Should I get over my prejudice/ignorance/snobbery for WAV and change to mp3?

[Xonetacular]

Is it called a Winer test because of Ethan Winer? And is he saying that bad sound leads to lower intelligence above?? Huh.

yep

[mostapha]

Is it called a Winer test because of Ethan Winer? And is he saying that bad sound leads to lower intelligence above?? Huh.

The fun part was when he more or less aid that a Winer test–in his opinion–is a test that could possibly be manipulated to counteract his foregone conclusions.

[Xonetacular]

The fun part was when he more or less aid that a Winer test–in his opinion–is a test that could possibly be manipulated to counteract his foregone conclusions.

Hey man, don't question him, he's a professional in the music industry.

[SirReal]

The fun part was when he more or less aid that a Winer test–in his opinion–is a test that could possibly be manipulated to counteract his foregone conclusions.

Maybe we can dub his theory "The Choad theory"?

[mostapha]

I always assumed it was spelled chode. Or are we thinking different words?

[16b441khz]

Reading the first page and realised that there are now 24 so skipped to the end to put in my 2 cents. and dont know if it has been said or not but the general A/B test that people do does little to nothing in telling you what your ears can pick up in audio quality difference. If you only listen to WAV files at CD Quality or higher for and extended period of time (say a month) and then try to listen to an mp3 then you will notice the difference. Practice makes 'almost' perfect in every sense so the more you 'practice' hearing .wav files then the more you will become attuned to them. this basically limits people who are racording/mixing/mastering music for a living from an engineering view will be best to judge wether they can discern the difference.

So what i am trying to say is, wav is better, howevere this can be true if you only listen to wav files on a regular basis, otherwise youre just kidding yourself in thinking you can tell the difference. For that reason, and the fact i dont make a lot of money because of study i will generally get mp3's. Although, if there is a song i just absolutely love and know i will continue to listen to for yrs to come then i will get a wav if not a CD

[3heads]

Are you a spy from gearslutz?

[Le Goat]

It's choad!

[djgstefan]

I think the discussion is wrong. It does not matter if no one can hear a different or not. We have to move forward!!! Why should we stop at mp3 or aiff. Lets move forward to 24bit/96khz etc. And to move from mp3 to aiff/WAV is the first step. We have no longer a use for a file format that are a compressed as memory is getting bigger. We should always say -how can we make it sound better and move forward.

And we have also see the source as just a small part in a big chain of equipment, that just to improve that, does not make a different. But when all parts are improved makes a different in sound.

So please don't says mp3 is good enough when we can go so much further.

[djgstefan]

16-bit/44.1kHz is transparent. 24-bit/96kHz is not a step forward, it's nothing but treading water.

surround sound would be a significant step forward. but few wanna do it because it is much more complicated and costly to record in 5.1 (or 7.1, or ...). also, surround would impose significant challenges on the playback equipment and such.

Ok
As long we don't say mp3 is good enough.