How did I know that you would use technical jargon to destroy my analogy ?
I understand that they are different but my point stands - just because two codecs/copiers exist that claim to produce lossless/fine copies doesn't mean that they are both as effective as each other in all respects. Many of these audiophile types believe (or did at some point in time) that ALAC codec is inferior to FLAC. I really don't care but I don't believe it's necessarily as simple as "if they say it's lossless it's lossless". And yeah - I don't trust Apple either
We both agree that it's not worth worrying about - all I was saying is that until I see/hear proof of the codecs' equivalence I don't have any reason to believe Apple over the rogue audiophiles
You would hope that Apple wouldn't be dumb enough to produce a lossless codec that spits out stuff that isn't "bit for bit" equivalent to FLAC................maybe my memory of these arguments goes back to an early iteration of ALAC when there were some issues.
Anyway...............why are we talking about this shit?