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
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.
Apple lossles does compress audio not much but it does.
You talk not of what you know.
However i have found that wav sounds better on some transfers. When you do go with wav its harder to get the art work.

Have you tried doing a blind test on those files you think sound better. I wonder how much our brains play tricks on us when we think we know what to expect.

WAV is a format devised for PC's. I don't believe it allows for tagging the files with such information as artwork and song titles. All of that is done within the indexing provided by the software in the case of WAV. So, yes, it is a royal PITA to deal with WAV files if you want to attach artwork, or move them or restore from backup. I don't believe iTunes allows you to attach artwork yourself to a WAV file, though it can 'fetch' artwork for WAV files. I'm not sure how that works, but again, as I do understand it, it is strictly part of the software's indexing and those files are not tagged as are all the other formats (in which case the peripheral information can easily be added and moved around with the files). Peter suggested I try AIFF, which is an uncompressed format devised for MAC. I'm pretty sure it does allow for tagging (anyone?). Has anyone done any comparing between those two formats (probably in the archives but thought I'd check here)?

Apple lossles does compress audio not much but it does.

An Apple Lossless file is practically half the size of the same information in WAV format. That means you can fit almost twice as many CD's onto a hard drive that are compressed into AL as you would be able to if those CD's were ripped in WAV.
Brianmgrarcom Let me simplify for you. When you import or transfer your cd collection via apple lossless it takes up less space than acc of the same transfers. What's the reason for this? Because apple lossess compresses the music. It does this to save space. Do it for your self and check to see if i am right. I do know what i am talking about, perhaps "you talk not of what you know"
Usarmyvet91 - I think what Brian may have been pointing out was that it saves a significant amount of space (correct me if I'm wrong Brian). You had stated that it "does not compress audio much" which also puzzled me since saving almost half the space is significant.