I know they're both lossless formats, so they should sound the same, but are there any other differences between the two formats?
Apple Lossless or AIFF?
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
idc
Well-known member
If that's the case then why did Apple even bother including the option to use AIFF for importing CDs onto iTunes?
John Duncan
Well-known member
Also Apple Lossless supports full file tagging. Enter the artist, album etc info into iTunes for the Apple Lossless track and the data will be saved in the files meta data tag. Do the same with AIFF and the information is saved in the iTunes database, meaning that if you were to transfer that file to another computer or use a different program to play the track back the data inputed into iTunes won't show up as the data is stored in the iTunes database and not the actual AIFF file.
manicm
Well-known member
Look, the firing squad will be out again, but this isn't my opinion and I have to experiment myself, but for specifically the iPod if you google any 'audiophile' iPod owners most seem to think that WAV or AIFF is the way to go for ultimate sonics - even over ALAC.
And they're not the only ones: Wadia recommends the same for their expensive 'digital' dock. And even some reviews for the 'analogue' Arcam rDock suggest this.
There has to be some contamination in the decoding process in the iPod for this to happen. And maybe Linn has a <insanely expensive> point with their DS players.
Edit: Which leads me to this: I've come to accept even as I am buying the rDock, that the iPod, unless being paired with something like the 170i, is an unreliable hifi device solely because Apple often change the internal DACs, and not always for the better as some believe with the current Classic.
I can vouch that my first iPod - the original Mini sounded better than my Nano 3g (still great sounding), which in turn sounds better than my new Classic (not so great but maybe my ears will succumb in time).
And they're not the only ones: Wadia recommends the same for their expensive 'digital' dock. And even some reviews for the 'analogue' Arcam rDock suggest this.
There has to be some contamination in the decoding process in the iPod for this to happen. And maybe Linn has a <insanely expensive> point with their DS players.
Edit: Which leads me to this: I've come to accept even as I am buying the rDock, that the iPod, unless being paired with something like the 170i, is an unreliable hifi device solely because Apple often change the internal DACs, and not always for the better as some believe with the current Classic.
I can vouch that my first iPod - the original Mini sounded better than my Nano 3g (still great sounding), which in turn sounds better than my new Classic (not so great but maybe my ears will succumb in time).
idc
Well-known member
manicm: ......because Apple often change the internal DACs, and not always for the better as some believe with the current Classic.
Manicm, from a link to cnet uk you posted under the ipod sounds better post, it is comparing the difference a new DAC has made;
This difference should have no practical impact on your decision to buy a new or old iPod. If you've read the sound quality difference is dramatic, don't worry -- it isn't. The differences are only very subtle through bleeding-edge gear, so should only influence you if choosing an iPod for bleeding-edge listening conditions or if used with more costly hi-fi equipment.
Ultimately, the best advice is to trust your ears. If you can't tell the difference, and enjoy the sound, that's really all that matters. But please do yourself, your iPod and your music one favour: don't use the earbuds that come with the iPod. Just using a half-decent pair will make more of a positive difference than anything we've explored today. -Nate Lanxon
However, I do worry that now the ipod is well and truely established in the market, Apple do not need to make the same effort regarding getting the sound quality the absolute best that they can, as they did at the start.
yahooBuzzArticleHeadline = "Expert+audio+quality+test%3A+5th+gen+iPod+vs.+iPod+classic";
yahooBuzzArticleSummary = "To find out once and for all which offers the better sound quality -- the old 5th gen iPod or new iPod classic -- we took our £2,000 rig of headphone reference hardware, and put both models through a gruelling test";
// yahooBuzzArticleId = "http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,39029432,49298964,00.htm";
yahooBuzzArticleType = "text";
yahooBuzzArticleCategory = "MP3 Players";
Manicm, from a link to cnet uk you posted under the ipod sounds better post, it is comparing the difference a new DAC has made;
This difference should have no practical impact on your decision to buy a new or old iPod. If you've read the sound quality difference is dramatic, don't worry -- it isn't. The differences are only very subtle through bleeding-edge gear, so should only influence you if choosing an iPod for bleeding-edge listening conditions or if used with more costly hi-fi equipment.
Ultimately, the best advice is to trust your ears. If you can't tell the difference, and enjoy the sound, that's really all that matters. But please do yourself, your iPod and your music one favour: don't use the earbuds that come with the iPod. Just using a half-decent pair will make more of a positive difference than anything we've explored today. -Nate Lanxon
However, I do worry that now the ipod is well and truely established in the market, Apple do not need to make the same effort regarding getting the sound quality the absolute best that they can, as they did at the start.
yahooBuzzArticleHeadline = "Expert+audio+quality+test%3A+5th+gen+iPod+vs.+iPod+classic";
yahooBuzzArticleSummary = "To find out once and for all which offers the better sound quality -- the old 5th gen iPod or new iPod classic -- we took our £2,000 rig of headphone reference hardware, and put both models through a gruelling test";
// yahooBuzzArticleId = "http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,39029432,49298964,00.htm";
yahooBuzzArticleType = "text";
yahooBuzzArticleCategory = "MP3 Players";
manicm
Well-known member
idc - I am using decent buds, namely the CX300s and the sound was great on my Nano 3g with EQ = Off, and I've just bought the Classic and doesn't sound quite as good but admittedly seems to have a slightly wider soundstage, but reduced depth which I think is due to my perceived treble rolloff. I will fiddle with the EQ.
And I also can't wait to put through my rDock - have to chase my dealer.
Edit: On the other hand others seem to swear by the audio of the latest Nanos and Touch - in fact I'm regretting not getting a 16GB Touch. I might flog my classic later but will give some time to sink in - I might just like it.
And I also can't wait to put through my rDock - have to chase my dealer.
Edit: On the other hand others seem to swear by the audio of the latest Nanos and Touch - in fact I'm regretting not getting a 16GB Touch. I might flog my classic later but will give some time to sink in - I might just like it.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram