If you have a nice enough sound system to be able to appreciate the difference in quality between a wav file and a high-bitrate mp3, you can afford to hit the 1-Click Buy Now! button and get the CD over at Amazon.
Lossless files are cool for bootlegs, or for things that were never issued commercially, or are out-of-print. Other than that, I will always prefer information (and that's all I am here, is a consolidator of information) about as good a quality of lossy files as are obtainable, or as are deserveable by persons such as... oh, I don't know who. Information about things such as flac/wav is only addressed if files of reasonably debased quality cannot be located.
Sheesh, some o' yous out there. You download all your lo-fi in lossless, don't you? You would download a shitty 78 transfer of a gutbucket jug band from 1923 in wav format, wouldn't you? You could have the New York Philharmonic in person in your living room, and you'd spend the whole time regretting that you don't live at the Concertgebouw.
Happy Viewing and Reading, Everyone!!! ~ wav ~ erp, I mean ~ ~ wave ~ ~
You are wrong. I donot have a high-end audio equipment but I can get completely discuraged by those unbearable distortions in high frequency range introduced by MP3 compression even in case of high rate settings. Point! MP3 is good for pop music of fast beat and massive sound compression. It is completely unsuitable for classical or jazz music in case you have a minimum musical taste and are capable of careful listening.
ReplyDeleteRgs!
I prefer lossless in most cases. I find that bass sounds don't compress well (maybe because of the resonation), Treble is usually reasonably acceptable compressed. Don't assume people with reasonable hi-fi gear have lots of money. I spent years putting together a hi-fi system from second hand bits. I am not well off by any means
ReplyDelete