#1
If an album is recorded terribly (Brown Album by Primus comes to mind), is there really any advantages to uploading the album in WAV. form?
#2
yes, it wont get shittier the more the album is played
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
#3
None that I can think of. That's kind of like asking if it's possible to add mustard and bread to a dog turd and make it taste better. All it does is waste good mustard and bread.

In your case, all it does is waste drive space.
#4
Quote by lockwolf
yes, it wont get shittier the more the album is played



Lockwolf I've seen you everynow and then on threads, most of the stuff you say is not helpful.

Are you getting paid to troll?
#5
Quote by Crazyedd123

Lockwolf I've seen you everynow and then on threads, most of the stuff you say is not helpful.

Are you getting paid to troll?


Unlike most people here, I work for a living running mostly on 4 hours of sleep and coffee. I screwed up here.

Name other times though. Cuz I'm pretty sure everything else I say has truth to it. Even if it is in a dickish manner. Besides, at least I don't ask questions that can be answered by a simple google search.
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
#6
Quote by lockwolf
Unlike most people here, I work for a living running mostly on 4 hours of sleep and coffee. I screwed up here.

Name other times though. Cuz I'm pretty sure everything else I say has truth to it. Even if it is in a dickish manner. Besides, at least I don't ask questions that can be answered by a simple google search.


Sorry about that, I wasn't trying to get at you or anything. It's just I've seen some comments from you which, although relevant to the topic, are sorta just trollish.
Plus it's in your desription.

I should've articulated my words clearly, you can't exactly show tone of voice in written word. Last thing I want to do is argue with someone on the internet
#7
Wav, or any lossless format, for any purpose, is largely unnecessary. Audiophiles will tell you that you need lossless, but most people can't tell the difference between a 160 and a 320, let alone a 320 and a lossless, which often clock in over 1000, more than that even for the really hi fidelity 24 / 96 files. Let your ears decide, make a lossless copy, and a 256 copy. name one "songname.256" and "songname.1000" use hide the file type in your hard drive browser. Then, copy one of each, and leave them both as "songname". Have a friend blindfold you, click on either labeled one, and tell you which one it is. Then, have your friend pick one of the two unlabeled songs, and then you need to guess whether its the 256 or the 1000. If you score less than a 75%, don't bother with the Wav. If you score more than an 80%, your encoder probably sucks, and you should publish lossless and let everyone else make the call as to whats right for them.
#8
Quote by twtgd09
Wav, or any lossless format, for any purpose, is largely unnecessary. Audiophiles will tell you that you need lossless, but most people can't tell the difference between a 160 and a 320, let alone a 320 and a lossless, which often clock in over 1000, more than that even for the really hi fidelity 24 / 96 files. Let your ears decide, make a lossless copy, and a 256 copy. name one "songname.256" and "songname.1000" use hide the file type in your hard drive browser. Then, copy one of each, and leave them both as "songname". Have a friend blindfold you, click on either labeled one, and tell you which one it is. Then, have your friend pick one of the two unlabeled songs, and then you need to guess whether its the 256 or the 1000. If you score less than a 75%, don't bother with the Wav. If you score more than an 80%, your encoder probably sucks, and you should publish lossless and let everyone else make the call as to whats right for them.


I was thinking, it's probably the headphones and sound card that matter the most in terms of sound quality. I usually add stuff to my Ipod at 256kbps and then upload WAV. on my comp (I borrowed some songs from my friend and only recently realised that they had been eating up my ipod's space because they are in WAV. ).

I've been meaning to upload some stuff at like 25kbps, I want to hear if the sound quality really does suck at such low bit rates.

Just curious, why are lossless and WAV. different from each other? Which one's best? The only thing i've noticed is that lossless takes less space than WAV.

Then again, I only have £40 headphones which I use for going out, I'm going to buy some £100-200 headphones soon. Any recommendations?
#9
1. Yes, all of the different lossless codecs have slightly different methods of packaging the data. An ALAC sounds no different than a FLAC, WAV, or media monkey file.
2. Its the headphones that matter the most. Then the amplifier, then the digital analogue conversion. Guys on the internet will preach about how important the source is, but when we're talking about digital audio, there is ONE right way to make the conversion, and any intelligently designed DAC will do the job. Then you have your interconnects, NEVER spend more than 5 feet a foot of wire, and even that is a bit steep. You will "hear" a difference, but thats your imagination. If you want to imagine those differences, go ahead and buy a 2,000 dollar pear cable, but I think thats just silly. Then you have your amp, try and avoid tubes if you don't want distortion. Any modern, MOSFET based solid state amplifier from a well known manufacturer that obviously is targeted to the "audiophile and music lover" market will get the job done. Go much lower than 100 bucks, and the quality starts to noticeably drop off. Go too much higher, and you're back to imagining the differences. If you want to be really cheap, google "cmoy". the cmoy is a chip based amp, I've never tried it, but a lot of people like chip amps because if you don't like the sound, you just spend 20 bucks for another chip and your amp sounds pretty different. I've never been able to listen to a MOSFET amp, so all of my experiences have been with chips of which i've never been very fond. Finally, the headphones.
3. This is where the biggest differences in sound quality are. As for recommendations, thats in the price range that I'm looking at right now, and based on descriptions I've read in reviews, I'm considering either a sennheiser hd580 / 600, a denon d5000, or, if I can demo a pair, the sony sa5000 might also be a possibility, so feel free to look them up. Presumably grados would be a waste of your money because it appears that you don't live in the states and grados get marked up by like 200% outside the U.S.