are WAV files worth the extra money?

(parenthesis) · Post by **(parenthesis)** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:23 pm

So, Im new to bleep.com and I want to buy a few albums, but is it really worth it to pay the few extra bucks to get an album in .wav format? rather than .mp3?

thedisavowed · Post by **thedisavowed** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:31 pm

It depends on your needs. If all of your listening happens on an mp3 player - then you'll probably be fine with mp3.

If, however, you have a nice stereo, the .wav are the equivalent of CD audio, and thus will be higher quality than compressed mp3s.

The new Autechre album is interesting b/c it's being released in 24 bit - which is a bit better I believe than standard CD audio.

For my part - I always prefer to have hard copies- so unless I'm purchasing a single or buying something I'd rather not personally rip from vinyl, I seek out physical CDs and at worst flac (which is also CD audio).

Music formats are a big subject, and you'll find a lot of varying opinion about it.

Incidentally, the advantage to wavs is that you can encode them into whatever you feel like - flacs, mp3s, wmvs, aacs. You needn't be restricted to any digital format.

turquoise70 · Post by **turquoise70** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:32 pm

i'd say it depends on the quality of the mp3 you're getting. i'm not as fond of VBR (variable bit rate), and anything under 192kbps is kind of crummy so I would opt for better, but I am pretty sure Bleep gives good quality mp3s that don't sound drastically different from WAV to the human ear.

747Music · Post by **747Music** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:02 am

turquoise70 wrote:i'd say it depends on the quality of the mp3 you're getting. i'm not as fond of VBR (variable bit rate), and anything under 192kbps is kind of crummy so I would opt for better, but I am pretty sure Bleep gives good quality mp3s that don't sound drastically different from WAV to the human ear.

My thoughts exactly.

Xurbatronic · Post by **Xurbatronic** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:00 pm

Personally, I have the majority of my music collection in mp3 format, and it is really the only way as I don't have unlimited drive space. Sonically speaking though, there are definite differences between mp3 versus WAV or FLAC. Even when the encoding rate is high with mp3, I find that the stereo image is affected negatively, and somehow there is less 'air' - which would make sense because
it is the extreme high frequencies that mpeg codecs tend to work on for the purposes of compression. There is a good article about mp3 here:

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007 ... ession.ars

(parenthesis) · Post by **(parenthesis)** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:48 pm

ok thanks guys, I don't think im gonna pay the extra money for some slight difference that I will probably never notice

Infinite E · Post by **Infinite E** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:04 pm

Xurbatronic wrote:Personally, I have the majority of my music collection in mp3 format, and it is really the only way as I don't have unlimited drive space. Sonically speaking though, there are definite differences between mp3 versus WAV or FLAC. Even when the encoding rate is high with mp3, I find that the stereo image is affected negatively, and somehow there is less 'air' - which would make sense because
it is the extreme high frequencies that mpeg codecs tend to work on for the purposes of compression. There is a good article about mp3 here:

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007 ... ession.ars

good article

sevenELIXIR · Post by **sevenELIXIR** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:59 pm

good question. I've never been able to tell the difference. then again my standards aren't that high; I grew up on cassette tapes

ross adey · Post by **ross adey** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:07 pm

categorically - yes. if you hear something you like you can sample it and (ab)use it as and how you like. although, 320kbp mp3's are ok too.

Phasen · Post by **Phasen** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:31 am

yeh. if the mp3s are at like 320 already then...no need to pay the extra for .wav unless you're a total audiophile with some killer speakers.

cool that the autechre album is out in 24 bit wav. 16 bit is pretty standard, no?

Sir Prancelot · Post by **Sir Prancelot** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:23 am

(parenthesis) wrote:So, Im new to bleep.com and I want to buy a few albums, but is it really worth it to pay the few extra bucks to get an album in .wav format? rather than .mp3?

I would generally agree with the disavowed, but I prefer to listen to lossless audio all the time. As far as BoC goes, it sounds a lot better. Richer sound quality in the bass, and a lot more definition in the mid-tones and background noises. Although with some other music it becomes a little harder to see the difference.

I like to associate this to a picture that is of a poor resolution and one that is of a good resolution. One you still get the general idea but it's muddy, and you can't tell where the exact edges are. The other you have the idea conveyed, but everything is so much more vibrant and distinct. Just apply that to the sound thing, and you have it.

But, if you aren't planning on storing this on a CD, you may consider converting those wave files to flac. Flac is a great audio codec which still remains lossless (like wav) but they are about 30% smaller than wav files.

Whichever way you choose, hope that it sounds good!

____twoism

are WAV files worth the extra money?

are WAV files worth the extra money?

Re: are WAV files worth the extra money?