AIFF or FLAC?

If you use iTunes for both library management and playback, you need to stick with AIFF. iTunes cannot play FLAC files.

If you are willing to use a 3rd party playback software, then FLAC is the way to go for storage and ease of use. Both Audirvana + and Pure Music use iTunes for library management, even though iTunes isn't acutally the playback software. They do this by creating "pointer files" (my term) that look as if they're in iTunes but actually reside on your HD.

This would be my preferred route if using a Mac.

Chris at computeraudiophile years ago had me use AIFF when I went to a computer based source,YMMV,Bob

~

I believe the only caveat to using Pure Music in front of iTunes to play FLAC files is that once you load the FLACs into iTunes via Pure Music, you mustn't move the folder location.

It seems there are more benefits to using Pure Music in front of iTunes anyway, one of which is upsampling. As Catastrofe said, with the PM/iTunes combination, iTunes becomes just the library catalogue system, with no involvement in the actual playing of the file ; Pure Music handles that.

Again as Catastrofe says, if you'd prefer not to use Pure Music or Audirvana+ (and if you want metadata), stick with AIFF. Storage is cheap.

I use a Mac and Apple Lossless because it integrates with Itunes.

Early on with Itunes I heard a difference between lossless and AIFF but on Audirvana I cant via casual listening. I suspect the reason is Audirvana decompresses into memory prior to playback so whatever was making AIFF sound better is a non issue.

Thanks
Bill

AIFF is not compressed. I figure the less the computer has to do (I use Audirvana) like decompress to play the better. Even if I can't hear a difference.