![]() ![]() ![]() Download the ABX Comparator plugin for foobar2000 (a very good music player), and convince yourself through the power of a tool which will statistically analyse your result that you can tell a difference. That is 100% entirely in your head, and if you think otherwise you can remove that bias through a simple trial. It's like how a ZIP file doesn't cause your word documents to suddenly lose or change letters. That's the point of being "lossless", decompression recovers a 1 to 1 bit perfect replica of the original. It is proven mathematically that it is the case. You should be using FLAC or AIFF for the highest quality. It came out before Windows 3.11, let that sink in for a moment in a world of technical advances. 320kbps is both the minimum and the maximum you should be using. Honestly I've not seen something encoded that poorly in years. They are just fundamentally the more prominent supported formats on the platforms with Apple developing AIFF and ALAC. I'll summarise:ĪIFF vs WAV, ALAC vs FLAC: If you're an Apple user then you should use AIFF and ALAC. I can always go the pro subscription and go offline. I'm sure there are benefits to both, and maybe streaming IS the way to go. I could just get Spotify, but who wants to pay for something I already own.although Which makes think FLAC or AIFF is the way to go. and my stereo system and speakers is not great, but that's for another day.Īlso, wav does not play well with metadata, only ID3 tags, so when I DO convert a WMA to a WAV, it shows as a x-wav format on my Samsung, only recognizing the artist as "unknown" and therefore not showing in my list to select for artist, album etc. Storage is not an issue, I have 512 GB to work with. Wav and WMA files that result from ripped cds - and at what sample rate and size should I be using to when converting - Itunes and Switch by NCH Software allows up to 192000 and 32 bits integer, which many scream as overkill. What file format should I use to compare the BEST with what I am used to hearing. ![]() NOW, there is also FLAC, which many say identical to WAV, to me, it can sound too compressed, unless I am converting wrong, Then I hear about AIFF, or ALAC.and terms lossy and lossless get thrown around and then 117 hrs of deep diving YouTube on the benefits to sticking with 44.1 and 16 bits as the Gospel to audiophile heaven. How something sounds is very important to me. also there is a pronounced hissing sound with the "s's" - NOT so when I convert to a WAV file at 48000 and 32 bits, it maintains clarity through the entire track. MP3 to me converted (from WMA or WAV) even at 192kbps and 48hz LOSE fidelity in the punchy chorus of Journey, Send Her My Love for instance. SO NOW, I am looking at the alternatives. Yes, there are many other players on Google play that play these, but I prefer the layout, form etc.of the onboard player. NOW, I have to look at other alternatives. Since most of the music I listened to was on the player, I never had to think about it NOT playing until, I went from an s20 FE to a newly purchased s23 plus, with a new version update of the Samsung player that will NOT play WMA or WAV files. Since I have had every Samsung Galaxy since the s3, I've always used the same player - onboard Samsung Music and it ALWAYS played wav and mp3 files perfectly. I own around 700 cds - I have always enjoyed the ability to listen to them playing on my phone while I drive, being able to have the variety of random track shuffling or listening to cds in their entirety, as God intended. Hopefully this will lead to a good discussion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |