CD ripping

Almost certainly not worth redoing to wav.  There have been a lot of similar debates on the flac format vs the wav format.  I am on the side of those saying that there is no difference, or at least no difference that anyone can hear.  One experiment I saw was of a flac file that was inverted and then played simultaneously with the wav file.  No sound came out!  QED as far as I am concerned.  That coincided with my hearing that there is no difference.  The theory is that the compressed format must have some extra processing and therefore cannot be as good.  I suppose that may be true but in my opinion the difference, if any, (that I can't hear) is a bit like claiming you have lost weight after a haircut - theoretically true but not meaningful.

Almost certainly not worth redoing to wav.  There have been a lot of similar debates on the flac format vs the wav format.  I am on the side of those saying that there is no difference, or at least no difference that anyone can hear.  One experiment I saw was of a flac file that was inverted and then played simultaneously with the wav file.  No sound came out!  QED as far as I am concerned.  That coincided with my hearing that there is no difference.  The theory is that the compressed format must have some extra processing and therefore cannot be as good.  I suppose that may be true but in my opinion the difference, if any, (that I can't hear) is a bit like claiming you have lost weight after a haircut - theoretically true but not meaningful.

M4a is a lossy compression format and inferior to the wav format. But wav files don’t accommodate meta data. If you’re going to rip your files again, it would probably be best to use a file type that has no loss - such as flac - but that can also include meta data.