WAV or Apple Lossless Encoder?


We plan on purchasing a Wadia 170i Transport to use with our Museatex Bidat. As we have several hundred CD's that we want to transfer, we want to begin the process of downloading them into our itunes library. I was surprised when I read the Wadia owners manual that it appears to recommend using the WAV encoder and does also mention mention Apple Lossless as an alternative. We use a PC rather than a MAC (sorry) and I know that WAV was originally developed for the PC, but from every thing that I've read, Lossless is the superior solution. Anyone compare these two and notice a difference? I only want to do this once.
conedison8
You guys are leagues ahead of me in this, but please take time out to answer a woman's question regarding this, new to me, technology.

We have ripped our cd's to itunes at 256...now we want to go to Apple Lossless...I think this necessitates re - ripping everything right? but, my partner noticed that you can convert itunes to Apple Lossless, click on an "album", hit convert, it does something and then says that it is now 33 mb rather than the original 9 mb for example. Does this mean that the files are now Apple Lossless, or is this wishful thinking and we need to get busy re ripping ???
Thanks for any and all responses folks. I am learning tons on this site!
Wishful thinking. You can never recover information that you lost when compressing the files into MP3 or other lossy formats.
Peter is correct Audiowoman. The option you speak of is designed to convert a full size file, like a .wav, to Apple Lossless.

Brian
Well on paper you would think wav would sound better. Wav is a total cd transfer with out any compression. Apple lossles does compress audio not much but it does. I have tried both and it's hard to tell the difference between them. However i have found that wav sounds better on some transfers. When you do go with wav its harder to get the art work.