I want to rip CDs to my new Mac Mini.
What is the best file format to use, for example Apple lossless or FLAC?
If you need stay compatible with Apple devices, you will want to use ALAC. Otherwise, FLAC is the way to goâŚ
5 Likes
If you plan on using Roon exclusively to reproduce the ripped files, go for Flac. If youâd rather be able to reproduce them also with iTunes or Apple Music, go for ALAC. Both formats work equally well on Roon.
2 Likes
I always rip using âAIFF encoder.â This is the native format of CD audio, so why change it? Storage is ultra cheap now, and with high quality playback one can hear the difference between direct uncompressed and âlosslessâ compressed files. And I use error correction on reading CDs, mainly because older CDs have data errors.
4 Likes
You are mistaken about lossless compression. FLAC and ALAC both will produce a bit-perfect audio stream. Also, X-Lossless Decoder will write an encoding log to prove that the encode was bit perfect, as long as the CD had no unrecoverable errors.
4 Likes
Flac as it can store the useful metadata that all applications can read.They are lossless and you will get more value for money from your storage. Roon unwraps all formats to lpcm on the core before sending on to your endpoint so it makes little difference in sq what you use, if you think uncompressing a flac to lpcm is heavy duty on a Roon core then thatâs the least of your worries.
If you are using Roon with a Roon Endpoint, the same data is being sent to the endpoint regardless of the lossless format chosen. That means that as far as the DAC is concerned, it doesnât know if the source file was AIFF, FLAC, or ALAC.
Also, if you care about getting accurate CD rips, donât worry about error correction. Use ripping software that utilizes the AccurateRip database. I use dBpoweramp and I alway know that my rips are perfect if I an AccurateRip match.
4 Likes
Like @mixpro Iâve have success with AIFF format. I use XLD. The files arenât compressed but compatible with my IOS devices and Apple Music (iTunes) should I even depart Roon. I still use iTunes (Apple Music) to manage my music library. When Roon discloses a metadata discrepancy, I fix it using Apple Music (iTunes).
1 Like
I stand by my recommendation to rip uncompressed. Partly because in listening tests I hear a difference between FLAC uncompressed on the fly vs. FLAC uncompressed to an .aif file then played. Uncompressed sounds better to me. And partly because, as a sound professional, I am averse to anything that changes file structure unnecessarily. .wav is the most robust audio file format, but Apple/iTunes does not support that. The one downside to .aif is a very few DAPs (Sony for example) donât support it, but I donât own one.
1 Like
Iâve seen others mention the same thing. Whatâs your testing set-up? I can understand how this might make a difference locally, if not using an in-memory player, but I donât understand how a difference would be possible with Roon. The data sent from core to endpoint should be the same between FLAC and .aif. Also, what was the FLAC file settings? I used the lowest compression setting when I ripped for this reason but I didnât do any direct comparison to .aif. I do prefer the FLAC to ALAC but Iâm not fooling myself into thinking I could pick one or the other in a blind test.
1 Like
I am going to go with âexpectation biasâ as the reason why someone would think that AIFF or WAV sounds better than FLAC with Roon when using a Roon endpoint of some kind.
Also, with FLAC, the heavy processing is on the compression side of the equation. Decompressing FLAC, even at the highest compression level, requires minimal CPU time. As a computer professional who has been in the industry for 40 years now, lossless compression is no issue for any files. None. Itâs no problem, period. FLAC, WAV, ALAC, and AIFF are just containers for the music dataâŚ
4 Likes
The level of compression for FLAC only changes the ammount of CPU and memory required to compress the file (and obviously reduces the file size a bit) The result is still a lossless bit perfect file regardless of compression level (see flac wiki page). During playback the decompression has very low overhead and barely differs depending on the compression level. As Roon is doing the decompressing then shipping it using RAAT to the endpoints its pretty immaterial as to what the original storage format is provided its lossless.
I would probably use ALAC in your case as you also have an apple ecosystem, then you can easily move files from one place to the other. Either way there are plenty of tools out there that will let you batch convert one lossless format to another.
1 Like
Since you are using a MAC, I would rip to ALAC, but it really does not matter unless you plan on using iTunes to play your lossless audio. Pretty much all other music software is going to support both FLAC and ALAC, so either will work just fine.
1 Like
I agree, ALAC has been my choice for my Mac ecosystem.
ALAC container supports all the metadata that FLAC supports, the library is now open source, which is an important aspect for me, and the format is supported by all the players I know, including iTunes and iPhone.
AIFF / WAV is a waste of disk space to me. Even if it is cheap, I donât understand why wasting it. Once decompressed, ALAC / FLAC are bit-identical to AIFF (I have done testsâŚ). Decompression load is negligible, on my old 2009 iMac was taking about 6 seconds for a 5 minutes song, if I remember correctly. Compression time does not slow down the ripping process.
To rip, I used XLD. For metadata, XLD itself or MusicBrainz Picard.
2 Likes
Stick with ALAC if your workflow is going to be Mac based.
1 Like
Agree, on a hi-res system AIFF or WAV sound better than the lossless formats. Do messing about, no extra work to unfold or decompress, just pure Bit Perfect PCM. Large file but storage is so cheap now. Try DB Poweramp for ripping
No, it doesnât. There is no mechanism to suggest why it would and zero evidence to support it other than anecdotes. It has been proven time and again using tools such as Audiodiffmaker (which is orders of magnitude more sensitive than your ears) that there is no difference between formats.
Utterly trivial in computing terms. In fact a PC from the early 90s would have no problems doing it. Your PC/Mac background processes are probably doing more âworkâ. The concept is a poor one because there is no correlation between a CPU under load and audio quality.
Worst argument ever to support a completely pointless endeavour. Storage is cheap, so I would recommend buying another backup device to protect your data.
As a sound professional, youâll know for instance that FLAC files are checksummed and it is possible to repair them against phenomena such as bit-rot, something which is impossible to do with .WAV files. Youâll also be aware of the absolute integrity of FLAC as a 100% reversible compression medium as has been proven by the endless tests with compressing/decompressing DTS files which, as you know being a sound professional, will not decode at all if even single bit has been changed during the decompression phase.
Advanced audiophile arguing 101, lesson #19. To silence doubters, imply their system is not âhi-resâ enough. Beautiful.
4 Likes
AAC 256kbps 
If I thought I had an âaudiophileâ system and FLAC sounded different to WAV I would conclude my system wasnât as good as I thought it was. There is no reason why FLAC should sound any different to WAV, unless the FLAC decoding is incompetent. The arguments about FLAC increasing CPU load donât make sense because FLAC is computationally trivial to decode, and moreover all the levels take just about the same CPU resources to decode - indeed, depending on the type of music, it can be that it is actually quicker to decode a more compressed FLAC than a less compressed one. Uncompressed WAV must involve roughly twice the disc access, bus traffic and or network traffic so you could equally argue that FLAC âshouldâ sound better because it uses less of these resources.
1 Like
This 100%. If there is any reason at all for the listener to discern a difference, it would be in FLACâs favor, since streaming large AIFF or WAV data files from a spindle platter storage medium may introduce IO wait time that could, possibly, result in jitter.