Whilst WAV & AIFF being uncompressed codecs represent the highest quality possible in audio, in practice I very much doubt you’ll hear any difference between those & FLAC. I wouldn’t be inclined to convert them, as I personally see no real benefit in doing so, other than reduced file sizes. I personally use FLAC, but the primary reason initially was that it offered very high quality with much smaller file sizes compared to WAV & AIFF. However with storage now being so cheap that’s no longer quite as relevant as it once was either. I’ll continue using FLAC though, because if I can’t hear the difference, which I can not, then what’s the point of using up more space?
2 Likes
I made my decision to go with AIFF over a decade ago when I embarked on the effort to rip my CD collection. That I didn’t think I could hear a difference back then didn’t guarantee that this would always be true - and I wanted to avoid ever having to re-rip again.
A decade ago I knew so little about this stuff compared to today. Back then I have no doubt I would have chuckled at the idea of buying a $10,000 server. Today though, I think it’s one of the smartest moves I ever made. A decade ago I would have also chuckled at the idea that a network could be optimized for better sound quality and yet today I think it’s something audiophiles should aim to do. A year ago I had no idea that my system could be as transparent as it is today and while I don’t anticipate spending any more money next year, who knows what future software updates will bring?
Ultimately it’s up to each of us to decide how much these things need to matter to us. I don’t ever care to compare the sound quality of FLAC to AIFF ever again. I am happy that the decision I made a decade ago may have given me one less thing to worry about.
Ohm’s law tells us that the current will be proportional to the voltage. This has been understood since 1827.
This is interesting context for this discussion.
Do you purchase new music on CD and rip those discs to AIFF files? Or do you no longer rip CDs?
If you no longer rip CDs, then it makes perfect sense to me that you would have no interest in anything other than AIFF.
If you do rip CDs, then do you rip onto your Mac, or to an external drive connected to your Mac, and then do you copy those AIFF files over to a SSD installed on your Antipodes?
For my situation, my intention is to rip newly acquired CDs directly to the Antipodes, and bypass the Mac. Hence, my interest in FLAC (unless Antipodes somehow rips in AIFF…of which I am unaware). I also have ripped only about ¼ of my entire CD collection.
You do know what the current draw is on 1v then and that the CX and all other Antipodes servers that have a single internal PSU have one rail, presumably 24v. So again the intelligence is with the software and parts used in the PSU.
Great questions!
I had pretty much stopped purchasing CDs once I got to the point where streaming from Qobuz was nearly indistinguishable from my ripped files. That changed when PGGB came around as I found a strong preference for offline upsampling of music.
My ripping process has been the same for decade. I use dbPoweramp on my Mac Pro to rip CDs. I then copy the files up to my NAS. My music server then plays these rips by accessing them from my NAS.
I like to have some control over the cover art and tags that end up on my ripped files. That’s why I continue to rip on my Mac Pro. This is why I mentioned a number of times that the usage pattern should be considered when deciding on a format. My post-processing on a Mac is simplified by using a Mac-friendly format.
Also I do occasionally sync music files to my iPhone or copy files to an SD card for mobile playback. Since I perform these operations using a Mac, there is some benefit to using a Mac-friendly format. When I purchase downloads I also select the AIFF format for the same reason.
Your usage pattern doesn’t involve any manual post-processing so I think this is an absolutely fine way to go. Even if you were to want to do manual post-processing, FLAC is still a fine way to go. I have no about that Antipodes is doing the right thing when ripping to FLAC so you can be confident that you won’t have to rip them again.
1 Like
I see. I suppose I could use dbPoweramp on the Mac as you do. However, I do not have a NAS, nor do I plan to install one.
Frankly, when I want to hear the best quality music I have on CD, then I play the CD rather than an AIFF file (or Quobuz version). My computer-based playback system (including a Bricasti M3 DAC) does not quite measure up to CD playback on my Esoteric player. Perhaps the Antipodes K50 will change the paradigm.
I hope it does change the paradigm, disappointed if it doesn’t! I also play CDs (Jay’s Audio). The thing that I keep thinking about is back-up of rips, save doing it again. NAS is good for that. Local storage trumps, great to have a back up of rips though. Re NAS, very handy to have. I also stream movies to an Oppo, also 5.1 rips. Not relevant but handy just in case.
2 Likes
I suspect that a K50 will do that.
As far as a NAS, my library size has always exceeded the available storage on my server. Plus having a NAS means that should one drive fail, I can still continue listening to music. The NAS automates all my backups too.
Some food for thought here on obtaining the very best rips (and no, I have no intention of going this far). But if you were to plug a really good optical drive into the K50 that is powered by the K50, you’d have a rough equivalent of this.
If you haven’t used dbPoweramp then it would be worth trialing it to see if the additional capabilities are worthwhile to you. It can find cover art and tags from various sources so it gives you great control over the how things will show up. You might find it too much of a hassle to use this though relative to the K50.
Yate is another great Mac application. This doesn’t rip but it’s awesome for tagging files.
