Digital music – a quick guide to the best lossless files

Digital music – in particular transferring audio from a physical format into a purely digital form stored on a computer – was once regarded with suspicion by those who prize sound quality. However, there is now a raft of file formats that claim to be ‘lossless’ and to deliver sound that exactly matches the original.

Surely changing music, even music already stored in digital form on compact disc, from one format to another would result in a loss of sound quality that would outweigh the gain in convenience. This has been the primary view of people who cared about sound quality since the concept of digital music files first saw the light of day. A view given credence by the common use of lossy, highly compressed formats such as MP3.

However, it’s an opinion that just doesn’t hold water anymore. Yes, popular formats such as MP3 and AAC sacrifice some quality to keep file sizes small, but the emergence of lossless digital audio formats that are able to preserve every piece of information from a CD recording, means that a ripped file can be sonically indistinguishable from the original.

You might still ask why you should spend precious time ripping your CD collection. It’s all a question of convenience: a lossless digital music collection saves shelf space and is easy to move and back up; for larger collections, it also makes it far easier and faster to locate individual songs and albums. You can also access a digital music library from multiple sources simultaneously, for example from several network music players located in different rooms in your house.

Plus, thanks to the take up of higher-quality files with popular streaming and download sites – such as our own Society of Sound – it is now possible to access higher-quality music files as part of a subscription-based model without the need to take up valuable shelf – or even attic – space with physical media.

On the hardware side, storage devices like NAS and external hard drives offer huge amounts of space at increasingly low prices. And with high-quality DACs widely available and becoming better and less expensive all the time, computer hardware now offers excellent playback and can be easily connected to your existing Hi-Fi setup, either physically or wirelessly.

But whether you are streaming or ripping, the choice of file format is an apparently tricky one – with lots of choices, and many, many opinions. Here’s our thoughts on the main contenders….

The Free Lossless Audio Codec is a popular choice for many audiophiles. Like MP3 and AAC, FLAC is compressed to keep file sizes relatively small, but unlike those formats it’s lossless and therefore in theory indistinguishable from CD quality. In theory. CD audio converted to FLAC will typically be reduced to around 50 percent of its original size; a typical three-minute song on a CD will take up 30-40MB of space, while a ripped FLAC version of that song is 15-20MB.

FLAC supports metadata (artist and song information can be embedded into the file and artwork can be referenced by the file) and will play back on a wide variety of software and hardware. Crucially for many, it’s not currently supported by Apple products like iTunes or the iPod.

However, there are drawbacks to FLAC from an audiophile perspective, and a lot of that comes during both the coding and the un-compressing of the file for playback. Because FLAC is unzipped on the fly, the sound quality is highly dependent on the software you are using to do that. Therefore, even though it is theoretically lossless, there are still barriers to overcome when listening to the music contained within.

Apple Lossless
As you might guess from the name, the Apple Lossless Audio Codec (or ALAC) was developed by Apple and works with the company’s products like iTunes, the iPod and the iPhone (as well as being supported by a number of other hardware and software players); if you’re an avid user of Apple gear, it will be very appealing for you. However, like FLAC it’s compressed, and files ripped from CD typically take up around 40-60 percent of their original size. Also, like FLAC, it suffers from the same de-coding drawbacks.

AIFF is lossless, but also uncompressed. While this means it takes up as much space as the source file if ripping from a CD, it also avoids any compression issues, making it the ideal file for people who care about sound quality. Also, with the increasing affordability of bandwidth and hard drive space, file size is much less of an issue than it was even three or four years ago. AIFF also supports metadata, which helps in the management of your music – a great advantage if you have a large collection

Like AIFF, WAV is lossless but uncompressed, so ripped files take up the same amount of space as they would on a CD (around 10MB per minute of stereo sound). WAV also handles metadata but in a clumsier way than AIFF, so if you transfer a WAV library to another device there is a chance some of the information may not appear as it should.

In conclusion, we always feel that sound quality should come before convenience, and therefore it is lossless, uncompressed all the way for us – whether we are using a computer or a high-resolution portable audio player. Both WAV and AIFF have their plus points, but we lean towards AIFF for Society of Sound, because it backs up its excellent sound quality with hassle-free convenience. But, whatever you use, there really is no need to fear digital music.


