M
M
mapeterson
New member
This is the same file as an mp3 encoded at 160kps. For all who like mp3 files yes you can probably hear the difference between 128 and 192kps but the algorithm is the same and the parts that are cut out are still on the same scale as what is shown here. The difference is what is not cut out in the middle of the sound spectrum.
Attachments
C
crispycutz
New member
wow.....thats nuts
O
ozpeter
New member
At risk of resurrecting a tired thread, but trying to be constructive, it might be worth mentioning that if you do want to save storage space, you can use lossless compression and you'll not be throwing anything away.
For about a year now I've used wavpack in conjunction with AA1.5 for editing classical music concerts for radio broadcast, and it effectively halves the amount of disk space required (when working with 16 bit recordings - you save less with 32 bits). Crucially for me, wavpack retains all cue information and labelling and in practical use is fully integrated with AA - if you use wavpack 4.0. It often seems to save faster than wave too - but takes longer to open. But usually you're in a hurry to save, less rushed when opening.
For about a year now I've used wavpack in conjunction with AA1.5 for editing classical music concerts for radio broadcast, and it effectively halves the amount of disk space required (when working with 16 bit recordings - you save less with 32 bits). Crucially for me, wavpack retains all cue information and labelling and in practical use is fully integrated with AA - if you use wavpack 4.0. It often seems to save faster than wave too - but takes longer to open. But usually you're in a hurry to save, less rushed when opening.
dobro
Well-known member
"The Thread That Rose from the Swamps of Time"
Ozpeter, you're a marvel.
Ozpeter, you're a marvel.