Apple Lossless or WAV

[Novi]

Which is the better format to use when ripping discs to an external drive? 

Cheers!

[Opus106]

On the one hand, unless you have a reason to convert to Apple Lossless -- like using an iPod, WAV is usually the standard. And if you are using a computer running Windows, you'll have support for WAV out of the box.  On the other, WAV files can be huge. Apple Lossless will reduce the size of the file on-disk while maintaining quality of the sound, but you will need an 'extra' piece of software like iTunes to play the files.

EDIT: iPod can actually play WAV. Sorry. 

[George]

Which is the better format to use when ripping discs to an external drive? 

Cheers!

Both are lossless, so same SQ.

WAV takes up more space, but can be used on any computer.

Apple Lossless can only be used on a MAC.

BTW, if you are ripping on a MAC,  strongly suggest using XLD to rip your CDs. If you're on a PC, I suggest Exact Audio Copy. Those two programs will get you the most accurate rips you can get. They take some configuring, but once configured, you're good to go.

[Scarpia]

Lossless wav file has no compression, so Apple lossless will be smaller, in general.  But wav will preserve the complete data on a CD track and has the virtue of being widely supported.

[Opus106]

Apple Lossless can only be used on a MAC.

Actually, I can listen to ALAC on Windows using iTunes and also, perhaps, foobar which I have not tried. (And on Linux-based machines using the necessary plug-ins.)

[George]

Actually, I can listen to ALAC on Windows using iTunes and also, perhaps, foobar which I have not tried. (And on Linux-based machines using the necessary plug-ins.)

I stand corrected.

[Keemun]

If you use WAV files, I recommend compressing them using FLAC, which will maintain the lossless sound quality but reduce the file size.  And you can always uncompress the files back to WAV format for later use.

[drogulus]

    Any lossless compression is better than WAV, because WAV won't store your metadata. Use whichever lossless format plays on both your computer and your portable. I use WMA Lossless for my archive on an external HD (step 1) and Nero AAC for a separate iTunes library and my iPod (step 2). If my Pod was bigger I'd use a single step ALAC/iTunes archive. 

     

      If I ripped to WAV I'd get this:

     

     

[Renfield]

If my Pod was bigger I'd use a single step ALAC/iTunes archive. 

Which is what I've been using for four years now, and am very satisfied with.

IMO, WAV is generally overkill, unless having a 1-to-1 record of every sound bit in the source to hand is mission-critical! In every other case, as long as you have a suitable decoder (e.g. iTunes), you've no reason to use WAV.

You can think of an Apple Lossless (or FLAC, or any lossless) file as a packed WAV, which iTunes unpacks on demand.

[DavidRoss]

Which is the better format to use when ripping discs to an external drive? 

FLAC, unless space is not an issue.  Long the standard of lossless compression formats, FLAC is supported by the greatest variety of playback devices and software.  Apple Lossless is a proprietary codec (in keeping with their limited compatibility business model that aims to hold their users hostage to Apple's products) that does not have widespread support.

[Gurn Blanston]

FLAC, unless space is not an issue.  Long the standard of lossless compression formats, FLAC is supported by the greatest variety of playback devices and software.  Apple Lossless is a proprietary codec (in keeping with their limited compatibility business model that aims to hold their users hostage to Apple's products) that does not have widespread support.

I was going to recommend FLAC also, it's the best. But I thought I read somewhere that Apple doesn't do FLAC. So he would need Apple-compatible software to encode/decode his storage format just to use it. Is it not true that iTunes won't do FLAC? Or is that history?

[drogulus]

I was going to recommend FLAC also, it's the best. But I thought I read somewhere that Apple doesn't do FLAC. So he would need Apple-compatible software to encode/decode his storage format just to use it. Is it not true that iTunes won't do FLAC? Or is that history?

     I don't think it does FLAC. Since ALAC can be played anywhere these days Pod users should just use that if they want to go pure lossless. If I get a bigger player I'll do that.

     I just did a test on my Pod and found it now plays 24 bit ALAC files, which means my high rez DLs and HDCD rip/decodes can be played in their pure form. Now the only obstacle to going with a lossless unified library is the capacity of my portable player. With a 16GB Pod I might as well go pure lossless, with a separate mp3 folder for phones/generic players etc.

[DavidRoss]

There are utilities available for playing FLAC files in iTunes, such as FLUKE. Best, however, to reject Apple's hateful consumer-unfriendly business model and completely avoid their over-hyped and overpriced products.

[DavidW]

There are utilities available for playing FLAC files in iTunes, such as FLUKE. Best, however, to reject Apple's hateful consumer-unfriendly business model and completely avoid their over-hyped and overpriced products.

QFT

[George]

Both are lossless, so same SQ.

WAV takes up more space, but can be used on any computer.

Apple Lossless can only be used on a MAC.

BTW, if you are ripping on a MAC,  strongly suggest using XLD to rip your CDs. If you're on a PC, I suggest Exact Audio Copy. Those two programs will get you the most accurate rips you can get. They take some configuring, but once configured, you're good to go.

Since it wasn't one of the options you offered, I neglected to mention FLAC, which can be easily converted to WAV (or AIFF) on a MAC or a PC. It takes up less space than WAV too.

In answer to your thread title, I'd say: neither - rip to FLAC with either XLD or EAC (Exact Audio Copy.)

[drogulus]

     What's the point of avoiding Apple codecs if you're using a program to make FLAC playable in iTunes aaaand (the part I like) which is only used on a Mac?

[Novi]

Thanks for all the replies.

I've just got back from getting a friend to format my external drive for me - that's the level of my technological 'expertise.'

Ok, so I needed google to tell me that ALAC = apple lossless, but I think I get the gist of it now.

I'm on a mac, so I gather that FLAC is no good; nor can I take either Daves' advice. But FLAC and ALAC are comparable?

George: I've hitherto been using itunes to rip my discs; is there much of a quality difference to XLD? It's after one in the morning over here and my mind's already glazed over with 'takes some configuration.'

[drogulus]

Thanks for all the replies.

I've just got back from getting a friend to format my external drive for me - that's the level of my technological 'expertise.'

Ok, so I needed google to tell me that ALAC = apple lossless, but I think I get the gist of it now.

I'm on a mac, so I gather that FLAC is no good; nor can I take either Daves' advice. But FLAC and ALAC are comparable?

George: I've hitherto been using itunes to rip my discs; is there much of a quality difference to XLD? It's after one in the morning over here and my mind's already glazed over with 'takes some configuration.'

    Use iTunes to rip to Apple lossless. There's no need to change what you've already done. Just go to the General tab and choose "ask to import CD" and set Apple lossless as your encoding scheme. On the Advanced tab choose for "iTunes media folder location" your external HD.

[George]

George: I've hitherto been using itunes to rip my discs; is there much of a quality difference to XLD? It's after one in the morning over here and my mind's already glazed over with 'takes some configuration.'

XLD rips sound better than itunes rips. Not a night and day difference, mind you, but an audible difference on a decent stereo. I've done a number of comparisons, burning rips using both programs. However, if you're not an audiophile and/or configuring software will give you nightmares, just use itunes. 

[DavidRoss]

     What's the point of avoiding Apple codecs if you're using a program to make FLAC playable in iTunes aaaand (the part I like) which is only used on a Mac?

The OP did not state that this was the case until the post after yours, but it was a reasonable assumption.  The point of avoiding Apple codecs is to maximize compatibility.  As long as Apple users stay in Apple's playpen (which, of course, is what Apple wants), then no big deal.  But if they venture out into the wide world, then they'll either have to convert all their proprietary Apple format files or rerip the music with a standard codec.