Welcome to the Just Plain Folks forums! You are currently viewing our forums as a Guest which gives you limited access to most of our discussions and to other features.
By joining our free community you will have access to post and respond to topics, communicate privately with our users (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free; so please join our community today!
|
|
|
|
Lot Long
by Gary E. Andrews - 11/10/26 11:20 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,916 Likes: 9
Top 40 Poster
|
Top 40 Poster
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,916 Likes: 9 |
The thing is: If you make an mp3 from quality wav files it'll sound better than making an mp3 from a lesser quality file. Most of the original presence is retained. Also, if you copy that mp3 again you lose even more and so on until you get left with dust. You can copy a wav file infinitum without any loss. The equivalent in digital photography is a j.peg and a tiff. file. You can copy a tiff file over and over with no loss.
I know that mainline radio stations will ask for a wav copy and a wav made from an mp3 is basically still an mp3 so it will only retain the quality of that mp3. Is it worth the difference in price? I suppose it depends what you want it for.
Vic
|
|
|
|
We would like to keep the membership in Just Plain Folks FREE! Your donation helps support the many programs we offer including Road Trips and the Music Awards.
|
|
|
Forums118
Topics129,176
Posts1,186,193
Members21,480
| |
Most Online236,505 Jul 1st, 2026
|
|
|
"Do not endeavor to be the smartest kid in a dumb class. Instead, you are better off being the dumbest kid in the smartest class, where you will be challenged and you will learn. If you aren't growing, you are dying." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|