What do you mean?
I have never seen a claim uncompressing any form of file compression is anything but perfect. An original file, and a file compressed to FLAC and returned to its original format, are identical.
Certainly there can be sound differences for other reasons, but not because decompression is something other than perfect. Do you think otherwise?
Uncompressing A FLAC file requires extra processing from the computer and if it is not optimized to do this, it can affect the sound. Maybe this video can explain it more clearly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ6TPdffMQk&ab_channel=PHOTOTRISTAN
I could do a couple of mouse clicks and start a conversion process of every FLAC file I have to say, AIFF. dBPoweramp can easily convert the files and then even delete the original files. I have often heard what you mention, unpacking FLAC back to uncompressed results in the identical file. It could be true, it could be false. I would never consider finding out. I am not going to go there even though it is automated and easy.
I am not certain I can identify a difference sonically between playing a FLAC file versus playing an AIFF of the same recording. But with 45TB of storage on my new NAS file size is of no concern to me.
One time here a discussion started about ripping to DSD. I took one of the best sounding recordings I have and ripped it to FLAC and DSD. I could not discern a difference at all. I tried ripping to DSD64 and DSD256 and couldn’t hear the difference between any of the three. I believe as wonderful as it is, the DSD conversion offered by dBPoweramp might not be all that. Your milage may vary.
Yes, this has long been discussed. But the reconstruction of the compressed file remains perfect.
It appears this is an issue of semantics.
Thank you for the clarification.
My system must prefer AIFF more than FLAC. When I ripped a CD in both formats, the AIFF sounds better, and this actually is more apparent in worse sounding CDs than high quality CDs. In great sounding CDs the difference became much smaller.
I’m on Rogers too. But we have both Bell and Rogers in the house, just for this kind of situation. So I had internet. I was able to stream from my local drives which are my collection of DSD64-DSD256 files I didn’t suffer from withdrawals.
I did the same thing. I ripped some CDs to Flac, AIFF, and WAV files and did many comparisons, and the differences are very subtle, but I did hear consistently AIFF and WAV had a little more presence and air to the sound than FLAC.
A great reason to stick with uncompressed files in your system. 
I use Phile Audio from the App Store. It’s around 7 dollars but well worth it if you do a lot of ripping. BTW, the files I ripped, even the FLAC sounds better than the original CD that I ripped from, but my file playback system does cost a bit more than my CD player. Now that’s another variable.
So I picked up dbPoweramp and I’m curious, is there anything to be gained by ripping a Redbook CD to something higher than 16/44? I was experimenting with 24/96 and although it shows up in the catalog of my Aurender N100H, they won’t load in the queue. 24/48 works fine but am I really accomplishing anything other than using up disc space? TIA.
Congrats on the dBpoweramp purchase. I hope it proves to the right tool for the job.
I have not fiddled with ripping any of my CDs and SACDs to a resolution other than the original resolution on the discs. My instinct has always been to preserve the original bits for use down stream and have not consistently observed a consistent benefit in converting files to different resolutions.
I hope some others with experience will chime in.
In the interim, the old adage applies: Give it a try and see what sounds best to you with your kit in your room.
Regards.
As mentioned before, ripping CD to AIFF or WAV may give you a better sound than FLAC, or not as Al mentioned. His system is out of normal world, so everything sounds good I bet. There is also an option ripping to DSD, but it occupies even more storage.
Am I missing something in the thread or is this potentially from the big label playbook - get people to purchase albums several times?
I realize there are likely big improvements but it’s always bothered me.
Respectfully yours… Mr Stick-in-the-Mud
We’re not buying any downloads. We’re ripping CD into different formats. If you have the software already there’s no additional cost for ripping existing CDs. Or did I miss your point?
I was referring to remastering.
Got it, too many sidetracks of the thread. 
I can’t remember if the High Definition Tape Transfers digital downloads were mention. For one price you can download all versions of Bill Evans Trio - Waltz for Debbie from 24/96 to DSD256.
Wow. 8.99??
So somebody help me out. Can anyone explain the process getting something to 256? We have tape from 1965 or so … do we have an analog to digital converter sampling it at that rate and spitting it out? Also are DSD digital recording devices in the studio currently 256 and then downsampled to 64- of those that record in pure DSD?
I don’t know why the link is showing $8.99. It’s $26.
Will it be possible to play DSD256 with the Airlens and the DS MkI? Or only with Mk II?
There”s still the problem with the insane file size unfortunately if we’re not just listening to a few test albums.
Furthermore I remember Ted saying, DSD256 is out of the sweet spot of the DS DAC”s (I and II), DSD128 being the better sounding format on those. So I wonder which PSA DAC should make use of the superiority of DSD256 you (Paul) describe?