new cd kicks butt bring on june 16

CD standard bitrate is 128kbps

.wav is 1.4Mb

So, yeah in my opinion.

But only for music with alot going on in it or very subtle sounds at the higher and lower end of the spectrum.
Also depends on your speakers. Mine was a bargain at 150 Euro and the sound out of it is monstrous. Will do until I can have it's more expensive bretheren.

Without getting into the realms of subjectivity, objectively a .wav file is never going to sound better than the CD you ripped it from.
Even if the .wav file is capable of storing information in higher fidelity than the CD, there's no way to get back any data that was lost when the music was transferred to CD, any more than you could convert an .mp3 file to .wav and get rid of all the compression artifacts.

Besides, isn't a CD 1411kbps? (44100Hz * 16 bits per sample * 2 channels for stereo)?

Technically, if you have a format that's capable of storing in higher fidelity than CD, you could use some kind of filtering algorithm when resampling, the same way photoshop does when it enlarges an image, but then you're not hearing extra detail that was originally there, you're just hearing the algorithm interpolating stuff that isn't really there in the original signal.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, and that's not what you're saying though.

Just listening to it....I realise how much I love the production!

It's fantastic!

It sounds so organic and "alive"

I ain't getting into this debate.

To me.

It is of a noticeably higher quaity.

AFAIK, lossless .wav ripped from a CD will be completely identical in quality-- a CD's sampling rate is 44100hz as previously mentioned, as long as you rip at that rate you should be able to, in theory, flip the phase and mix it with what you hear from the CD and get total silence (as long as there isn't any latency in the rip, which I don't think is common). Also, a CD is most certainly not 128kbps; that's the bitrate of a mid-to-low quality mp3 and there is a pretty massive difference in sound quality there.

~Josiah

Without getting into the realms of subjectivity, objectively a .wav file is never going to sound better than the CD you ripped it from.
Even if the .wav file is capable of storing information in higher fidelity than the CD, there's no way to get back any data that was lost when the music was transferred to CD, any more than you could convert an .mp3 file to .wav and get rid of all the compression artifacts.

Besides, isn't a CD 1411kbps? (44100Hz * 16 bits per sample * 2 channels for stereo)?

Technically, if you have a format that's capable of storing in higher fidelity than CD, you could use some kind of filtering algorithm when resampling, the same way photoshop does when it enlarges an image, but then you're not hearing extra detail that was originally there, you're just hearing the algorithm interpolating stuff that isn't really there in the original signal.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, and that's not what you're saying though.

Sometimes I am amazed at how smart everyone is in here. I learn something new everyday. Thanx Oid!!

Dan http://www.myspace.com/1omegaproject

AFAIK, lossless .wav ripped from a CD will be completely identical in quality-- a CD's sampling rate is 44100hz as previously mentioned, as long as you rip at that rate you should be able to, in theory, flip the phase and mix it with what you hear from the CD and get total silence (as long as there isn't any latency in the rip, which I don't think is common). Also, a CD is most certainly not 128kbps; that's the bitrate of a mid-to-low quality mp3 and there is a pretty massive difference in sound quality there.

~Josiah

Damn rip programs lied to me!

Those BASTARDS!

Even still, I meant to say 192Kbps. Heh heh, Double wrong-a-tude.
I had been led to believe that was CD quality. I don't actually listen to my CDs anymore. I prefer to have all my music available at once, hence I rip it all to an MP3 player or a laptop/HDD in MP3 format. If I had perhaps a 300 CD changer in my place I probably would have noticed that the quality was so much lower.

Consider me learn-ed.

I do the same actually, unless I feel like throwing some music on whilst cooking or cleaning or whatnot... then I have to use the actual CD in the boombox out there. All my music is ripped to my hard drive as well though-- usually at 192kbps. It avoids a lot of the 'mushyness' and slight lack of clarity that 128kbps generally suffers from, and while there's still a difference between it and CD quality, it's minute enough for me not to care. Some of my mp3s at at 256kbps or 320kbps, and honestly most of the time I can't hear a difference between that and 192. Some recording engineer I am, eh? Oh well. Being an audiophile is severely overrated.

~Josiah

I agree it's not essential for most bands.

It does sound a little nicer but not too obviously with alot of music. For stuff with alot of production value and alot of instruments I can't do without the top quality. I just know I'm missing out by listening to say Dev, *Shels, Secret Chiefs 3 and especially electronic music like Squarepusher at 192. Sometimes even 320 doesn't cut it for me.

I had the download copy of Ki to listen to for so long at a crappy little bitrate. To finally have it the way it was intended is amazing.

I'd love to have it on vinyl.

I discovered that encoder setting can make a much bigger difference than bitrate.

The lame encoder (open-source and frequently used by other applications) can run in "-q 9" mode, which is blazing fast but sounds like utter shit, and "-q 0" mode which is slow but produces much better results.

I found this out too late and now loads of my music is 128kbps -q 9
(Everything I download, I convert to 128. Everything I buy, I rip at 320)

(Everything I download, I convert to 128. Everything I buy, I rip at 320)

Huh, interesting-- I oughtta try that sometime. Nice kind of incentive for buying the real thing (I usually do, but it'd make it nicer )

~Josiah

[swervedriver]

I discovered that encoder setting can make a much bigger difference than bitrate.

The lame encoder (open-source and frequently used by other applications) can run in "-q 9" mode, which is blazing fast but sounds like utter shit, and "-q 0" mode which is slow but produces much better results.

I found this out too late and now loads of my music is 128kbps -q 9
(Everything I download, I convert to 128. Everything I buy, I rip at 320)

Probably why I don't notice the difference so much, I ripped most my stuff using the slow mode and it sounds fine to me. The really good stuff I buy anyway.

I discovered that encoder setting can make a much bigger difference than bitrate.

The lame encoder (open-source and frequently used by other applications) can run in "-q 9" mode, which is blazing fast but sounds like utter shit, and "-q 0" mode which is slow but produces much better results.

I found this out too late and now loads of my music is 128kbps -q 9
(Everything I download, I convert to 128. Everything I buy, I rip at 320)

Probably why I don't notice the difference so much, I ripped most my stuff using the slow mode and it sounds fine to me. The really good stuff I buy anyway.

Where do you edit the LAME decoder?