8 replies to this topic

[dunroamin1]

Hello All

I have now ventured into the Audio section of the software.

Can anyone (in simple terms!) explain what the difference is in the above two file formats.  The software appears to recommend the Wav format, though this does seem to take a lot more space.

Is the quality beter on WAV formats?

thanks in advance

[Beerman]

dunroamin1, on Jan 20 2006, 02:23 PM, said:

Hello All

I have now ventured into the Audio section of the software.

Can anyone (in simple terms!) explain what the difference is in the above two file formats.  The software appears to recommend the Wav format, though this does seem to take a lot more space.

Is the quality beter on WAV formats?

thanks in advance

Wav for sure.  However, it's not compressed and is a very large file.  If you want to rip your cd's and play on your computer with the best quality and have space, wav is fine.  However, most computers don't have the best audio so mp3 & wma files are the most popular and are compressed to save space.
There's so much more involved but until you say how you plan to use the files, I can't give my opinion on whats best.

[dunroamin1]

Hi Paul

Most of the Audio files I require are for Photo Slide Shows and Video.

So far I am not into creating my own compilation albums!

So you think the wav format though is the better quality to go with?

[Beerman]

dunroamin1, on Jan 20 2006, 05:03 PM, said:

Hi Paul

Most of the Audio files I require are for Photo Slide Shows and Video.

So far I am not into creating my own compilation albums!

So you think the wav format though is the better quality to go with?

Depends on space constraints but you can't get any better than a wav file as far as I know.  However, I doubt using an mp3 or wma will make the sound any worse since encoding it will most likely effect the quality anyway.  On this, I'm lacking knowledge so maybe someone with more experience will give us some insight.

[tbrewst]

I don't think using an mp3 or wma track will make much difference as long as you use one of the higher bitrates.Most people aren't going to really be able to tell much of a difference.

[tbrewst]

Here's a little blurb on compression:

The innovation of lossy audio compression was to use psychoacoustics to recognize that not all data  in an audio stream is perceived by the human ear. Most lossy compression reduces  perceptual redundancy by first identifying sounds which are considered  perceptually irrelevant, that is, sounds that are very hard to hear. Typical  examples include high frequencies, or sounds that occur at the same time as  other louder sounds. Those sounds are coded with decreased accuracy or not coded  at all.

[grandpabruce]

I will just add my 2 cents, here.  If, for any reason, you think that you might eventually cut a CD from the different ripped files, then rip them as .wav files, to your hard drive.

[tbrewst]

I'll second that Bruce.Was just trying to shed a little light on the compression question.I guess it all comes down to what quality he needs as background audio.

[dunroamin1]

Hello Everyone

Thanks for all your replys.

Like most of us we would like to have the best quality possible and space is not a problem (yet)...I am thinking of adding an additional hard drive (any suggestions?).

So I think I will go with the Wav format, Ok I take on board the comments about encoding etc.