CD vs WMA 192
Posted by: SigmundEinstein on 18 June 2009
How good is CD vs WMA 192? I am wondering if I should buy any more CDs or just download from Nokia music. How good would my system have to be to tell the difference? Thanks. I thought that it would be easy to work this out by Googling it, but no such luck.
Posted on: 18 June 2009 by james n
Why not try it yourself - if you can't hear the difference between MP3 and CD then you could save yourself a lot of cash in the long run...
James
James
Posted on: 18 June 2009 by SigmundEinstein
Well, because I will be upgrading with time. I suppose I am asking how far WMA 192 is from lossless. Judging by your reply, its a long way.
Posted on: 18 June 2009 by matt303
I no longer have a CD player in my HiFi but still buy CDs or the occasional lossless download. I'd avoid buying files in lossy formats because:
1) They don't sound as good (why spend a fortune on HiFi to feed it with second rate content).
2) You are sending the message that lossy formats are fine and we'll lose the option to buy in lossless.
3) Very often the CD can be got for the same or less money than the lossy download.
1) They don't sound as good (why spend a fortune on HiFi to feed it with second rate content).
2) You are sending the message that lossy formats are fine and we'll lose the option to buy in lossless.
3) Very often the CD can be got for the same or less money than the lossy download.
Posted on: 18 June 2009 by js
Big dif.
Posted on: 18 June 2009 by iiyama
The difference is Massive!!!
Posted on: 19 June 2009 by Eric Barry
On the hi-fi anorak scale, it's a big difference. On the overall scale, 192 is okay sounding. Most people would need to compare back to back with better to tell the difference.
Posted on: 20 June 2009 by pcstockton
192 is unlistenable.
Posted on: 20 June 2009 by AS332
quote:Originally posted by pcstockton:
192 is unlistenable.
A few months ago I would have disagreed with you because I would use 192 on my iPhone for trips away . However , as I sat in my hotel rooms I realized that although it was nice to have a larger choice of albums the sound was not very enjoyable , even for an iPhone .
Therefore I changed to 320 with fewer albums and it is much more listenable . Yes lossless would be even better but it's just a fancy phone , I'll leave the quality stuff for home .
Ed
Posted on: 23 June 2009 by Eric Barry
I just cannot agree that 192 mp4 is unlistenable. On shuffle on the subway, even 128 is listenable. I certainly choose to listen to it rather than not.
On a Naim system, you can tell the difference, and I would not pay actual money for 192. But it is listenable. I would rather listen to 192 through 52 and active Briks than Lossless through 72/hi/140/Kans.
On a Naim system, you can tell the difference, and I would not pay actual money for 192. But it is listenable. I would rather listen to 192 through 52 and active Briks than Lossless through 72/hi/140/Kans.
Posted on: 23 June 2009 by pcstockton
quote:Originally posted by Eric Barry:
I just cannot agree that 192 mp4 is unlistenable. On shuffle on the subway, even 128 is listenable. I certainly choose to listen to it rather than not.
Brings memories of my favorite bumper sticker...
"Eat Shit.... A Million Flies Cant Be Wrong"