I wish I could give you a recommendation but I’m not sure what I’d so if I was exactly where you are today. I don’t think you could go wrong either way actually.
I had actually ripped a good chunk of my music twice before finally settling on dbPoweramp and AIFF. That you are aiming to do it right from the start and are down to considering two excellent options puts you in a far better position.
Earlier in the thread I mentioned using dbPoweramp to convert the AIFF files. Free 21 day trial. It’s good software. I will likely purchase it.
RE: backups. I drag and drop onto another external drive. Not automatic but sufficient. Good reason to keep the MacMini on the network.
1 Like
I have USB drives hanging off my NAS. It’s amazing how affordable these have gotten when on sale.
Maybe a year I backed up my music library to another USB drive and then handed it off to a friend for offsite storage.
It’s hard to go wrong with dbPoweramp for ripping. As for CD playback Vs your new K50, I’d be very surprised if your K50 didn’t eventually take over. I also get truly excellent results from CD (MBL N31). Both the K50 & the N31 are rated as A+ by Stereophile, so neither are too shabby, but it’s my K50 that acts as my main source, to the extent that I rarely play actual CD’s anymore.
2 Likes
It’s great. I tend to upgrade when upgrades are offered just because they have more than earned that money from me.
The original query has been comprehensively hijacked unfortunately.
The reason that I queried whether those who recommended a conversion from AIFF to FLAC is that I was in exactly the same position a little while ago.
So I queried Mark Jenkins “… is there a benefit in SQ and/or integrity of data if I convert them all to uncompressed FLAC?” and received this reply:
“There is no particular reason to switch from AIFF to Uncompressed FLAC. Both file formats have resilience and sound very similar. One thing we are looking at doing is a conversion from any format to WAV, stripping out tags at the same time, during playback as this seems to improve sound quality to the same level as playing a naked WAV file”.
So like you I was keen to learn more from others.
I hope Mark’s comments help your thinking.
I have retained AIFF and any new music I download as AIFF. I have 2 main reasons for doing this:
My last 3 cars would only play MP3 or WAV (surprisingly given the $ spent). Because WAV does not contain the ID3 tags I found that using AIFF overcame this issue whereas FLAC was not supported in those cars. (I do not know the reasons why AIFF worked when not supported, which is another reason for my query). So I did not want to have to keep two databases unless FLAC was better SQ.
Good luck, hope this helps.
3 Likes
Buy a Porsche next time & with the Burmester upgrade to the audio system instead. Flac works just fine in mine, as does Wav for that matter & both sound reasonably decent for in car. 
…I didn’t much like having to purchase a new iPhone just to get proper integration with the PCM unit though. Thirty six text messages in the first two days after chopping my old Porsche in. 
On a more serious note, if a codec works without problems, sounds good to you & as a result you’re happy with the results, then why change to a different codec just for the sake of it? No offence intended, but I go with what I’m comfortable with & l really don’t give two hoots if it’s not to someone else’s taste.
2 Likes
At the risk of further hi jacking - I was referring to Porsche! I know that issue is no longer the case with the new PCM. Like you I also bought an iPhone kept permanently in the car.
…and ditto. Have a good Xmas and enjoy the music!
1 Like
Hello All.
I am re-visiting this topic because I’m presently transferring flac and AIFF files to a SSD installed on my K50. I was initially copying over all my flac files, but twice the transfer stopped at 70.xxx%. I don’t know why the transfer stopped, so I decided to copy over my AIFF files instead. This is going smoothly. Once the AIFF files are copied, then I will re-visit copying the remaining flac files.
Because I now have flac and AIFF versions on the SSD, Roon shows them as available versions in my library.
Earlier in this thread, the question had been posed whether flac offered advantages over AIFF. I noticed last night that some of the flac versions have greater dynamic range than their AIFF cousins. For example, a flac version may have a dynamic range of 12, whereas it’s AIFF cousin has a dynamic range of 11. Most often, this involves classical or jazz recordings. Rock or pop music flac and AIFF files most often have equal dynamic range.
So, one benefit of uncompressed flac is greater dynamic range. Whether it’s audible is another question all together, but it points to another reason to use flac, in addition to the previously mentioned fact that the Antipodes rips to flac and all the files will be in the same format (again…not necessary for files to have the same format to correctly play).
Interestingly, none of my flac files are original rips. They are all uncompressed flac files converted from AIFF via dbpoweramp.
I would hope that the container (flac or aiff) isn’t responsible for a change to dynamic range. Are you sure you are comparing apples to apples? If the dynamic range for an album differs from rip to rip, it’s most likely they are not from the same master.
Oh but you said that all the flacs have been converted. These are either not bit perfect or there’s a glitch in the tool measuring DR.
Same master (CD). The AIFF files were all ripped from CDs in my collection, and I don’t have multiple CD versions.
The flac files are all conversions from these AIFF files via dbpoweramp.
There’s something wrong there. These are either not bit perfect or there’s a glitch in the tool measuring DR.