Apple lossless versus new 256 kbps AAC encoding

Is Apple Lossless a higher audiophile quality encoding from original CD material

Yes.

How do they differ for the best possible sound quality.

Lossless, as it's name implies, throws no data away. Mp4 (AAC) is a lossy scheme in which data is thrown away.

Will you hear a difference? Depends on your ears and listening equipment. Most people will not.

Well, AAC is itself a compression method. I can't say why Apple does it this way, but I bet it has to do with the fact that lossless files are significantly larger, and its very difficult to tell the different between lossless and 256kbps AAC without trained ears and expensive stereo equipment (and even then, the difference is negligible).

Why doesn't apple provide the audiophile public with apple lossless iTune download capability?
Most likely two reasons;
1 - You can get 5-8 times more on an iPod with 128 kbps than you can with lossless. Apple is selling to the masses, who don't need/want/care about audiophile quality
2 - Bandwidth of iTunes store

Even at 256 kbps, the files will still be 1/4 the size of lossless.

Does anyone know if larger download file sizes (i.e. less compression) will be available from iTunes now that DRM is being deleted and songs w/o DRM can be purchased for higher price? I have NHT Pro Monitor Speakers on my iMac and there is a BIG difference in sound quality between WAV and AAC encoding. I won't buy songs from iTunes if AAC is all that is available.

As of right now, the only songs that will be affected are from the major record company, EMI. EMI is the only record company that has offered Apple their files with no DRM & at higher quality.

Does anyone know if larger download file sizes (i.e. less compression) will be available from iTunes now that DRM is being deleted and songs w/o DRM can be purchased for higher price?
You did read this thread, right?

As an aside, why are you using WAV on a Mac?
Not a big deal but AIFF is the equivalent Mac-wise.

Your right Chris. I should be using AIFF. I'm new to Macs. I'd be perfectly happy with downloads in either AIFF or Apple Lossless. Just don't want the extreme compression of ACC (which is the standard iTunes format) because they don't sound that good on an audiophile system. Because of this, I buy CDs and compress them when transferring to my iPod rather than buying from iTunes.

Your right Chris. I should be using AIFF. I'm new to
Macs. I'd be perfectly happy with downloads in either
AIFF or Apple Lossless. Just don't want the extreme
compression of ACC (which is the standard iTunes
format) because they don't sound that good on an
audiophile system. Because of this, I buy CDs and
compress them when transferring to my iPod rather
than buying from iTunes.

AIFF, WAV, and Apple Lossless should in theory be equal in quality.

In terms of compatibility, I find that ironically, Apple Lossless is more widely supported then AIFF or WAV.

While Windows Media Player can play AIFF it does not let you add them to its library, and WAV in iTunes does not let you add album artwork.

Apple Lossless can be added to and played using all of the following

iTunes, Windows Media Player, Foobar 2000, WinAmp, dbPowerAmp, MCE 2005 (MediaCenter), Xbox 360 Extender, AppleTV, iPod, iPhone, Roku Soundbridge, SlimDevices Squeezebox, Sonos ZonePlayer, VLC, MPlayer