  • John Haines says:

    I have JUST renewed my membership to B&W.
    I have just been informed, (with the latest monthly download) that no Flac but only AIFF. How do I actually ‘play’ AIFF, as as I believe I am only ‘set up’ to play Flac.
    If I can only get AIFF, I want to cancel my just renewed membership.
    Thank you,
    John Haines

  • Per Lytken says:

    I absolutely agree, that uncompressed wav and Aiff formats are superior to Flac. Will you make your (old) library available in AIFF?

  • Sarah D. says:

    There was a comment on the Roon site about a problem with AIFF not supporting file sizes greater than 2GB. (Link:
    Would you know if this is correct? Thanks.

  • Federico says:

    Why remove FLAC? The FLAC file format are universal, the AIFF file format is APPLE specific.

  • John says:

    Hi, I read with surprise that you had suddenly decided to remove FLAC downloads as of May 18th,
    I have been downloading FLAC files from B&W, and really don’t have bandwidth and storage to now shift to AIFF files. Can you give me the option of FLAC downloads for the duration of my subscription?

  • Joerg says:

    Please don’t remove the FLAC option.!!

  • Dave says:

    This is disappointing. I use FLAC for all my digital music and am very happy with it. Am not even sure if my hi-fi supports AIFF. I don’t want to use two different formats and don’t want to have to convert every time I download from SoS. Please reconsider this decision. If FLAC files are removed I will not be renewing my subscription.

  • Qbard says:

    Odd … Why this sudden FLAC-attack? Playing and enjoying HighRes Audio demands higher specifications of any device you want to use (either computer or dedicated audio device), meaning powerful processors, etc… Decompression of a FLAC is such a simple task… demands nothing of the hardware… So what’s really behind this?

  • Daniel says:

    Please continue distributing music using FLAC!
    Most of your users have probably already started archiving their music collections using a lossless, compressed, format, and will convert to FLAC or ALAC after download anyway. The biggest consequence of this choice is probably that you put this effort on the users.

    I don’t understand the argument of comporession issues with FLAC. The format is open and many great softwares exist. Many devices come with built-in support.

    You talk about storing music on a NAS, but if you stream wirelessly from this, you will get much more sensitive to wifi reception and data peaks, compared to streaming a compressed format.

    Finally, you forget about those of us that only have internet access via mobile broadband only, and have a monthly data limit.

    Hopefully SoS will be the only one distributing lossless audio as uncompressed files and eventually reconsider.

  • Phil says:

    Please keep FLAC, it takes long enough as it is to download

  • Tom says:

    Though I understand the thoughts on AIFF vs. FLAC and ALAC, I’d strongly vote for keeping FLAC 24 as a download option. Though I’m a Mac user, I prefer FLAC to ALAC (less space needed) and never witnessed and decoding issues, using Audirvana Plus 3 as playback software.

    AIFF on the contrary needs a lot more space, also on mobile devices, which leads to less albums-to-go, forcing users do convert AIFF into FLAC anyway.

    And as most music is recorded as WAV and has to be converted no matter whether FLAC or AIFF, keeping FLAC shouldn’t be much of an issue.

    I’d be grateful if SoS would keep at least FLAC, as this is still the best lossless solution in many respects.

  • Bowers & Wilkins says:

    Hi Sarah

    Thanks for your comment, that is correct that AIFF does not support a single track larger than 2GB, this however equates to around 1 hour of music at 24-bit 96kHz not 20 minutes as stated in this forum. Given that none of the music we offer will include a single track of 1 hour in length this will not be an issue.

    Kind Regards

    Bowers & Wilkins

  • Patrik Etschmayer says:

    AIFF might be great but in comparison FLAC is so widely supported, that you just know it will work. AIFF enjoys way less support in surround processors and network enabled pre amps. And the non- support also affects expensive equipment such as my Arcam AV 860 processor. Please keep offering a choice for the download formats. Otherwise one has to purchase a new streaming client just to listen to your free downloads.

  • Steven says:

    Whilst I like high quality sound, I am not keen that you will only provide AIFF and WAV. WAV is a nightmare as I can never attach any metadata and I would presume AIFF is similar. FLAC is much more useable and the size is easier to handle. I don’t tend to play from the computer but either via a Fiio X3 or my phone. A 128gb micro SD is going to fill up pretty quickly with WAV or AIFF. Keep FLAC please.

  • Rowan says:

    I agree with Daniel. AIFF is a proprietary Apple format. Please continue to provide the open source FLAC format.

  • Dennis says:

    I would prefer that you continue to offer FLAC. Using WAV or AIFF unnecessarily takes up too much space on my NAS. I have never noticed an audio quality problem with FLAC on playback. If you only offer AIFF you will create more work for me to convert it to FLAC after downloading. My guess is that a majority of members will be likewise inconvenienced by the need to convert to FLAC or ALAC to save space. Are you being pressured by Apple?

  • Bill says:

    I applaud the commitment to sound quality. However I’ve never seen evidence to support the contention that FLAC and ALAC result in inferior sound quality compared to AIFF or WAV. Do you have examples you can share with us? More importantly, who does the quality control on your “hi-res” downloads ? Some of them are obviously just upsampled from 44.1kHz files. And many of your 96kHz-24bit PCM files were clearly made from DSD masters without appropriate filtering and contain horrendous amounts of very loud ultrasonic noise. These issues present far greater compromises to sound quality than does any sort of lossless compression.

    Thanks, and keep the great music coming. Just pay better attention to the mastering and worry less about the format (as long as its lossless.)

  • Mats Rahm says:


    I do not understand why you need to withdraw the support for FLAC and ALAC when you are introducing AIFF? If storage now is so cheap, why not offer them all?

    FLAC24 is my format of choice if I do not want to have the music on my iPhone for a while when it is new to me. Then I also download a ALAC version. I do not think the pros of this change outweighs the cons on this change.

    Please reconsider your decision and offer all of the formats.

    Kind regards,
    /Mats Rahm

  • Ulf says:

    ALAC did not block as much space as other formats, especially from interest if you used to have your favourite music in good quality always on your mobile device at any time. Will try the AIFF and enjoy the sound soon. Some mobile devices are not easily upgraded to more capacity than others. Need to refresh my choice more often. Also a good chance to discover new music.

  • Giovanni says:

    Please continue distributing music using FLAC!
    I think that many hi fi music players (as Naim Unitiserve) d’ont read AIFF files.

  • DT says:

    I can only reiterate what others have stated: please don’t get rid of FLAC and ALAC. That would only shift the conversion process to us. A case could be made to eliminate ALAC as it’s an Apple specific format. Although I use both ALAC and FLAC, some of the restrictions of ALAC make it less friendly to the audiophile audience. That’s not the case with FLAC, which is a universally supported by audiophile leaning software. I assume audiophiles make up a significant proportion of your customer base. I really hope you reconsider.

  • John says:

    This is a strange choice.

    ALAC and FLAC files have *exactly* the same content as AIFF or WAV files, but are much smaller. Both ALAC and FLAC are open source, so there is no concern there – what is driving this decision?

    Please register another vote to retain ALAC or FLAC at the original sample- / bitrate – either is fine.

  • Colin Chisholm says:

    With this change in file format, it may be helpful to let customers know what MacOS has native services for re-encoding AIFF into different audio formats.

  • Michael says:

    Please continue offering FLAC. In my opinion AIFF sounds not better than FLAC anyway. Change it into FLAC after downloading is realy annoying.

  • Gary says:

    Really disappointed with this change. I used to download the ALAC content for I-tunes and playing in the car, but the 24 bit FLAC for PC and home sharing. Storage may be a lot cheaper now than in the past, but when you already have over 6TB of music and video I don’t want to be forced into purchasing more (and having the inconvenience of converting files after download). Clearly this is not a consumer-driven change.

  • Ian says:

    As John Finnemore said, “a rabbit of negative euphoria”. Does this mean I’ll have ditch my Cowon? And spend hours converting AIFF so my media server can play the files? Can I even convert AIFF? Now I’ll have to spend time investigating and no doubt come across limitations with my existing software software forcing me to yet more expense.

  • Dan says:

    This is a bad idea for me – I have a slow internet access network, so bigger files will be even more difficult to download.
    And music files sampled at 96kHz / 24 bits on FLAC format sound good – why bother with another format?
    BTW, anyway it’s not even that good that DSF, on which classical music is recorded by LSO anyway for ex.

    Also, from my perspective, only the classical music is worth on SoS.

