[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Audio CD questions

On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 08:42, Gabriel Meier wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:46:40AM +0200, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> > > Could someone point me in the right direction here?  Also, what does
> > > everyone recommed for a preferred storage format (wav, mp3, ogg)?
> >
> > If you care about quality, wav.
> >
> > If you also care about storage space, compress it with flac
> > (free *lossless* audio codec).
> >
> > If you care about storage space more than quality, ogg.
> Incorrect! You will not be able to hear the difference between ogg at 128 or 
> even at 96 and wav. Try it out. I usually use ogg at 96. it is same quality 
> as mp3 at 128, but with smaller files. The quality of wave is technically 
> best, listening to it, you will not notice that.
> > If you care about storage space more than quality and you want to
> > share your audio files with Windoze lusers, mp3.
> >
> > Ogg and mp3 are *lossy* compression formats, which means they throw
> > away data to help compress the file and therefore produce artefacts on
> > the output (cf. the fuzzy border around sharp edges in jpeg images).
> > Ogg produces higher quality than mp3, is faster, and is free.

The quality of your sound card and speakers also comes into play.
If you're going to pump the sound through a Turtle Beach sound
card into your stereo and Bose 901 speakers, maybe you *do* want
wav files (or maybe mp3 at 320 bits would suffice).

Likewise, cheap PC speakers don't need anything more than mp3 at 128.

| Ron Johnson, Jr.     Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net          |
| Jefferson, LA  USA   http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson |
|                                                           |
| "Oh, great altar of passive entertainment, bestow upon me |
|  thy discordant images at such speed as to render linear  |
|  thought impossible" (Calvin, regarding TV)               |

Reply to: