I have tested AlAC vs a CD file in a perfect A/B Test. There is not difference in sound that I can hear. I had my CD player connected to my DAC and the same file streaming so I was able to switch between sources playing the same song via the remote while using the same DAC. When I had my wife do a blind test where she controlled the remote, I literally couldn't venture a guess which was which. ALAC is lossless and therefore all the data is still in the file to be decoded.

As long as your system is capable of decoding an ALAC file it should (and in my experience does) sound exactly the same. The reason 320K, 256K and 192K files sound progressively worse is that some of the data is lost via the compression and the more compressed, the more data is lost.

David Harper wrote:

does anyone think it makes sense to rip CD's to WAV instead of ALAC? I've been ripping to WAV but the more I read the more it sounds like ALAC is just as good.

I use 320K MP3 files for all of mine. They take less space and sound very good. Lower-resolution MP3 files are not so good.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0716/Why_Do_WAV_And_FLAC_Files_Sound_Different.htm
I agree with the article - WAV ripped to FLAC or ALAC doesn't sound the same to my ears. There is quite a substantial sound quality loss connected with the process. I searched for an explanation on the net and the most convincing one I found says that decoding FLAC introduces much higher number of computer errors than decoding WAV. Someone's got a better explanation of this phenomenon.?

David Harper wrote:

sphinxsix wrote:

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0716/Why_Do_WAV_And_FLAC_Files_Sound_Different.htm
I agree with the article - WAV ripped to FLAC or ALAC doesn't sound the same to my ears. There is quite a substantial sound quality loss connected with the process. I searched for an explanation on the net and the most convincing one I found says that decoding FLAC introduces much higher number of computer errors than decoding WAV. Someone's got a better explanation of this phenomenon.?

I read the article and it looks like they only compared WAV to FLAC conversion but not CD>WAV compared to CD>FLAC. I wish they would do that.It seems likely that converting WAV>FLAC>WAV could introduce some kind of weird computer algorithm interaction or something,don't you think?

I admit I've never compared CD>WAV to CD>FLAC. CD>FLAC decreases sound quality. I don't know the real reason, I'm a subjectivist - the sound quality is my main concern, I like to understand why sound differences appear but I can live without it and simply enjoy better sounding music :)

David Harper wrote:

does anyone think it makes sense to rip CD's to WAV instead of ALAC? I've been ripping to WAV but the more I read the more it sounds like ALAC is just as good.

Always keep in mind that music enjoyment is primarily about LISTENING, not reading others' opinions and measurements about THEIR specific delivery streams. Since you can find all sorts of chatter aimed at making one sound better than the other, the best thing to do is rip to both formats and conduct your own tests to hear which one you like best.

I have personally found that the easiest way to rip to both formats without actually having to rip twice, is to use Exact Audio Copy. You can read more about EAC here: http://exactaudiocopy.de/. (I recommend reading the sections about features, as well as basic technology.)

Of course, realize that WAV will count more against your space quota.

In my experience, I can't hear a difference between ALAC, WAV and my original CD if the source is the original CD. They are all 16/44.1 files and maybe it is the few seconds it takes me to switch between files, but I can't hear the difference.

If you have a higher resolution file that is 24/96 or 24/192 that is created from the original master, it will sound better.

I have never converted a file from CD to FLAC. I have only purchased hi-res flac files and recently have even stopped doing that. If I buy hi-res, I usually by WAV figuring it is the safest format and I can convert to others if need be. Portable space still matters but I have like 3 TB of space at home so I don't mind a little redundancy in the system as space is not much of a premium.

I found this at:
www.soundliaison.com/all-categories/6-compare-formats

...where they give you "...a zip file containing samples of 2 tracks in 4 different formats.

A: 96/24 WAV
B: 96/24 FLAC
C: 16/44 WAV (CD)
D: 320kbps MP3

All the different formats have the same source file 96/24 WAV (Studio Master)."

They also go on to say:
"When you compare the files start with the lowest resolution: D (MP3 320 kbps) and move on up through example C and B ending with A.

Be careful: If you start with A, and move down through B and C ending with D, your mind will remember the ''Blueprint'' of the higher resolution file, making it difficult to hear the difference even when finally listening to the MP3 file. Don't be frustrated if you can't hear a difference at first. Hearing is as individual as taste but hearing is also something which can be acquired, like the taste of good wine."

If you insist on using ALAC, you at least have the original WAV to do a conversion.