  • Jay says:

    How do I know whether to use AIFF16 or AIFF24? I listen on the MM1 and the Z2.

  • Dave says:

    I too would prefer a return to the FLAC download, or the option to choose; otherwise I will just have the additional trouble of converting AIFF to FLAC for optimum storage. FLAC is a lossless format, and the software we use to decompress it for playing is for us to choose. Anyone who feels they’re not getting the best results from their FLAC files will presumably already be set up to convert FLAC to AIFF or WAV for playback.

  • Bill says:

    Why? I cannot see the point of this format change. Yes I am concerned about sound quality and that is why I do not use a lossy format like mp3, I choose to use FLAC and I download the 24bit version. It does seem a strange decision to me because the World Recordings are often only at a sampling rate of 48hHz. I would think hat for your customers that care about sound quality you could promise to use 24/96 as a baseline!

  • David says:

    I too would prefer FLACs at least as an option. Any audiophile-oriented software and hardware I came across handled them without a hitch. Saying that they are decompressed on the fly seems like a stretch too. There is a technique called “read-ahead buffering” devised for such scenarios and I’d be shocked to see any decent audio software or hardware not taking advantage of it.
    Like Dennis my first conclusion was related to some kind of Apple pressure – too many Mac specific junk files and folders in most of ZIPs would hint it that way, On the other hand though, their removal of jack altogether from iPhone seems more like jumping away from audiophile consumers…
    At least timing couldn’t be better. Since my bonus membership is ending soon, now I don’t have to worry about extending it.

  • Ed says:

    Many streaming media systems have issues with AIF files. I’ve had to convert the handful of AIF files for the two systems I’ve got that don’t like AIF. AIF also has issues with metadata. JRiver handles it gracefully, as does iTunes, but outside of that, AIF ends up being seen as meta-data free.

    I can listen to a trumpet player and tell you what kind of brass the bell’s made of, and whether it’s lacquered or not. I can’t hear a difference between FLAC at medium compression, and AIF or WAV. Really. Supply FLAC.

  • ed says:

    To my point. File 10 on Verdi has no track number. Shows up in two different media programs separate from the rest of the album. With no image. Now I get to spend the next hour trying to figure out what’s screwed up.

  • Raymundo says:

    As you clearly point out there has been upgrade paths for storage and bandwidth to the point there is not an issue anymore, so does computational power; nowadays we can manage rather large music collections, decompress FLAC, up-sample, DSD process for room correction all at the same time and with standard computers (MacMini for instance). So why considering that FLAC could not be processed properly for the maximum sonic experience? I would suggest you to continue supporting FLAC instead of AIFF.

    Kind Regards.

  • Gary says:

    SoS can distribute music how they wish; I’ll continue to store and listen as FLAC – AIFF has no benefit yet definite disadvantages.

    SoS assert that there are theoretical problems with FLAC without providing a shred of evidence that such alleged problems actually exist. Your assertion is not valid without data. Please provide some. Thanks.

  • Jay says:

    I too was disappointed to find only the AIFF file format when logging in to download the monthly album. I understand and respect the arguments made within the blog. However, there are many of us paying for this great service that prefer FLAC over other formats. Please bring back FLAC. Thank you!

  • Anthony Cuffe says:

    I have a number of Flac players in my studio and house. These players don’t support AIFF and so your change to providing Flac16 and 24bit files is very inconvenient. If I had known you were going to stop producing these formats I would never have renewed my membership last month with Society of Sound.

    Not happy……

  • Remco says:

    To bad that B&W doesn’t react! Only ones, but that was on a none issue. Please react on the FLAC questions! Is this how B&W deals with his customers?

  • Stuart Paterson says:

    Please return to FLAC. Much more compatable format, downloads much quicker. I, like many of your users will convert to FLAC after downloading in any case

  • Kennet Jonsson says:

    FLAC is lossless – what goes in comes out. Same as a ZIP archive.
    There is no format that adds more information to the music then was there in the start, so AIFF can in no way be better then FLAC (a compressed copy of the original, restored to the same original information),
    Please provide FLAC archive as well.

  • EugenF says:

    It is a downgrade. FLAC-24bit has 96khz sampling rate. AIFF 24-bit has only 48khz.
    Sorry but in the future I will terminate my subscription on Society of Sound.

  • Christian says:

    Please continue providing FLAC files. I cannot share the drawbacks you pointed out regarding FLAC. What I can see are disadvantages for me handling those AIFF files. Actually my media manager software is not supporting AIFF as well as my media player and I do not want to use iTunes. You can additionally provide AIFF for those that share you point of view but for all other please provide FLAC as an alternative format. If AIFF is the future at SoS I do not think I will be part of that club anymore – it simply makes no sense for me.

  • Kevin says:

    Please continue to offer downloads in FLAC. I have my entire collection of digital music in FLAC and I am very happy with the sound quality on the players that I use (Foobar 2000 & Cowon M2). All of the music retailers that I buy from (Qobuz, eClassical, Hyperion, Presto, Linn) offer downloads in FLAC. If SoS offer only downloads in AIFF, this will just amount to an inconvenience to me, as I will still want to convert them to FLAC.

  • Ben says:

    @Ed – oddly enough I’ve just sent a technical support request for the track 10 issue – as far as I can see the header is corrupt (Foobar 2000 gives quite a lot of info if you try to convert between formats. Mp3tag will (now) edit AIF tags, but as the header is corrupt it refuses to update it).
    Adding my voice to the debate, I too would prefer FLAC24 as it’s compressed in transit and storage. The argument for changing to AIFF doesn’t really stack up IMO – Storage may be cheap, but uncompressed files are simply wasteful of bandwidth, time and disk space.

  • Wilfried says:

    Hi there,
    my equipment needs *.flac-supply! Now I have to convert my downloads every time. With which program I can convert aiff to flac most suitable? Like Ben and Ed I have problems with track 10 (foobar 2000 and others) too..
    So my new subscribe (from May 2017) is nearly valueless. Very irritating.

  • Detlef says:

    I am member of the SoSM under the condition to get inspiring music I can play on my system. This was till now always FLAC. Because I am a streaming beginner, I only have a NAIM DAC playing the HiRes via the USB port. Unfortunately NAIM DAC does not support AIFF via USB, so I can not enjoy my membership anymore. I guess that to convert the provided AIFF format to WAV on my PC will reduce the quality of the music.
    I would relay very much appreciate, if B+W could offer AIFF and FLAC in the download area for members, having whatever reasons to prefer FLAC.

  • Federico says:

    I choose SoS because of FLAC. I leave SoS because of AIFF

  • Seán says:

    Not Funny, Not Funny at all.

    Dear Bowers,

    please listen to your subscribers when we say we would like FLAC back. While my Linn kit is able to perform with all formats not once have I heard one person complain about how your SoS productions have performed in FLAC while is a supposed argument of yours. Ridiculous.

    Apple must have put pressure on you as I can’t see any justification in moving from FREE production (FLAC to Apple (nothing from them is ever free) so come September when subscription prices rise guess what…I will have to consider my options.

    Why not also go for MQA? Apparently it’s better than sliced bread, why even go to the devils AIFF format…

    And FYI – I’m on a 200Mb Fibre line it’s gonna take a long time to download these zipped files.

    Could you not put together a decent download manager and allow us to download individual files rather than one 2.3GB file! Rediculous.

    I hope track 10 is fixed otherwise will I have to download the full thing again? Probably…


  • DSG says:

    Slightly miffed by this. I subscribed to a service that offered FLAC files for download now and in the middle of my subscription, you have changed the format to one my equipment does not natively support.

    I appear to have two options:

    Cancel my subscription, I assume I’ll get a refund?
    Take on the task of converting it myself?

    One final observation. If as you state ” with the increasing affordability of bandwidth and hard drive space, file size is much less of an issue”. What not offer both and let your subscribers choose?

  • Manfred says:

    Thank you so much for a new attempt to invent the wheel. FLAC ist a Standard, well known, widespread and it is implemented on all systems.

    AIFF ist just an exotic format, used by a minority. Actually I don’t know somebody who is using it.
    I’m absolutely not happy with that format, spent the past hours to see if it is working on my systems and ….. it doesn’t! It shows just an Unknown Arist, a Unkown Album and it can not be played. And I am not using the last bargain offer to the cheapest price.

    I like listening music, but not on or via laptop or desktop computer. When you guys talk about sound quality (or hard drive space) then it should be DSD and definitely NOT AIFF.

    Download portals let customers decide what they want, they can choose between different formats.

