Re: lossless format

Craig A. wrote:
So because CDs are already of lesser quality than the Original
source, I will try to preserve what is left to the best limit that I can and that is clearly WAV, I have enough info with CD Text and I am Happy and my music is as good as it can get. If Chuck had said he had a large collection of Rap Crap I would have suggested MP3 and he would have never noticed any difference. It is the SOund Mike, we aren't talking Data here, we are talking SOUND, stereo Seperation and the such, WAV you can select higher levels of recording formats, my average song is about 35 meg byte and I compare to a CD original and there is NO difference, WMA is limited to where it can be played without having to CONVERT IT yet again.

Craig, I'm sorry but your CD is digitally encoded with a WAV (of whatever spec). Transforming those bits to another digital format that doesn't lose the original information is not going to make an iota of difference. I have about 3000 CDs preserved - without loss of information - on a hard disk about the size of a fat hardback novel. I can recreate an audio CD whenever I choose, or make a downscale copy of a song for use on a small player.


I am a beleiver that maybe with Data there is no loss in conversion, but when I compare music youbet there is. I converted some MP3 to WAV and when it was done, there was a BIG difference as compared to the original source. I expeirmented with WMA as well and didn't like the idea of limitations. My SOny Car sytem palys my CDs fine and I get all of the info I need on the display.

Well you keep throwing up the MP3 straw-man, which I have said many time below is a COMPRESSED FORMAT (compressed by throwing away audio information), unlike the LOSSLESS FORMATS. Of course there will be a difference. I have never suggested replacing WAV with MP3 for archival purposes.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading