AIFF vs Apple Lossless Ripping


I have a large music collection that I have ripped using Apple Lossless and error correction turned on. I have recently seen several postings saying that AIFF (with error correction turned on)is the way to go. Would anyone care to address the superiority of AIFF vs Lossless, and if possible, explain why one would potentially be better than the other? And, if AIFF results in a larger file, approximately how much larger (percentage). I'm trying to decide if it's worthwhile to re-rip a 1400 cd collection.
rabco
I cannot hear any difference between ALAC and AIFF but it might be placebo effect since I know that hard disk ALAC or AIFF files have no timing and in reality it takes shorter to decompress than read larger file from hard drive. Data comes in packets anyway and has no timing until it is placed in output buffers and clocked out. I hope that Al (Almarg), being computer expert, can join us and explain it better. Is it possible that something else plays part in ALAC vs AIFF playback? (different playback program, computer settings etc.) Again, I'm just trying to understand without questioning anybody's findings.
Thanks, Kijanki. Concerning sonic differences between lossless audio formats, see my thoughts here, and in my subsequent posts in that thread. Note also the posts in that thread by Steve N. (Audioengr), who offers some alternative ideas.

Best regards,
-- Al
Thanks, Al. Your explanation makes perfect sense (as usual). Perhaps even Solid State Drives can really sound better, as Steve N. suspected, for the same reason of electrical noise being converted to jitter.

I feel lucky with my setup where computer is separated from the rest of the system while music stored in ALAC is delivered wirelessly bit perfect to Airport Express also in ALAC (no decompression in computer) to finally reach jitter suppressing Benchmark DAC1. Computer clock/timing is completely separated since data is buffered and AE creates its own output clock. AE and DAC1 are plugged into filtered outputs of power conditioner (Furman Elite) while data is supplied by short glass Toslink.

I said, I feel lucky, since my main reason for AE was to keep computer near sofa (doubling as home computer) and not the electrical noise.
Ripping my CDs under AIFF is the best then?

   I have to rerip over 3000 CDs. Not looking forward to this!!!!

in a previous post, I was trying to critical listen to my ref system using my iPod with 128k, and was laughed at :). 

So using aiff would be much better?  I will start as soon as I get the time. 

Pecan I put the CDs in and when prompted, click "replace" or just delete the old album, and rip again??  What is recommended?  Thank you and I look VERY forward to your relies in this subject. 
Why not rip your CDs to ALAC which is Apple's version of FLAC?  You get much smaller file sizes, about 5% of original, no data is lost, and all of your devices seem to work well with ALAC.  I don't see where AIFF offers anything of value to you...