    I haven’t registered my new B&W loudspeakers yet, but it seems I’ll have a lifelong useless abo.


  • andrew says:

    I also joined SoS to download Flac. Please reinstate Flac downloads

  • Simon Roberts says:

    Please bring back FLAC.

    I have not seen conclusive evidence that FLAC is inferior to AIFF with a good player, and the mass storage space and bandwidth advantages of FLAC over AIFF are clear. However, I keep an open mind on this. Personally, I use Audirvana Plus on a Mac with various external DACs, and the quality is outstanding. My ears are sensitive to jitter created problems, which in my experience results in a subtle lack of transparency without a change in tonal balance. I don’t hear this any more or less with FLAC.

    By all means, provide AIFF as an option, but please listen to your subscribers and restore 24 bit FLAC support.

    Thank you for listening.

  • Peter Chapman says:

    I cannot play AIFF on my Cambridge CXN from my NAS server. FLAC works perfectly. I unzip them before storing them on the server so the unzip on the fly issue is not relevant. I will be cancelling my membership if this cannot be resolved.

  • Erwin says:

    Please bring back FLAC.

    There is no conversion loss. Audiophiles undoubtedly have the necessary (free) software.

    Thank you for listening.

  • Jerry LeCRoy says:

    I add my vote to the other subscribers who are asking that SOS continue to provide FLAC files for download. None of the three playback systems I presently use (Astell & Kern AK100 personal player, Denon AVR 2!00 receiver, and my BMW car) appear to be capable of playing back AIFF files. The effort and extra disk space required to convert from AIFF to FLAC format will make my SOS Subscription substantially less attractive.
    Best Regards,

  • steveS says:

    I’ve downloaded the Ofeliadrome in AIFF as it is the only download you offer. It sounds magnificent on my Fiio with P5’s on its own and via an Audiolab Q dac. However my phone is a Samsung and doesn’t recognise it. Do you recommend an easy to use file converter? I wish you would go back to FLAC as I hate trying to use Apple products. You said originally that you would supply downloads in WAV as well. What happened to that?

  • Rafael Urrutia says:

    Will I be able to download the AIFF format to my Apple desktop and iTunes?

  • Suresh says:

    As a proud owner of B&W products for 30 years, I am disappointed by this needless move. FLAC is the standard and is open source. Claims of SQ issues with FLAC are unfounded. It could be the case on an ancient CPU, but then if that’s your argument, then your reference to modern storage capabilities would be inconsistent. It would seem you’ve been influenced by Apple, because it sounds like *fakenews*.

    I’ve been enjoying SoS for many years, but will now not renew my subscription.

    Compression is good when lossless. Wasting space unnecessarily means more HDs in my NAS eventually, and also means more time downloading. Regardless, my player does not support AIFF natively, so I will either thave to transcode on the fly (not good for low-powered NAS) or have to convert all files after downloading. This is all just silly.

    You should offer both formats. Bring back FLAC 24, or lose another SoS customer.

    Thanks kindly.

  • Tony Ward says:

    I for one will not be renewing my subscription now that B&W has seen fit to drop FLAC. There is no good reason NOT to continue to support the most popular format amongst audiophiles as an option.
    By all means add AIFF support but keep FLAC – its only storage space on a server

    Apple win again…….and I thought B&W were better than this which is why Ive supported Society f Sound from Day One.

    Please do not drop FLAC

  • Thanos says:

    As far as I know most users are using FLAC files. We all have a specific setup for our Windows computers. It is a waste of time to change all our files to AIIF. . Also the Metadata issue is very important, FLAC is recognised as the most reliable method.
    I will have to cancel my subscription if we don’t have FLAC as an option.

  • Marek Petercak says:


    sorry to say, but first thing I’m doing after this next download, I’m converting to FLAC and deleting AIFF. FLAC is a standard for audio enthusiasts.

    I have no problem with AIFF format and if someone prefers to keep his library in this format. I respect that. But please offer downloads in FLAC as well. We should have more options, not less. It won’t take much more space on your servers. Some users may feel uneasy about how to convert properly to their preferred format and may choose a different source instead.

    With all due respect, but shouldn’t you offer more format options and leave the choice of format to listeners?

    Kind regards,


  • Gopal Venkat says:

    I am joining with many of your customers in requesting that you bring back FLAC.

