What is that supposed to mean?
It means, that if you sincerely believe you cannot distinguish between the sound of an uncompressed .wav file and its mp3 equivalent, you are afflicted with hopelessly insensitive hearing and perhaps you would be more effective in another field where hearing acuity is not a factor.
Have you ever wondered why there's the great debate between sampling rates, and between bit depths? It's because some people can hear the difference, and others can't. Just because some don't hear the difference does not mean it does not exist. And, apparently, you can train your ears to perceive finer and finer distinctions. I know in my years of recording and performing music my hearing, although I have lost some upper frequencies over 40 years, has gotten much more discriminating than when I started. Perhaps you have not bothered to train your ears to the degree necessary to be serious about audio. Of course, judging from the age you have posted, there's plenty of time yet.
Personally, I can clearly hear the difference between a .wav and an mp3, and, even if I couldn't, why would I want to toss out data by saving to mp3? The mp3 algorithm is a "lossy compression": in English, that means the data file is made smaller by getting rid of long strings of information that the algorithm doesn't "think" needs to be there (and for the generation raised on mp3s, it is probably right). Now, I save my recordings in 32-bit format, and only dither them down to 16-bit when I burn a CD. This preserves the quality. If I were to convert them to mp3, then I would have to reconvert back to .wav to burn the CD. This would entail the extrapolation of the missing data to fill in the "holes" where the data lost from compression had been. This extrapolation, you will be surprised to hear, will not consist of the missing data itself, but some new artifacts that may or may not resemble what is gone. Regardless of how it's done, it is irremediably DIFFERENT from what I recorded as a .wav file. It no longer has the resolution or the detail of the original: those were tossed out in the mp3 conversion.
There is a principal that runs through audio recording, which, if not always stated, is always present: that is, do your work to the highest standard. For example: vinyl is one of the oddest choicest around for audio storage, but over the years, ways were found to deal with the limited high frequency response, attenuated bass (to keep the needle from jumping out of the groove!) and other problems. The methods used involved EQing the masters as they were transferred to the cutting lathes. Why not, you might ask, just EQ the masters and save all that work? (This is the equivalent of saving as mp3.) Because the tapes have their own format needs, and the audio, in order to be saved in its native format at the highest quality possible, doesn't need anything done to it to make it suitable for something like vinyl reproduction. Imagine what it would have been like had all the masters been re-EQed for vinyl: it would be a practical impossibility to reissue all those millions of recordings on CD from the master tapes without massive reworking! No, it's better to keep the master pristine, and let the media dictate later down the road what needs to be done for playback.
I hope this helps.
