Apple Lossless or WAV

[Lethevich]

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.

This is a factor, but there are other equally important ones that come into play if this gets consideration (I've never used a Mac, but I assume these will still be an issue):

1. The of type of CD drive used
2. How "clean" is the computer - ie, excessive startup processes, any hard to notice but slightly resource sapping malware
3. What is being done with the computer while ripping is being done (ideally nothing)
4. How long has the computer been on before the ripping is started
5. Condition of the CD itself (potential manufacturing issues, or just aging)

2, 3 and 5 especially could cause outright glitches rather than just slightly unclear rips. But I guess getting too obsessive about it could lead to madness

[Andante]

A couple of examples of file size with a recent conversion,
down loaded FLAC
Then burnt as WAV

The diferent in file size = CD2 flac = 302 MB
                                        CD2 WAV = 730 MB

                                        CD1 flac = 275 MB
                                        CD1 WAV = 625MB

I always keep the flac files when converted, and after burn I delete the WAV

[Renfield]

This is a factor, but there are other equally important ones that come into play if this gets consideration (I've never used a Mac, but I assume these will still be an issue):

1. The of type of CD drive used
2. How "clean" is the computer - ie, excessive startup processes, any hard to notice but slightly resource sapping malware
3. What is being done with the computer while ripping is being done (ideally nothing)
4. How long has the computer been on before the ripping is started
5. Condition of the CD itself (potential manufacturing issues, or just aging)

2, 3 and 5 especially could cause outright glitches rather than just slightly unclear rips. But I guess getting too obsessive about it could lead to madness

If we're talking about glitches, I think the interaction between 1 and 5 is far and away the most important factor (from personal experience). 3 might credibly cause a glitch too, maybe 2 as well, depending on the malware.

But honestly, I wouldn't think even the most malware-ridden, overheated piece of computing equipment would rip at a worse sound quality: as long as the codec and the program is the same, it's mostly an issue of speed.

[Bunny]

If we're talking about glitches, I think the interaction between 1 and 5 is far and away the most important factor (from personal experience). 3 might credibly cause a glitch too, maybe 2 as well, depending on the malware.

But honestly, I wouldn't think even the most malware-ridden, overheated piece of computing equipment would rip at a worse sound quality: as long as the codec and the program is the same, it's mostly an issue of speed.

I also think the drive quality is important.  I have a great external dvd/cd/blu-ray/reader writer which produces the most accurate rips no matter what software I'm using.  It's a sad fact, but an older drive might not be as good reading the discs.  Also, I always use error correction which slows down the process with my laptop drive but makes little to no difference with the external drive.

I also find no difference between lossless codecs.  Music doesn't sound better using FLAC than ALAC.  They both sound just like the CD, which is no surprise since it includes all of the information on the cd. 

[Coopmv]

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.

Hard disks are dirt-cheap these days.  I will no doubt stick with the WAV files ...

[drogulus]

I also find no difference between lossless codecs.  Music doesn't sound better using FLAC than ALAC.  They both sound just like the CD, which is no surprise since it includes all of the information on the cd.

     What would it mean if you did find a difference? Just that people attribute sonic differences where there aren't any. That isn't a surprise either.

But honestly, I wouldn't think even the most malware-ridden, overheated piece of computing equipment would rip at a worse sound quality: as long as the codec and the program is the same, it's mostly an issue of speed.

      That's right. A bad rip might produces glitches but can't change the sound of the bits captured. In order to do that it would have to get all the bits systematically wrong. That doesn't happen, because coded messages with mistakes don't turn into different messages. All my bad rips produce glitches. A tiny glitch may be inaudible, but when it is audible it's as a glitch, not some kind of different sounding music.

      You might ask the question "Is it possible for a misbehaving drive to produce erroneous data streams that do not consist of accurate stretches interrupted by dropouts heard (when they are) as clicks, pops, cracks or short silences?" Logically possible, yes. Physically possible, I guess it just might be. But does it happen? I really doubt it. It would be on the order of talking to someone on the phone and suddenly hearing them speak with a recognizably different voice. Eh, that's like Descartes's deceiving demon, something that only occurs in "what if?" thought experiments.