    At least offer both FLAC24 and AIFF24 as downloads.

    I play my music with an older receiver (USB drive etc.) and the receiver does not recognize AIFF.
    Same Issues with my Portable Audio Player.

    Therefore, please provide FLAC24 and AIFF24 as download Options.

    Thank you


  • Bill says:

    Aah my comment reappeared, well the second one did but my first is still missing.
    I have now downloaded this months albums and it is a pain having to convert them to FLAC, I gather you now realise that I do not agree with your reasoning.
    If sound quality is so important why only a 96/44.1 version of the Ofeliadorme album – just a thought.
    Come on guys see sense!

  • Tom Semmler says:

    Hi again,

    as already posted a note in April (that vanished due to whatever curious reason) asking FLAC back, and I still don’t see the point in taking away FLAC.

    FLAC is a lossless and free codec, which might, as any other codec, gets affected by decoding, if the decoder is not well programmed. In my case I use Audirvana Plus 3 with no troubles whatsoever. The software of course also works with AIFF, but this format takes far too much space with no audible advantage, both via speakers or headphones.

    I run a blog on high resolution audio and Mac hardware, btw ( – it’s in German, sorry for that)

    Please offer at least 24-bit FLAC alongside AIFF, thanks.


  • Tom Semmelr says:

    And back again.

    It’s a little weird – when I open this page, I don’t see my older comments and also some of the other older ones. They only appear, after I send a new one (which isn’t the reason to send this one, though).

    There are two issues I’d like to point at:

    On you say, that 24 bit 44,1 kHz is Studio Master quality. That’s not correct, as far as I can see. Studio Master files from the mixing consoles start with 96 kHz and run up to 364 kHz.

    If the best quality to get with AIFF is 44,1 kHz 24 bit, this is a drawback, as it is not as good as most of your previous FLAC and ALAC files, which offered up to 96 kHz at least with the classical recordings, that is: real Studio Master quality.

    Also AIFF is too big even for delivery. Writing these lines, I try to download Verdis Requiem for about 30 minutes now – with a 50.000 mbit line. It’s 2,3 GB are far too much data to deliver, especially if many SoS customers download at the same time. I still have 21 minutes to go, with 800 MB remaining. My idea of performance is different, the AIFF time frame is a drawback.

    Please put back FLAC as an option!

    Thank you for considering.


  • Alistair Warwick says:

    Please bring back FLAC.

  • Wegas says:

    I am joining with many users in wishing that you offer the choice of several lossless formats:
    Flac (the one I personally use)

    Thank you in advance

  • Ben T says:

    I am also joining the request to bring back flac. In the end I just have to convert it back. Further on I’m a very happy user of SOS. The music deliverd is great and mostly very interesting.
    Hope you will help (me and your other customers and revert to flac, or make flac a choice ;-)

    Best regards and thanks,

    Ben T

  • pete s. says:

    Please, Please, PLEASE… can we have FLAC back? I have no idea how to convert your AIFF files, and I don’t have any Apple kit, nor do I use iTunes.

  • James Osborne says:

    As a returning customer, I did not realise until reactivated that you had changed your formats. I use ALAC 16 for convenience in iTunes, and FLAC 24 through my high-end streamer. Maybe a bit crazy to go for two formats in parallel – but it worked really good for me without having to do any software transcoding for use at my end. Now I find out that you kill off both formats, only offering AIFF. You claim AIFF has some benefits – and maybe so. But you’ve now landed me with software transcoding into my libraries. What you should have done was give your subscribers the CHOICE between the formats at different qualities. Listen to your subscribers. If in doubt – run a pilot for three months and see which format gets the most downloads.

  • Ben says:

    Does the latest news that iOS11 will natively support FLAC help the argument? I can understand that less technical people are drawn to the Apple eco-system, and therefore need things to ‘just work’ – hence the move to AIFF. But hopefully this update will allow you to return to the better choice.
    I’ve just renewed my subsription for another year in anticipation that common sense will prevail, until then I’ll just reconvert to FLAC locally; Maybe you ought to add topic as a FAQ?

  • George says:

    Please bring back FLAC

  • Bill says:

    What is happening?
    (i) Dropping FLAC – not joined up thinking
    (ii) Posts that come and go – rubbish software.

