FLAC and ALAC are compressed formats. The data is compressed for efficient storage and “uncompressed” upon playback.
ALAC is Apple Lossless Audio Codec.
3 Likes
Doesn’t the GU1 downsample DSD256 to 176.4 PCM (4FS) to do its magic.
That is correct. Grimm feels the reduction in jitter and other processing more tha makes up for the down sampling.
Thank you.
FLAC is not necessarily compressed. If you rip a CD on an Innuos and choose FLAC, it will apply 0 compression. If you want a compressed file, you will have to rip it somewhere else and import it,
Yes, one can transcode a wav file to FLAC without compression to take advantage of FLAC’s handling of metadata. But this is uncommen.
Yes you can choose your level of compression also with software like DB Poweramp. I chose 0 for all my conversion to FLAC.
1 Like
Here’s a good read. It appears as though all FLAC formats are compressed to reduce file size. That is the basis of the format.
You can select 0 (least compression) thru 8 (most compression). All formats are lossless hence the name.
More compression requires more computing power to compress and decompress other than that they are exactly the same. Level 5 (default) is the best trade off for file size vs. computing power required.
3 Likes
Good read and refresher. Thanks for the link. I remember, when going down this rabbit hole(pardon @aangen 
) was that using FLAC was better suited for metadata at the time.
3 Likes
I believe it was @waymanchen11 who first caught my attention with his preference for AIFF over FLAC. I had been a happy FLAC user for many years. But just for giggles I started Ripping everything to AIFF. I also purchase AIFF files instead of FLAC when the choice is offered.
AIFF offers the same robust tagging options as FLAC. The files have no compression. The bitrate is fixed and doesn’t float like FLAC does.
I believe the sound difference is slightly in favor of AIFF. I don’t convert any FLAC files to AIFF as that would be foolish IMHO.
FLAC is a great format. But I have chosen to stick with AIFF. I did briefly try ripping to DSD but I couldn’t hear a difference that would justify the huge increase in file sizes.
When I load music on my phone and portable players I use only FLAC for the file size reduction.
10 Likes
I converted 2 TB FLAC ripped files to AIFF files too. I have not heard one file that I did not like AIFF better. I am continuing to rip the rest of my CDs into AIFF. My Qobuz purchases are downloaded into AIFF too.
4 Likes
I listen to lots of FLAC files from Qobuz, but I use WAV when I rip CDs to my Innuos server/streamer. I think that the extra storage space needed for WAV is worth the improved sound quality compared to FLAC - even though it’s not a dramatic improvement. However, unlike some folks who rip their entire CD collection to a server or NAS, I only rip favorite CDs that are in my active rotation. This makes preserving CD storage space much less of an issue.
3 Likes
I had assumed FLAC level 0 was uncompressed. But, as pointed out, it is the least amount of compression. Thanks!
dBpoweramp has an uncompressed option in its drop list for FLAC.
4 Likes
Exactly…
1 Like
When I got into digital audio, about 7–8 years ago, I did a lot of research about formats. I chose FLAC primarily because of its handling of metadata. I don’t remember why I didn’t like AIFF; perhaps because I didn’t own any Apple stuff, or perhaps it was a metadata issue. In any case, I have always ripped my CDs using dBpoweramp’s uncompressed FLAC option.
It’s interesting that some folks here find the sound quality of AIFF files superior. I’ll have to experiment with that now.
3 Likes
I am happy that I can’t tell the difference. 
6 Likes
That is the ideal situation Vern!
1 Like
Yes it is. I think I am about at the end of my ability to hear more from better stuff. And I am quite happy about the revelation.
3 Likes
Apparently there is more computing power to compress but relatively little to reverse. Many systems buffer rather than transcoding on the fly.
I was doing code compression 40 years ago that was rather more critical (aeronautics control systems). There is no question that FLAC files can be perfectly reconstructed to the original data, but subjective tests prefer one format to another, and are attributed to other external things going on. Som Doctor tried to explain using PC based software why FLAC was inferior, but the said Doctor was a Doctor Of Nothing To Do With Audio and it was all subjective anyway.
Anyone with their own ripped WAV files and the same files available in HD streams can make their own subjective comparisons. As @jazznut says, it will be as much to do with hardware.
The point of interest is whether AirLens will cause Paul, and others, to consider streaming as good or better than keeping a CD library.
1 Like
I first ripped my CDs over 13 years ago and I remember that WAV files were a real problem because of the metadata issue. File based audio has improved so much in other respects since then.