      For the paranoid, use a ripper that features AccurateRip like Exact Audio Copy or dBPowerAmp. These are not more accurate but they do compare the ripped bits to a database and therefore provide confidence that the bits are right. From my warped perspective outlined above, if I can't hear anything untoward it's accurate enough. Over the years I've become less and less interested in differences I can't hear.

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

Hard disks are dirt-cheap these days.  I will no doubt stick with the WAV files ...

a) Still it's a massive waste of space, especially in classical music. Remember: A 16b 44.1khz WAV is 1440 kbps. My orchestral flac/tak stuff averages at ~550 kbps. If you are into Piano music, this compresses best. I've often seen flac's between 300 and 500 kbps.
b) WAV will hold no meta data.
c) b doesn't count if you burn stuff on CDs. I heard there are some people out there who do this.

As for the lossless comparison this may be useful for you:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison#Comparison_Table

Personally, I chose TAK first, because it performs even better than flac. The speed/size ratio is just great. But then I converted, to FLAC. I get slightly bigger files, still great performance. I've got a few devices which understand FLAC and we won't see TAK support on hardware in the near future for sure. Unfortunately.

For the paranoid, use a ripper that features AccurateRip like Exact Audio Copy or dBPowerAmp. These are not more accurate but they do compare the ripped bits to a database and therefore provide confidence that the bits are right.

Foobar2000 has it implemented as well and it's easy to use, simply tick a checkbox.

[drogulus]

     Foobar2000 was mean to me once so I don't use it. I should try it again. I have the paid version of dBPowerAmp which is versatile and easy to use. I'm not sure I need yet another program since I also have Easy CD-DA Extractor which is very strong for metadata editing as well as transcoding. Its weakness is the lack of 24 bit options, though it will tag the files and/or transcode them to 16 bit or lossy formats.

[Andante]

c) b doesn't count if you burn stuff on CDs. I heard there are some people out there who do this

Yeh I'm one of them, how do you listen to HiFi music?

[Renfield]

Yeh I'm one of them, how do you listen to HiFi music?

Directly from my computer, via USB DAC into my headphones. Or on a regular hi-fi, from the original CD.

[Andante]

Directly from my computer, via USB DAC into my headphones. Or on a regular hi-fi, from the original CD.

OK, I don't listen to any music on my PC, its all via my HiFi, I d/l quite a bit and find the flac to wav works fine for me 

[drogulus]

      It won't sound better on a CD. And these days any PC or laptop is or easily can be connected to the best music system in the house. You can even do it wirelessly, so why wouldn't you want to do this?

      The CD is dead, dead, dead.

OK, I don't listen to any music on my PC, its all via my HiFi, I d/l quite a bit and find the flac to wav works fine for me 

      I play my music on my PC, I listen to it on my HiFi.

      Why convert FLAC to WAV? If you're on a PC stay with FLAC. If you want to burn a CD stay with FLAC. Unless you want to use a Mac/iTunes friendly format stay with FLAC, otherwise go with ALAC. WAV doesn't get you anything except huge files with no tags. Wha?

[DavidW]

      It won't sound better on a CD. And these days any PC or laptop is or easily can be connected to the best music system in the house. You can even do it wirelessly, so why wouldn't you want to do this?

      The CD is dead, dead, dead.

Kind of disagree here because it's so much work to convert a cd collection to pc.  And for what?  It's so not worth it.  I've wasted too much time on that crap.  I can just take a cd and play it anywhere, without having to do any ripping.  And you know what?  People spend more money on cds than they do digital downloads to this day.  The cd is not going anywhere anytime soon.  Even in this age of digital music.

[George]

Kind of disagree here because it's so much work to convert a cd collection to pc.  And for what?  It's so not worth it.  I've wasted too much time on that crap.  I can just take a cd and play it anywhere, without having to do any ripping. 

