FLAC vs. AIFF: Any Difference?

Currently my lossless collection is nearing 2TB, and keeps growing. I need the extra compression there.

I also have no iTunes requirement and FLAC plays nicely with my main software applications that I use. As you alluded to, subjective as each person's setup will be different.

 

Actually, I have heard the difference before, but the reason is unclear.

The current thinking is that the extra work the CPU needs to do to unpack lossless files in real time causes additional noise in the system that degrades sound quality.

No one has ever claimed that uncompressing an ALAC or FLAC file produces different sound quality, it seems to be the extra CPU work that uncompressing on the fly requires.

 

The latest version of iTunes continues to support PDF. It's used for digital booklets in the iTunes Store for example and you can also easily add your own PDFs (you may need to set their media type to "Music" manually). They will appear next to the songs from an album if you enter the appropriate metadata

They're related in so far as they can – and usually do – use the same container format, i.e. MP4. Thus you can't necessarily tell from a file that has a .m4a name extension, whether it's lossless or not until you look at the actual codec used for the audio data stored inside of it. Which is sometimes used as an argument against ALAC by proponents of FLAC.

 

The file sizes should give one a clue as well.

 

Cheeky.

 

I don't understand this comment. I have 2,000 albums in AIFF format that have been ripped from CD's, downloaded in AIFF format, or transcoded from FLAC and WAV downloads. I have never had any trouble tagging metadata or cover art with AIFF. Yes, file sizes are larger, but hard drives are so cheap these days, that it is not an issue for me.
I prefer AIFF because it works with all the mac apps that I use, including iTunes, Audirvana Plus, HQPlayer, Audacity, and TT DR Offline Meter.

 

That's certainly one clue. I don't necessarily see the file name extension as a problem myself.

I don't think there's an official standard for tagging aiff beyond very basic metadata chunks. Some individual apps like iTunes may use their own methods but you can't necessarily rely on other devices or apps to expect or be able to read the metadata written in that format. Admittedly I sometimes conflate aiff and wav in my head, the latter of which is even worse at metadata handling.

 

doppelganger wrote the following as part of a post:

When it comes to metadata for WAV files, as far as I know there is no official standard for storing metadata. One way that some people store the metadata is to use a folder and file naming structure method like this:

/[Artist]/[Album Name]/[Track Number] - [Track Name].wav

Some players like my Sony Walkman (which can access files via the folder structure) can use this to locate and play files even without the metadata.

 

I mainly use iTunes to tag and manage my library, but I can also edit AIFF metadata with XLD, Audacity, or Audirvana Plus. 99.8% of the metadata I tag in iTunes, reads perfectly in all the apps that I use. If I find an error, I fix it in Audacity. I use these tags: cover art, track #, running time, track title, album title, artist, album artist, bit depth, sample rate, file type. If I want to add (re)release date, record co. info, code number, mastering engineer, or that it is a vinyl needledrop, I add that info to the album title in parenthesis.

 

Some people have bigger music collections than you do.

 

There is no difference whatsoever in sound quality. Period.

 

The golden ears detected no difference in sound.

 

Another thing that might be worth mentioning is that AAC lossless take more processing power than FLAC. That may make a bit of a difference on older machines.

 

Not used AAC much..If you want a mega debate of WAV v FLAC then try this thread.

WAV vs FLAC Deux

 

Thank you All Seeing and Knowing One for your wisdom. With insightful quips such as this it’s no wonder how you amassed some 125k posts, or why you fear stalkers.

 

I third it! Does all kinds of stuff quick and well. Get it here XLD
and donate here X Lossless Decoder: Lossless audio decoder for Mac OS X

 

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

Finally!

 

You talk so much you are now authorized to speak for other people.

 

You should never underestimate a real Golden Ear. Golden Ears can detect sound differences everywhere.

 

And, if golden ears detect no difference between a FLAC and an AIFF, then, there is no difference.

 

Regardless of which file format you choose, make sure you're storing them on an "audiophile" SD card!

 

It needs 50 hours to break in.

 

Aside from speed, how would a card be made for sound? Seems like a cheap marketing ploy.

 

It could also affect the battery life of some devices too. With my iPod (pre-classic version), the battery life was a concern since it was so short compared to other players. At the best I only got 8 hours on a charge and that was when I was playing MP3s and I it set to shuffle, hit "Play" and let it go until the battery died (the battery life was so short that I could almost see the battery meter drop a bit every time I hit a button and changing tracks often did significantly reduce the playback time). Even with my current iPod Classic (with better battery life) it is likely that playing ALAC would significantly reduce the playback time.