| MP3s are good files to use for the uploading of | | | | someone who listens intently to music often, |
| your audio discs. These compressed files are small | | | | there will definitely be a significant/noticeable loss |
| in comparison to WAV files, thus making them | | | | in quality. There is normally a degradation in: |
| ideal for uploading, please note however the MP3s | | | | 1) the clarity of the upper frequencies and |
| are ½ the sample rate of CD quality. The | | | | 2) the "punchy-ness" of the lower frequencies. |
| audio reproduced from an MP3 file is difficult for | | | | Also, depending on the quality of the conversion, |
| the average ear to differentiate from the same | | | | and bit-rate and sample-rate used, sometimes a |
| audio played back from a standard CD. The best | | | | noticeable "phaser" effect is introduced. |
| reproduction is accomplished by using WAV files. | | | | The downside to working with. wav files is the |
| These files are generally 40 to 50 MB in size each. | | | | significant increase in file size. Uploading this type |
| Uploading 4 or 5 WAV files is quite feasible. | | | | of a file will result in a much longer transfer time |
| There is a difference in quality between the two | | | | when uploading. |
| audio formats. The .mp3 format was designed for | | | | The answer to the question, "Is there a |
| quicker file transfers over the internet. It is lossy | | | | difference between the two formats?", is "yes". |
| data compression; meaning "insignificant" data is | | | | Is the difference noticeable? That depends on the |
| removed thereby decreasing the file size to | | | | listener and how "good" their speakers and |
| approximately 1/7th of the original file size. | | | | listening environment are. |
| To the common ear, the difference in audio | | | | More tips about Mastering CD Duplication. |
| quality is negligible. To an audio engineer, or | | | | |