    B&W get your act together – I will NOT renew my membership if tou refuse to bring FLAC back!

  • Oskar says:

    As a long time subscriber, I am disappointed with your decision to drop FLAC altogether. I use ALAC for iTunes and FLAC24 for my high end system. I do not share your concerns about quality drops because of decompression. Bit-perfect is and remains bit-perfect. The sound is always buffered before being reproduced, so the fact that AIFF is uncompressed does not seem reasonable to me.
    If you will not listen to our voices, I will have to cancel my subscriptions, as many other commenters will do.

  • David H. says:

    Please return to FLAC.

    I’ve just resubscribed to SoS after a break to discover the move to AIFF. All I can say is that you clearly don’t understand your user base. I understand AIF is a preference for many apple users for compatibility issues, but most audiophiles will prefer industry standard FLAC format. Please consider offering both.

  • Matthias says:

    I do not share the assessment “However, there are drawbacks to FLAC from an audiophile perspective, and a lot of that comes during both the coding and the un-compressing of the file for playback. Because FLAC is unzipped on the fly, the sound quality is highly dependent on the software you are using to do that. Therefore, even though it is theoretically lossless, there are still barriers to overcome when listening to the music contained within.” and similar to ALAC.

    Any software or firmware on embedded devices that cause a sound degradation on a LOSSLESS file format such as FLAC is defective and needs to be claimed for warranty if paid, and fixed, and in the case of free software, needs to be fixed, or replaced by something that works. Using the fact that some software may have had or still have defects as the stepping stone to mount an argument against FLAC and move to less-compatible formats is simply misguided.

    There may be valid reasons why AIFF might be more convenient to provide, but to us subscribers I can only join the choir of those asking for FLAC to be kept in 24-bit AND ALSO 16-bit formats. All my devices support 16-bit FLAC, none support 16-bit AIFF or ALAC.

  • Matthias says:

    Just to provide data points of file sizes, how wasteful AIFF is:
    Zip gained c. 1-2% only, I’ve tried 7z and it shaved off some 20 MB only.

    If I unpack the zip above, use flac –best to compress AIFF to FLAC, and then zip “store” (no compression in zip):

  • Todd says:

    The reasons for your decision to change to the AIFF format are weak. For an organization that prides itself on high quality music, the highest possible sampling rate of AIFF seems inconsistent with your philosophy.

    Given the capabilities of modern general computers and specialized devices for music playback, I doubt any of it would have trouble during the decoding phase of FLAC playback. If it really matters to us, *we* will transcode the FLAC downloads to AIFF.

    A factor of two in file size still means waiting twice as long for the download and paying twice as much for storage (which is still not trivial for a large collection, plus the storage for backups). Hey, how about you reduce the membership subscription fee by a factor of two to compensate?

    *Please* continue to offer the choice of FLAC!

    Luckily my membership expires next month. Continue to offer FLAC and I’ll continue to renew. (And, next time I’m speaker shopping I will keep B&W on my short list.)

  • Bill says:

    They are bringing back FLAC and this makes sense. More people use FLAC and because it is lossless that minority of people who want another format can convert FLAC to their chosen format. I use minimserver which can convert to WAV on the fly on your server box, so you store FLAC but play WAV. SIMPLES!

  • Todd says:

    Thank you for listening and bringing back FLAC24!!

    Next on the improvement list: Bill’s comment about posts that “come and go.” My post from Sunday 11 June also disappeared.

  • Bjarne Bülow says:

    Am I the only one using Pure Music (or Pure Vinyl) software on mac? (
    One good thing there is that each track is uncompressed into memory before playing. Shouldn’t that take care of the concerns from unpacking on the fly?

Add a comment

We welcome debate within Society of Sound, but please keep it friendly, respectful and relevant. We have a few house rules which we ask you to abide by to keep the debate intelligent. Read more.
Product enquiry or support issue? Please click here.

Related Posts

Why rip your CDs? And why rip them to lossless?

Ripping music – transferring it from a physical format into a purely digital form stored on a computer drive – was once regarded …

Bowers & Wilkins Product Manager Mat Taylor discusses DACs

Digital to Analogue convertors, usually known as DACs, have played a vital role in high-quality music reproduction since the …

The Best Headphone Albums Ever

There’s something very special about listening to music on headphones. A sense of closeness to the artist, and, of course, with the …