I fully agree David!   

[Andante]

      It won't sound better on a CD.

I think it sounds much better on CD it does depend what system you have

And these days any PC or laptop is or easily can be connected to the best music system in the house. You can even do it wirelessly, so why wouldn't you want to do this?

  I use a desk top mostly now I do have a wireless set up but my Hi Fi is not in the same room as my computer so too many walls to go through it is so easy to just put a CD on the system

      The CD is dead, dead, dead.

Well what will replace it ?? SACD never caught on Holographic Crystals are much too expensive to produce commercially and I am not interested in a music session in front of the PC particularly with friends.
       

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

Yeh I'm one of them, how do you listen to HiFi music?

Hi Andante, usually my music goes this route: IBM Thinkpad T23 with SB Audigy 2 ZS Notebook -> Pioneer Amp -> Jamo Speaker.
And if I'm lazy: Converted to Vorbis @Q8 -> Cowon iAudio7 -> Pioneer Amp -> Jamo Speakers.
Very often: In car.

The weakest spot in my audio chain at home is: THE LIVING ROOM. Parquet floor. A 3.5m wide windows. Music sounds horrible here. I love Notebook solutions; but I admit, the Notebook fan is an unsolved problem here.

Having audio as files makes me flexible. I never use CDs in my car for instance. Pure classical in car isn't fun because of the dynamics. I quickly convert the classical music music I want with a volume levelling effect applied (foo_dsp_vlevel) which replaces the manual fiddling of the volume know I put stuff onto an USB stick and listen to classical music in my car. Today, I think I'll refine my Dido and Aeneas singing before work

[Andante]

Hi Wurstwasser
I suppose I am lucky in that I have an excellent lounge/listening room
KEF reference speakers, twisted speaker cables, Plinnius Class A Amp, Carver pre amp and an old but trusted CD player 'Technics'  custom made interconnects. I do use CDs in car but as you point out for Classical it is not good so I play Jazz when motoring and classical at rest.
My computer is not set up for listening and never will be, I will stick to CD and Vinyl, I don't intend replacing my collection. 

[drogulus]

Kind of disagree here because it's so much work to convert a cd collection to pc.  And for what?  It's so not worth it.  I've wasted too much time on that crap.  I can just take a cd and play it anywhere, without having to do any ripping.  And you know what?  People spend more money on cds than they do digital downloads to this day.  The cd is not going anywhere anytime soon.  Even in this age of digital music.

        I still buy CDs, too. And they will probably limp along for another 10 or even 20 years. What spelled doom for the CD was not the PC or laptop but all the portable devices that can play the same files.

        I agree that converting a CD collection is a big chore. For me it's just part of the hobby. And the proportion of my music that started as DLs grows every day. The importance of CDs will continue to decline. So maybe they aren't dead yet, they're just not feeling well. I like to think of them as dead.

[71 dB]

      The CD is dead, dead, dead.

For you maybe. People are different and use different formats. These days we can choose. CD/SACD is my choice. That makes it alive for me. Almost all of my listening happens home so I don't need much portability (I own an iPod thou)

[drogulus]

For you maybe. People are different and use different formats. These days we can choose. CD/SACD is my choice. That makes it alive for me. Almost all of my listening happens home so I don't need much portability (I own an iPod thou)

     I wasn't aware that people differed to the extent that CDs were still popular. That's some difference. I thought that they were tailspinning towards extinction even though some people still liked them. I still think that.

     Look, CDs were great. I loved them, especially when the music companies began remastering them using the best available tapes. Before that they were hit and miss based on what was put on them. That's how they got their bad reputation among audiophiles who, then as now, were incapable of differentiating between the source and the medium, attributing the problems of the former to the supposed limitations of the latter. I bought some of this too at the time, but eventually detoxified and came to see the CDs as...how shall I put it? Perfect Sound Forever! It's funny...it turned out to be true.