AIFF vs Apple Lossless Ripping

Thanks, Onhwy61.
I thought I had researched this several years ago, and the prevailing opinion seemed to be no aural difference. I probably have the storage space available.....but it took me about 3 months to re-rip the last time I did, eliminating mp3's & converting everything to Lossless.
One downside, I suppose, altho for me not completely overiding, is it would result in fewer songs on my Nano, due to file size.....

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!

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? ;-)

Herman said:
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.

Thanks, Herman. I suspected there was something I wasn't understanding. I believe some A-B'ing is in order.

I have seen plenty of claims made for FLAC as being superior, but to my knowledge, there are ease of use issues when trying to use FLAC files with iTunes. Is there an easy way to do FLAC files with iTunes, and if so, would it be worth the time to re-rip the collection?