|
320 kbps MP3 vs. WAV: can you hear the difference? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| noicuc |
Nope... On these speakers they sound almost the same.
Gave them to 3 of my friends , same results. |
|
|
| palm |
| quote: | Originally posted by Existo22
Are you low on discspace or something?
/ |
on internal HD yes, and im trying to avoid cables and external devices so I need to keep everything at a minimum. compresssion is good where u cant hear the difference. if it wherent for copmression id need 800GB space for my MP3 alone. Then we have my productions which I also mostly keep at mp3. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Existo22
there is absolutely no reason to further degrade audio from cd to mp3 these days. Computers are fast and hard drives are big. Are you low on discspace or something? |
The only thing that there's "no reason" to do is waste space on huge files due to inefficient or nonexistent compression.
I suppose you think that we should all go back to using BMP/TIFF for all images and throw JPG/PNG out the window? |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The only thing that there's "no reason" to do is waste space on huge files due to inefficient or nonexistent compression.
I suppose you think that we should all go back to using BMP/TIFF for all images and throw JPG/PNG out the window? |
Well, considering that professional graphics houses operate using TIFF and professional studios use WAV, I'd say that you're wrong, as per usual. |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
googl| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
:wtf:
That's a load of crap. I can hear the difference on a pair of $600 monitors, in a pair of $200 headphones or even in my car, WITH road noise.
Mannix vs Kaymak - World Gone Mad. Specifically, the part at about 55 second mark where there is a drum roll and then the bass kicks in. If BoJingles posts up 10 ten second clips of that, then I am confident of being able to pick 10 out of 10. |
delusions ;) |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Well, considering that professional graphics houses operate using TIFF and professional studios use WAV, I'd say that you're wrong, as per usual. |
I don't think he was talking about using MP3s for production, but for listening. |
|
|
| Existo22 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The only thing that there's "no reason" to do is waste space on huge files due to inefficient or nonexistent compression.
I suppose you think that we should all go back to using BMP/TIFF for all images and throw JPG/PNG out the window? |
1000 giga bytes for around $100
If you shop around you get it for less. ;)
http://cgi.ebay.com/Western-Digital...alenotsupported
If you wanna compress and save go ahead. maybe you have an old computer. For me I just put the cd in and hit import. And have the file there in high resolution studio quality red-book. And I listen to the music with my adam monitors with the sub.
I can afford that luxury so I see no reason in compressing the file whatsoever.
But if you can't I understand. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| For me the main limitation is net connection speed, not hard drive space. I have about 500 GB worth of space, but it takes me a long time to download WAV files. |
|
|
| Dj Denzo |
| yes their is a difference... next question |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Denzo
yes their is a difference... next question |
But can you tell? Put your claim to the test. ;) |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
no difference when i did the test, even with waveform analysis they were the same.
Equipment used:
Dynaudio BM12A's
Lavry Black DA10
Logic 8 |
|
|
|
|
