Johmbolaya, you seem to be the wizard on recording, will Windows Media Audio Lossless format grant the same results as a .WAV file? My research quantifies it does.
Most lossless-files will give you the same results across the board, some take a bit longer to encode and decode files (i.e. APE), while others are easier and convenient to use (FLAC). But I have not heard any complaints from those who have used WMA.
Also, in this age of 1000 dollar flat screen TV's, quality audio equipment isn't on anyone's list of priorities. People love cheap schitt. They go to future shop & bug out for some of the schittiest made, cheapest products you'll ever see. Quality don't matter no more.
Sad, but true. The stereo as a component system is primarily non-existent. While the diehards had hoped the DVD-A format would succeed, since all one needed was a DVD player and a surround sound system, it failed for a number of reasons:
1) People thought DVD was solely for watching, so "DVD-A" only confused people. "All you do is sit and listen?", or "where's the video?" 2) DVD-A had been promoted as music at hi-resolution, which appeals to those who want to hear high quality music, but the promotion of the format also coincided with MP3's and the convenience of free music.
Ideally, it would be nice to see people snap out of the thrill of convenience and say "I want to hear an improvement in what I'm hearing". MFSL are about to release an audiophile version of Beck's Sea Change[/b], an album that has already been released as a DVD-A and SACD. How much better will the MFSL version be, or how much of an improvement can be had when the DVD-A and SACD versions were considered ideal? Who knows.
I like what Marco said about people who had a lot of music but had the crappiest equipment to play it on, I was one of those people. I'm far from an audiophile, but I do like hearing music in the best way possible, even if it means doing it within a budget. It's still about the music, but if the opportunity is there to hear it "better", I want to know about it, and experience it.
Hey - if you're actually serious, ship it my way. I make do with a Frickin' all-in-one to save money for the actual music I play on it.
And that's what I find ironic - I know several serious record collectors who have amazing vinyl collections yet have the cheapest, crappiest-sounding turntables and stereo systems to play them on.
In that light, I'm hardly going to be mad at digital-only listeners who settle for lesser sound quality when so many of their oldschool analog predecessors do the exact same thing.
If you're going to rock records on a crappy system, then you might as well just DL all your music. That, to me, is just as weird as audiophile voodoo that says you gotta elevate your speaker cables; at that point, records are just all in the mental or an image thing. If I was do do it on a budget, used tables are a great deal. Heck, I bet a used turntable is a better, more reliable purchase than a used DVD player. There's not that much that well break/wear out on a decently maintained TT, save belts & needles. Rega's budget tables are sweet. That being said, records are not free yet. You still have to pay for the quality. An MP3 don't cost nothing, you don't have to run it through a nitty gritty, or take up space storing it. And its free.
Comments
Most lossless-files will give you the same results across the board, some take a bit longer to encode and decode files (i.e. APE), while others are easier and convenient to use (FLAC). But I have not heard any complaints from those who have used WMA.
Sad, but true. The stereo as a component system is primarily non-existent. While the diehards had hoped the DVD-A format would succeed, since all one needed was a DVD player and a surround sound system, it failed for a number of reasons:
1) People thought DVD was solely for watching, so "DVD-A" only confused people. "All you do is sit and listen?", or "where's the video?"
2) DVD-A had been promoted as music at hi-resolution, which appeals to those who want to hear high quality music, but the promotion of the format also coincided with MP3's and the convenience of free music.
Ideally, it would be nice to see people snap out of the thrill of convenience and say "I want to hear an improvement in what I'm hearing". MFSL are about to release an audiophile version of Beck's Sea Change[/b], an album that has already been released as a DVD-A and SACD. How much better will the MFSL version be, or how much of an improvement can be had when the DVD-A and SACD versions were considered ideal? Who knows.
I like what Marco said about people who had a lot of music but had the crappiest equipment to play it on, I was one of those people. I'm far from an audiophile, but I do like hearing music in the best way possible, even if it means doing it within a budget. It's still about the music, but if the opportunity is there to hear it "better", I want to know about it, and experience it.
If you're going to rock records on a crappy system, then you might as well just DL all your music. That, to me, is just as weird as audiophile voodoo that says you gotta elevate your speaker cables; at that point, records are just all in the mental or an image thing. If I was do do it on a budget, used tables are a great deal. Heck, I bet a used turntable is a better, more reliable purchase than a used DVD player. There's not that much that well break/wear out on a decently maintained TT, save belts & needles. Rega's budget tables are sweet. That being said, records are not free yet. You still have to pay for the quality. An MP3 don't cost nothing, you don't have to run it through a nitty gritty, or take up space storing it. And its free.