> -----Original Message----- > From: Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 07 October 2008 01:17 > To: 313@hyperreal.org > Subject: Re: (313) Both mp3 and wav??? > > I only buy wavs. Not sure if i can really tell the difference > but if i'm going to pay money for something i want the best. > I can certainly hear the difference if i edit an mp3 and > re-encode it as an mp3 again. > Almost like cassette.
Yeah, I'm sure that would probably be audible. But I'm pretty sure I can't tell the difference between a good encoding at 320 CBR mp3 vs 16 bit 44KHz wav when I'm listening at home. And I don't particularly want to increase my storage requirements to four-five times what they would be with high quality mp3. One thing that may not have been clear in my original post is that when shopping at Juno, for instance, .wav or flac costs more money. They are generally about £.50 more than 320 kbps mp3. So if the average cost of a track in 320 kbps mp3 is £1.49 or £1.99 for wav, and I buy 100 tracks, if I then decide I only want to play 20 of them out I save money overall on the purchase price, despite having paid for twenty of the tracks twice. When you factor in storage costs too, I reckon it's pretty compelling. But like I say, I'm interested in finding out if anyone else has ways of dealing with this other than just buying uncompressed audio. I think there's got to be a better way, and this is just the first way I've come up with. Tristan ======= http://www.phonopsia.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
