WAV vs. AIFF

It absolutely is compressed (think about it, if it were not, it would be the same size as the original) BUT..every bit which is removed is replaced when it is played back unlike lossy compression inwhich files never return to the original state and are forever molested. So why might there be a difference in sound? The most obvious reason would be the increased processing which needs to be performed on the file in order to restore it to the original uncompressed format.

It is subtle but it comes across as a reduction in the relaxed nature of the musical presentation. As I stated earlier, when ;istening the car, I am not privy to the effect, but in either of my 2 home systems, I can (on most songs) readily identify the lossless file. I have some songs which I was absolutely unable to hear a difference, but not many. I suggest you perform a head to head test and determine for yourself. It is interesting, one thing is certain, Apple did a really good job with their compression algorithm, but for ultimate fidelity...uncompressed all the way.

It absolutely is compressed (think about it, if it were not, it would be the same size as the original) BUT..every bit which is removed is replaced when it is played back unlike lossy compression inwhich files never return to the original state and are forever molested.

Agreed. My bad in not stating myself better. There is compression where data is stripped and gone forever, which I believe is most peoples view of compression, and then there is "compression" whereby the data is stored in a manner that takes less space to store yet all the information is still fully there, such as Apple Lossless.

So why might there be a difference in sound? The most obvious reason would be the increased processing which needs to be performed on the file in order to restore it to the original uncompressed format.

It is subtle but...

This is where I believe some "may" get differing results from another and all the debates. Where not every system performs this processing the same, some gear may process the Apple Lossless back better than others. (This is purely speculation on my part.)

I suggest you perform a head to head test and determine for yourself.

I have and heard no difference. This is what causes all the debates. Those that hear a difference speculate that those who don't have a system that can't resolve it and those that don't hear any differnce specualte why others believe they do.

There is a lot to digital and after all these years there are still things being learned.

Here is something I took from the B&W site:

What is lossless?
Lossless audio files have not been subject to data compression such as mp3, which reduces file sizes by omitting significant quantities of information about the recorded sound. As such the sound quality is identical to that of a commercial CD.

What is Apple Lossless Compression?
Apple Lossless Compression (ALC) reduces the file size of music without skipping any sound information. When the audio is played back from ALC format it is re-encoded to WAV, which is the file format that CDs store music as.

Right in so many ways, when the concomitant digital picture is put back together from a lossless compress, it looks just like the original file...but in my experience there is something ineffable which is lost during the 'rebuild' process. B&W making that statement brings to mind Sony's famous "Perfect Sound Forever" and we all know how that panned out LOL!!! I do agree that it would be dependent on the machine rebuilding the file. As I say, A.L. sounds great, just not as good as no compression :) And yes you are absolutely correct that we are still learning quite a bit about digital. I am convinced and have been for about 10 years now that we can hear things which we have not yet quantified, therefor no construct exists to model or measure these properties.

I am convinced and have been for about 10 years now that we can hear things which we have not yet quantified, therefor no construct exists to model or measure these properties.

Whether right or wrong, I have always felt the same way on that.

...when the concomitant digital picture is put back together from a lossless compress, it looks just like the original file...but in my experience there is something ineffable which is lost during the 'rebuild' process.

Here we "may" see it slightly different. I do believe all the 1's and 0's can be brought back with absolutely no difference. What exactly could be different, if anything, I simply do not know. Again, as we both agree, if there is a difference it could be of different levels depending on the gear used. In other words, in some setups there is absolutely no difference in others there may be, hence the difference in opinions. (Again, just speculation.) It would be interesting to experiment with some different setups in your system and see if you could still tell a difference.

"Brianmgrarcom Wrote":
"Here we "may" see it slightly different. I do believe all the 1's and 0's can be brought back with absolutely no difference."
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Remember that although all the bits are replaced this is being done on the fly, hence processing is taking place. It is not reconstructing the signal and then playing it back all at once. Now I have experimented by taking a m4a file and converting it to a AIFF file and I have to say that does sound better than playing it directly as a m4a file. This is what led me to the belief that it is the processing that may be affecting the final outcome.