Difference between 320kbps and wav?

Hey guys...

I have been looking around for some tracks that I can't find on vinyl anymore...which I have successfully found at a website called trackitdown.net

they offer most of their tracks at either 320kbps (mp3) or as a wav file.  The difference is 60 cents. ($3 or $3.60)

So in your opinion is there really a 60 cent difference in the quality?

And if there is a difference?  When would you hear it? i.e. just with headphones or large dance hall sound system?

Thanks

Get the mp3... it's still compressed compared to the wav but u'd have to play it on a really big system to notice any difference.

some people prefer to get the wav and then encode it to 320 themselves to make sure they are happy with the kind of encoding used, instead of picking up some identified/random encoding.

to hear the difference you would need some quality speaker and good hearing tho.

wicked...

i think I will just get 320 - after buying 100 songs that is 100 x 0.60 = $60 (an extra 20 songs)

thanks guys...

good work for buying the tunes... 


ps i noticed a skip on a tune i brought from Juno downloads.  I let them know bout it and they credit my account $5, nice...

Yeah that's the best bet, don't forget the wav's are way bigger too = longer downloads and more bandwidth and HDD space eaten up.

yeah i bout a copy of both once, to check - chucked em thru a set of HD25's up nice n loud - and i couldn't notice the difference, seriously

I like supporting the digital scene - just hit 355 Mp3s off digital stores 

ya don't notice any difference unless they are run through a big system or you are superman

if you like drum n bass heaps loud... chances are youve already lost the super high frequencies in your hearing that mp3s throw away with their compression anyway...

 

How about 192?

I have got a lot of songs that are 192 and some download sites only offer 192.

Again?  When would you hear the difference and would it be really noticable - i.e. going from one tune that is 192 to one tune that is vinyl etc etc?

i wouldnt play a 192 out, the difference can be notice IMO.  Tends to sound slightly little flatterbut i guess it depends on the original and ripping methodology

You won't notice any quality?? Well maybe if you run shit speakers.

I'd go the WAV/AIFF every time. You don't have to worry about using the latest and greatest codec because straight PCM will always be exactly what its meant to be. Comparing direct PCM to a MP3 is like comparing a comfy leather couch to one made of Cheezels and glass.

Fuck it, bring on SACD 1-bit delta-sigma modulation releases 

Seconded. 24 bit 192khz is where it's at.

Really though with the price of hard drives and the interwebs these days it is worth getting .wav over .mp3. Would still end up much cheaper than buying vinyl.

Vinyl is better IMO though.

yeah that was what I was thinking...it was more about the price...is the 60 cents more per song really worth it?

I am still undecided about whether to go 320 mp3 or wav.  As for hdd space...I plan to have 4 x 320gig hdds on raid 5.  So I won't be worried about space or speed

Sony owns the rights to that hey?  booo

Sony & Philips

Why's everyone so set on the bit rate? The type of encoder used and the settings used with it are more important. Shitty encoders at a high bit rate will give you a worse sound than a good encoder like LAME at a lower bit rate.

If you really want to see what is worth buying, find a track that you know has a lot of range in sounds (in this case some track that isn't electronic music like jazz or classical or instrumental music would be better) from the site. Buy it in MP3 format and in WAV. Then use some application like Adobe Audition to do a spectral analysis on the tune and you will see with your own eyes how much less data the MP3 contains for the sake of 60 cents.

Maybe it isn't so relevant/obvious with electronic music but with instrumental music (real instruments) the sound difference between lossless and lossy formats, even with good encoders at VBR 192kbps is noticeable if you have a decent audio system and your hearing isn't ruined. The ruined hearing problem might be an issue for people here who've been at too many events and listen to their iPods so loud that people sitting a metre away can hear it as well...

This debate is like a similar one with photography in many ways, and in some ways the final argument is just as relevant. With higher end digital cameras you can shoot in RAW format which means you get the exact data captured by the cameras image sensor. Or you can shoot in JPG format where the camera discards a lot of information and gives you a smaller file. The final argument with this debate is as follows: Memory is cheap, memories are priceless. I'm sure you can translate that to audio formats yourself...

I'd buy the WAV.