Okay I have a hypothetical question regarding the AIFF vs Lossless compression such as ALAC or FLAC.
If I wanted to create a CD (hard copy) of a disk I ripped (say I lost the original or it went bad for some reason), would the end result (the burned CD) be any different, bit for bit between AIFF and the Lossless files?
This question does veer away from the topic but it is related. I do value long term users of both ORIGIN and 3.5 opinions.
You’ll need to define what “data” you are concerned with…
The primary concern with any “lossless” compression scheme, is the real-time decode process demand on the CPU during playback… I am one that will always look to reduce the potentials for induced noise in the data-stream that corrupts the signal waveform and precipitates jitter, which translates into the subjective quality of sound, produced in the final digital-to-analog output.
So you’re using AIFF, or you’re trying to make some other point?
He defined it, the data that ends up on the CD mastered from the ripped files. The answer is yes, the data will be bit for bit perfect with AIFF, ALAC and FLAC.
Yep… I rip to AIFF, I even convert stereo DSDxxx to DXD 352.8kHz as AIFF so I can use Redline Monitor plugin for HTRF.
I wasn’t sure if he was talking about metadata or PCM data
That was a ‘primary’ concern many years ago. Even the simplest raspberry pi can decompress a FLAC or ALAC file nowadays with two fingers in it’s nose and running circles around a football field without breaking a sweat.
Maybe this was a discussion when lossless compression schemes where initially introduced in the past, but even then it was already discutable, because in A-B comparisons the difference could not be reliably established. For the current modern processors this is a non-issue.
This may be true for some systems… and I’m not talking about comparative ‘quality of sound’ assessments… I’m speaking to fundamental potentials for data-corruption, from error-correction interrupt noise, that corrupts the data-stream waveform flow across any given platform architecture and induces jitter… Some of us are looking to reduce jitter to the inherent level of the DAC architecture.
Isn’t this getting a bit too philosophical and off topic for a thread with a simple pragmatic question? 
Sometimes a pragmatic question deserves a pragmatic answer 
1 Like
Potential for that kind of corruption is negligible and comparable to the data degradation that can happen on the storage media. If with AIFF there is no decompression going on, it requires more data to be transferred from the storage media. I’ve heard this argument before, and there is some theoretical substance behind it, but it’s ultimately misguided.
I respect your opinions… My trajectory is not mainstream and don’t expect most to be on the same… However it is not misguided…
1 Like
I understand that you’re on a different trajectory, but wouldn’t you agree that a person not following your trajectory should follow the mainstream rather than exploring fringe ideas.
1 Like
There is nothing ‘fringe’ about my trajectory… I’m not alone…In my world this is mainstream objective goal…
Of course, it makes the most sense to get a greater than myopic perspective on the subject, so to come to a reasonable decision as to what is pragmatic, given ones trajectory in this game…
@Agoldnear - I was referring to metadata “tagging” - I was asking (unclearly) if ORIGIN does a better job of handling the database side of my music collection. My experience with 3.5 has been if I edit tags with an external editor or with Audirvana 3.5, then refresh the database, changes often do not show up. My workaround has been to make edits using TagEditor or PerfectTunes, then remove the database from 3.5 and essentially re-create the database and move on. This is not at all ideal. So… if ORIGIN does a notable better job managing and acknowledging changes to the database and I can avoid this sledgehammer workaround, it might be worth upgrading. The “tipping point” feature update, etc.
@Agoldnear - you have me wondering what part the spinning hard drive my music files resides on might play in the path of data conversation to analog and if SSD is better or worse for storing and serving music files? The plot thickens.
The only factors that would play into this decision is audible mechanical noise of a HDD versus a SSD and the transfer speed/transfer bus hierarchy, … If you can put your AIFF files on a large, fast 7200rpm HDD it is far less expensive than a large SSD…
I never recommend the music library be on the same storage device as the macOS is residing… An external HDD or SSD should be connected via the shortest good quality USB 3 or Thunderbolt 3/4 cable possible…
I can see ripping all of your CD’s as AIFF and storing them on a large HDD and then converting these to ALAC for playback storage on a smaller SSD if audible local noise is a factor… The MacMini is very quiet and nearly inaudible when not being pushed… Even then the fan-speed is managed by the system controller to maintain low acoustical noise…
Converting the files from AIFF to ALAC can be done in batches and this process will take very little time considering the initial time it took to rip them… You will now have archived your collection in a lossless format that can be backed-up and copied or converted to any other format that you may require… even remodulation to DSDxxx.
1 Like
I can’t give you insight on this… I use the metadata that Apple Music provides me in the rip… I may add tags in Audirvana regarding favorites or sample-rate groups, etc, … I like to be less concerned about that stuff and the bother it creates… For me the priority is listening to the music and getting immersed in the artistry and production… I find generally, the filters in Audirvana suitable for me…
I am so minimalistic, that I don’t even have the CD’s that I’ve ripped any longer, so I can’t even go back to the liner notes, etc… The notes are a distraction as far as I’m concerned… I don’t need to know everything about a production, and if I needed deeper information, I can get it via Live Plasma, etc.
Hopefully someone can provide a comparison between ORIGIN and 3.5. Or, a link to the subject elsewhere
I apologize in advance that I’m not going to answer your latest question, but rather reply to another point you’ve raised a couple of times (I haven’t used Origin so can’t speak to it). It’s about metadata:
-
Avoid Apple Music. It has its own ideas about metadata that are non-standard. (Yes, there is greater or lesser compliance with metadata standards, but Apple Music proudly does things its own way.) I recall things like half a Beatles album showing up under The Beatles and the other half showing up under a folder Apple Music created called Compilations.
-
XLD is pretty good about metadata, but no ripping program will be perfect, because the files themselves have variations in the metadata they contain.
-
What does this mean? Well (groan), if you really want to keep everything nice, neat, and to a uniform standard, you will need a separate metadata editing program. I personally like an app called Yate.
5 Likes