nice argument, but its flawed
HD is a big quality step up from SD even in its compressed form.
so to follow that logic, we should increase the quality of mp3 after 20 years now. like we did from SD to HD.
mp3 is just an old relic from the stoneage of internet, just let go of it...
the thing is i bet you would buy wav over mp3 if it would cost the same ;-)
ask yourself why if it doesnt sound better.
article about engineer doing blind test of 128mp3 vs wav...?
in all honesty... i would probs still go mp3 320kbps... takes up less space and doesn't take as long to download.... i can't tell the difference between the two... so why waste more of my time...
the video bit wasn't really my main argument.. it was just highlighting that even that's compressed as it wastes a lot of space in its uncompressed format.. there's nothing wrong with compression as long as its done right....
my main point was... if you can't tell the difference between two things why bother going to that extra length to get it. is it the psychological thought of having the very best? if so why don't you demand all your wavs to be encoded at 24/96 bit/sample?
in terms of stepping up quality.. it probably doesn't hurt... but like i said if no one can tell the difference whats the point?
They tried to release Super Audio CDs back in the day... they never really caught on because no one could see the advantages over normal CDs... unlike the step up from tapes to CD....
the same can be said for video too... VHS to DVD was an incredible leap.. definition, colours, clarity...
however the step up to HD from DVD isn't as magnificent... upscaled DVDs go a long way... the differences are small...
there becomes a point where the definition exceeds what you can even register and the whole exercise becomes futile...
the video bit wasn't really my main argument.. it was just highlighting that even that's compressed as it wastes a lot of space in its uncompressed format.. there's nothing wrong with compression as long as its done right....
my main point was... if you can't tell the difference between two things why bother going to that extra length to get it. is it the psychological thought of having the very best? if so why don't you demand all your wavs to be encoded at 24/96 bit/sample?
in terms of stepping up quality.. it probably doesn't hurt... but like i said if no one can tell the difference whats the point?
They tried to release Super Audio CDs back in the day... they never really caught on because no one could see the advantages over normal CDs... unlike the step up from tapes to CD....
the same can be said for video too... VHS to DVD was an incredible leap.. definition, colours, clarity...
however the step up to HD from DVD isn't as magnificent... upscaled DVDs go a long way... the differences are small...
there becomes a point where the definition exceeds what you can even register and the whole exercise becomes futile...
Indeedy, this is overlooked in these discussions/comparisons, I don't know why.hydrogen wrote:ok... Lets just assume you can't difference between 320kbps and WAV.
But what happens when you take pitching the track? Major game change imo.
In theory the mp3 has parts of the sounds taken out at its original pitch. So if its pitched up or down... the sound should be very different you think?
I use 320kbps mp3 and some tracks really noticeably suffer when re-pitched, like Santiago Salazar - "La Minoria" or Darkstar - "Squeeze My Lime", however I believe these tracks are ripped from vinyl, don't know if this has anything to do with it.
For sure though, tracks with a lot of sine wave tones in them can really sound crap heavily re-pitched, I'll try with wav some day if I can be hooped.
I don't think so, bass frequencies are simpler than treble so they are the last frequencies to be lost. Correct me if I'm wrong.tone-def wrote: good point.
don't mp3's filter some bass away?