|
320 kbps MP3 vs. WAV: can you hear the difference? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| "Waveform analysis?" You'll have to look at a spectral analyzer to if you want to *see* any significant difference. |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
"Waveform analysis?" You'll have to look at a spectral analyzer to if you want to *see* any significant difference. |
oh i thought when you reduce to a lower bitrate it might affect the waveform somehow |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| It does a little bit. You can notice some changes if you zoom in really far, but I don't think it's obvious from just the waveform whether a file is an MP3 or WAV. |
|
|
| wrzonance |
This thread is about listening comparison. Not dick waving.
Thnx,
Adam |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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. |
Not for distribution, which is what we are talking about here.
| quote: | Originally posted by Existo22
1000 giga bytes for around $100 |
No , I'm already using more than that on MP3s. Why should I waste $2500 on drive space when I get fit exactly the same quality into $100 worth? Don't be a retard.
JBJ is also right about web speeds. Sorry, but I'm not going to wait half an hour to download your POS DJ set because you're a stuck-up jackass who thinks it's a sin for your listeners to hear it in some impure lossy-compression format. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Yeah, I'm not going to use up hours downloading something in WAV unless I think that it's something really, really good that I'll be listening to in years. |
|
|
| Darkarbiter |
| 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? |
Jpeg is capable of lossless compression.
Possibly, and yes nevermind, they seem to have upgraded HQ recently. It does indeed sound 128kbps mp3 quality. |
|
|
| Existo22 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Not for distribution, which is what we are talking about here.
No , I'm already using more than that on MP3s. Why should I waste $2500 on drive space when I get fit exactly the same quality into $100 worth? Don't be a retard.
JBJ is also right about web speeds. Sorry, but I'm not going to wait half an hour to download your POS DJ set because you're a stuck-up jackass who thinks it's a sin for your listeners to hear it in some impure lossy-compression format. |
Do you have dsl at your house playboy or are you using dial up?
You can fit around 15 thousand uncompessed Wav files on a 1 tb hard drive.
More than that? Add another one for another $100.
That is 30000 songs man!
just how many songs do you got?
Certaintly a guy that bought all this music at $2 a pop must be able to afford a harddrive to store the music after spending $60.000 to buy it. Unless of course...
Lol |
|
|
| Subtle |
| Why use Wav when you dont hear the difference? |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
Why use Wav when you dont hear the difference? |
Sampling. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beatflux
Sampling. |
Then id rather track down the song i wanna sample in Wav. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Darkarbiter
Jpeg is capable of lossless compression. |
Theoretically yes, but almost no software supports that format.
| quote: | Originally posted by Existo22
Do you have dsl at your house playboy or are you using dial up? |
Cable, and I'm talking about broadband speeds dip. Why should I sit around waiting for a 100 MB file when I could get an identical copy that's only 10 MB? Your track isn't that important to me.
| quote: | | You can fit around 15 thousand uncompessed Wav files on a 1 tb hard drive. |
Yeah, that's around 1100 90-minute mixes and albums (some are 60, some are 120 or more, I figure that's a reasonable average), and I'm already well over that limit.
Why should I keep spending money on more hard drives when it costs nothing to use MP3 instead? The difference is even more noticeable when copying to an external disc - oh hey, I just downloaded 20 new mixes to listen to at work, do I sit there waiting for 1 minute to copy them or 10 minutes?
And what about CDs to play in my car? Or SD cards to put into my phone? I have a choice between fitting approximately 1 hour of audio onto a piece of media or 10 hours. Gee, what should I choose?
You're making a complete ass of yourself. Just stop.
| quote: | Certaintly a guy that bought all this music at $2 a pop must be able to afford a harddrive to store the music after spending $60.000 to buy it. Unless of course...
Lol |
DJs put out tons of free mixes that are completely legal. That's about all I listen to anymore. I would not want to download a friggin' .wav for each one. |
|
|
|
|
