless compression overnight during sleep to save time. There's many ways to do what you need. Personally I prefer FLAC, but that's because I am a GNU/Linux-Windows geek.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: