AIFF vs Apple Lossless Ripping

Restock,
Probably no theoretical advantage in converting Lossless to AIFF, as the source material done first in AIFF would be a larger file (more "information", audible or not).
If the missing data made a difference I could hear (an improvement), I'd consider re-ripping the collection. It certainly wouldn't be the first time!

Rabco, If there is no theoretical advantage in converting, why do you think AIFF files have more information?

Sidssp,
I was under the impression that ripping a cd into AIFF results in a larger data file (more information), than ripping a cd into Lossless. Smaller file, less information, despite the Lossless name.

I wasn't sure I understood why you would want to convert Lossless (smaller file) into a "larger" file format--AIFF.

Seems to me if you're going to do anything, it's get the larger file in the first place, if its really sonically superior.

Or am I confused and don't know it? ;-)

I am not a respected listener - I make no claims to golden ears at all.

I have tested redbook CD versus Apple Lossless (burned from said CD with error correction on) using a Toslink remote switcher (so without getting up from the listening chair).

I could not hear a difference - I tested about 30 tracks various types of music. I was using iTunes 9.01 - obviously a bug in a certain version of iTunes might cause errors - so my comments only apply to the version I tested and on a Mac Mini using Leopard latest operating system (but not Snow Leopard).

AIFF files do not have "more information" than lossless, there is no "missing information" in a lossless file, hence the name lossless. The data is there, it just compressed similar to a zipped data file. As stated, you can convert back and forth with no loss or errors.

Some people claim they can hear a difference and attribute this to the process of decoding the lossless file as the music is playing. I agree you should convert some and give it a listen to decide whether it is worth the effort.