AAC or AppleLossless

Pardales, all 54 gigs of my iPod hard drive are songs in Apple Lossless. For what it's worth, that's about 2500 tunes...some are a minute long, some are classical or jazz pieces that last 17 minutes. Most are average, about 3-5 minutes in length.

With the standard earphones, I had trouble discerning Lossless from AAC. But as soon as I got my Shure e5c earphones, it was obvious (to my ears) how much better Lossless really was.

I even did it double-blind, by burning versions of the same song in both formats and having a friend select between them. I correctly identified and preferred the Lossless every time.

Hope this helps,
Brian

My system is set-up now and I am beginnning to import music to iTunes using AppleLossless. The sound quality through the Waveterminal U24 has far exceeded my expectations. It sounds great!

there are other issues with lossless

I have started a few threads on high quality files which you can check out

Anybody who thinks MP3 is acceptable shouldnt bother with this forum in my opinion.

And I also don't get the widespread obsession with storing 80 billion songs -- isn't disc space very cheap and getting cheaper by the day?

It also seems to me that these applications are particularly useful for portable audio, travel, working out etc where, say, 30 CDs or so should probably get you through your morning jog or commute?

So my vote would be genuinely lossless, bit for bit WAV files, subject to solving the problems mentioned in my other threads.

I guess I still don't get it.

Cheers.

If you want maximum quality - that is to say to use a hard drive as a source for a reference quality redbook system, you need to rip in Apple Lossless, .wav or .aiff.

Let me try to give you some insights into the pros and cons

Because it is not a proprietary format, .wav is the most "portable" in that you can do the most with it. That is to say, it is happy in the PC world and there are a lot of third party utilities that work with it

However .wav and .aiff are both about twice as big as Apple Lossless files with no apparent - or should I say audible difference.

When you have 200Gb of material like I do - about 750 cds, nearly 10,000 songs!!! the cost of the first drive isn't an issue - but then there is the second one to back it up to think about too. Trust me when you see how long it takes to rip that much music, you will want to back it up...

I am now keeping the master library on a 400Gb Seagate and splitting the backup across two 250Gb Hitachis which I had. You may not know that you should not use the last 20% of your drive capacity... The good news is that the bandwidth requirments are so small that you can use slower drives if need be - you will however notice a difference on the time it takes to do a backup so do it while you sleep =)

I chose Apple Lossless because I am a hardcore Mac guy, always have been, always will be - yes even with Intel inside - and so I didn't mind the fact that I was locked into a proprietary format. BTW when I burn a CD via iTunes it automatically makes .aiff files out of the Apple Lossless. Point being that there are a number of ways to convert should you want to in the future

One thing is for sure - once you get this sorted out you will really enjoy the music =)