| Author
|
need a little tip here...
|
Mo-Dul
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
15
Posts :
135
Posted : Sep 26, 2002 13:55
|
What is a better file format to work with...?
*.Mp3 (320 Kbit)
Or
*.Wav (24Bit 44,100Khz)
I really find it hard to decide what is better to
work with...
Where will I find more qulity?
[ This Message was edited by: Mo-Dul on 2002-09-26 13:56 ] |
|
|
medir
Inactive User
Started Topics :
113
Posts :
1193
Posted : Sep 26, 2002 14:12
|
...the wav 4 shure !
if your soundcard is 24 bit-able, no Q, but even with 16 bit the quality is better.
more than 256 kbit ( mp3 ) are almost the same as cd, but most tools can handle wav better, cause it depends on the mp3 encoder you ve got.
 experiment !
make it your motto day and night.
experiment,
and it will lead you to the light.
the apple on the top of the tree
is never too high to achieve,
so take an example from eve...
experiment ! |
|
|
|
jendoz
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
167
Posted : Sep 26, 2002 14:27
|
mp3 is commpresed data
so no matter what bit-rate u use u lose data and cant work as fast as with pcm wav
so the choice is simple
***dread controls***
http://stage.co.il/Authors/33191 |
|
|
|
Mo-Dul
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
15
Posts :
135
Posted : Sep 27, 2002 02:25
|
I own a 24/96 s.card, the sound is great...
I decided to work with *.wav because
Sound forge can't handle *.mp3 files!
Sooooooo wav it will be! |
|
|
|
organicparadox
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
174
Posted : Sep 27, 2002 07:31
|
wav all the way. like jendoz said, mp3 is compressed data, and is dependant on a quality encoder to process. that leaves programs confined to the limitations of the encoder.
blink |
|
|
|
C3PO
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
29
Posts :
510
Posted : Sep 27, 2002 18:09
|
{ input
data compression = data corruption .
computer: sorry , "syntax error" dialogue box .
output } |
|
|
|
Mo-Dul
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
15
Posts :
135
Posted : Sep 30, 2002 16:05
|
I just checked what has better sound and the
resolts as you can see:
1. *.Wav (24Bit 44,100 Khz)
2. *.Mp3 (320Kbps)
3. *.Wav (16Bit 44,100 Khz)
soooo I will keep working with waves 24Bit! |
|
|
|
medir
Inactive User
Started Topics :
113
Posts :
1193
Posted : Sep 30, 2002 17:12
|
MoDul: where u ve got these dates from ?!? -seems very strange to me that mp3@320kb should be better than wav@16b...
...thnx
experiment !
make it your motto day and night.
experiment,
and it will lead you to the light.
the apple on the top of the tree
is never too high to achieve,
so take an example from eve...
experiment ! |
|
|
|
Jason (LyTe)
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
43
Posts :
1626
Posted : Sep 30, 2002 17:44
|
sound forge can handle mp3's rather well, but WAVs are allways better.
"We Do Not Allways See Things As They Are. We See Things As We Are" -Ancient Chinese Proverb
LyTe Email:TechnoLyte@gmail.com |
|
|
|
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : Sep 30, 2002 19:16
|
medirium - it's not better.
If we're talking about kbps, then wav 16 @ 44 works at 1411 kbps (16*44*2) which is much higher than the 320 kbps of mp3.
Using wav's is always better. Mp3 sounds worse and takes longer time - need to encode the mp3 when saving.
|
|
|
|
jendoz
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
167
Posted : Oct 1, 2002 11:53
|
Quote:
|
On 2002-09-27 02:25, Mo-Dul wrote:
I own a 24/96 s.card, the sound is great...
I decided to work with *.wav because
Sound forge can't handle *.mp3 files!
Sooooooo wav it will be!
|
|
soundforge can handle mp3 files-but whats the point?
***dread controls***
http://stage.co.il/Authors/33191 |
|
|
|
