Some random reactions:

True, you do not want to compress the same file twice. I think that's different from using a compressed track in SONAR, where a project is saved in an uncompressed format (basically, non-destructive editing), where you then might compress the whole project to MP3. Another way to think of it is that, when a compressed file is imported into DAW software, it is uncompressed. It won't get any better, but it shouldn't get worse. I also use SONAR. I would not even think about this question unless the track in question were an acoustic guitar or piano, or a drum track, AND the song in question had only a very few instruments where they were very prominent in the mix.

About your first query, there is little audible difference between the .WAV files and .WMA files as supplied by PG Music. There are good threads on this subject every so often. You will only hear the difference if you have good ears, good equipment, and a quiet listening environment. Further, the only time I have noticed any significant difference is in mixing many .WMA tracks in the same project, since noise (however little) is additive in a mix.

I recall a post by someone who bought the regular version, and called PG Music to upgrade to the audiophile version. PG Music worked something out that satisfied that customer. To my knowledge, no one has posted a demo comparing the two types, because normally a file posted on the Internet is compressed to MP3, and you would be hard pressed to hear any difference.

BIAB 2025 Win Audiophile. Software: Studio One 7 Pro, Swam horns, Acoustica-7, Notion 6, Song Master Pro, Win 11 Home. Hardware: Intel i9, 32 Gb; Roland Integra-7, Presonus 192 & Faderport 8, Royer 121, Adam Sub8 & Neumann 120 monitors.