Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AIFF for audiophile iTunes library?
- Thread starter 50548
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You could watch a BD ISO with a 1080p 24Hz H.264 video AND 7.1 channel 24/96 TrueHD (compressed lossless) audio on almost any 5 year old Mac or PC without breaking a sweat.
His sig says "iMac 27" Core i7 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM" which is a little low end and outdated and will likely struggle with ALAC decoding.
His sig says "iMac 27" Core i7 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM" which is a little low end and outdated and will likely struggle with ALAC decoding.
Exactly
You can check my rig in the signature - what else would you like to know? My iMac 2011 is linked to the Nuforce HDP Icon DAC via USB, which is then connected via analog Monster cables to my Denon DRA-F109 amplifier (with one the smallest footprints out there) and the B&W 685s (not 686s, which are comparatively crappy as per specialized reviews).Software-wise, I use Audirvana Plus with iTunes as the front-end for playlist management. Most of my music is in ALAC format, with a few FLAC hi-res files as well.
Exactly
Software-wise, I use Audirvana Plus with iTunes as the front-end for playlist management. Most of my music is in ALAC format, with a few FLAC hi-res files as well.
thanks, it actually matters a lot... not for status concerns or being judgmental about equipment, or what kind of critical listening you do, but i doubt you'll hear a difference (consistently on a blind basis). was that not the original concern? audio quality? and that's not even getting into your listening environment. rigs can no doubt have 'resolving' attributes, and you're not going to hear a difference concerning these two audio formats. if you weren't to hear a difference between the two formats, is there another reason you want to use aiff?
----------
oh yeah
i have a penchant for not reading signatures
thanks, it actually matters a lot... not for status concerns or being judgmental about equipment, or what kind of critical listening you do, but i doubt you'll hear a difference (consistently on a blind basis). was that not the original concern? audio quality? and that's not even getting into your listening environment. rigs can no doubt have 'resolving' attributes, and you're not going to hear a difference concerning these two audio formats. if you weren't to hear a difference between the two formats, is there another reason you want to use aiff?
----------
oh yeah
i have a penchant for not reading signatures
Well, my original question was if AIFF WOULD deliver better quality as an uncompressed format - as can be seen from the above, people tell me that it doesn't, since decompressing ALAC files has no impact on modern CPUs.
Even though I've read some different opinions elsewhere, I'll probably yield to these responses and stick with ALAC for now...after all, HD space is not unlimited.
Well, my original question was if AIFF WOULD deliver better quality as an uncompressed format - as can be seen from the above, people tell me that it doesn't, since decompressing ALAC files has no impact on modern CPUs.
Even though I've read some different opinions elsewhere, I'll probably yield to these responses and stick with ALAC for now...after all, HD space is not unlimited.
copy that... so much debate in the audio world is whether differences in designs, materials, implementations, etc have differences and if those differences lead to audible differences.
some swear by the most minute of changes between part a and part b. others don't... like many, i won't claim that there's no theoretical differences (differences that are measurable with a computer/equipment). but i often think that many subtleties between part a and part b are lost/skewed during actual listening. many claim that a rig needs to be resolving enough (read, transparent) to detect such nuances between part a and part b. every time i try to inspect such comparisons myself, i don't get too far because i find it rather boring and would rather relax and listen to the music i love
i've sat in an audition room at the local hi-fi store, and listened to several digital formats on a $300,000+ rig, and i couldn't tell a difference (alac and aiff were part of it). i also heard reel-to-reel on that rig, and it sounded, well, unreal.
Even if the processor had problems decompressing in real time it still may not effect the sound. That is because there is always an output "buffer" It might be 256 or 512 samples long. The decompressor places the data in the buffer as it can. It does NOT work in real time. Then the audio player (aka "audio driver) pulls the decompressed data out of the buffer at the specified sample rate.
The player does not "know" if the data were ever compressed. In many systems the rate the player works at is determined by the hardware inside the audio interface. There is typically a crystal oscillator in the audio interface that drives the sample rate.
The classic example of this used on text books is the barber shop. The barber always takes 15 minutes for each customer but the customers arrive in the shop at random time intervals, some times in groups. So there is a "buffer" or row of chairs to wait in. Audio works a lift like this, the decoders is never regular. It works in fits and starts then does nothing for a long time. All it has to do it make sure the buffer is NEVER empty. So you see some large buffer in playback-only systems.
The details vary depending on if you have a Windows OS, Mac or an iPod but in each case there is always a decoder that reads coded music from storage and then a "driver" that sends bytes to a DAC and between the two is a "buffer". So the timing of the decompressor or the fact that storage is shared with your word processor and web browser has no effect on the driver (unless the buffer is left to go empty.)
