DO I LOSE ANYTHING? OPINON? FACT?

[jazzman4133]

If I have a file with say, ten wav. files in it and I copy it from the source computer, and subsequently paste it another computer, have I lost anything in the transfer or is the file a "clone" of the original file?

[Jim Alfredson]

There is no loss of data since it is a direct copy.

[andybleaden]

You might have missed the last cymble ride and the organ solo

I suppose if it is all 1s and 0s then it does do it exactly. However sometime s I get poor copies or skips .

[wesbed]

Data is data. As long as you get a good copy, you're good to go.

[jazzman4133]

Thanks Andy...............being familiar with binary numbers is what caused me to ask the question in the first place.

I go through the trouble (some say needlessly) of converting all my mp3 files that I'm going to make a CD of into wav. files just to increase the size of the file (as much as 4x in most cases) just on the chance that subsequent burning to a CD will stand less of a chance of losing a number.

Edited June 22, 2004 by jazzman4133

[andybleaden]

Thanks Andy...............being familiar with binary numbers is what caused me to ask the question in the first place.

I go through the trouble (some say needlessly) of converting all my mp3 files that I'm going to make a CD of into wav. files just to increase the size of the file (as much as 4x in most cases) just on the chance that subsequent burning to a CD will stand less of a chance of losing a number.

I think the issue is also on the mp3 thread as well about sampling rates.

I am still convinced about mass sampling rates ie 320k ish but I guess it must be better. The similarity you get over here with Digital Radio with digital signals either being perfectly clear or not at all . The sound quantity may be clear but the quality depends upon the signal sent out the other end ie the smapling rate!

BBC Radio 3 used stick out gorgeous rich signals on FM which my digital radio cannot compete with but it does get rid of hiss ( well sometimes not but I have it on an FM aeriel .

The signal is strong but not of good quality compared with FM so it is perfect reproduction of what they sent out ie something at 88k not 156 or whatever they use.

They of course reduce the signal in roder to be able to squeeze other channels on

With wav files stroed on a pc I cannot say whether blowing them back up will increase the quality or jsut make it safer?

I have had skips with mp3 and wav files occasionally that are more to do with my pc than the source.

I listen on a nice Arcam stereo with nice speakers and cannot tell the difference -honest !

The mp3 ( recorded at 192k or above blown back up sound just the same as when I have burnt wav files

Even at 128 k I have to struggle to hear the difference

[couw]

you should be able to hear some compression, making it all sound a bit obtuse. Also the cymbals are often distorted to produce that swooshy sound.

edit: this in reply to andy's post above.

Edited June 23, 2004 by couw

[andybleaden]

Hey we are stretching across two posts here!

Get what you mean. Is this even at 192 k/256k ?

[couw]

Hey we are stretching across two posts here!

Get what you mean. Is this even at 192 k/256k ?

if you have damn good ears it is, even at 192. With 256, you will need a helluva system in addition to damn good ears. As noted before, quality loss will be below the variation that good CD masters versus bad CD masters offer us now and it will be below any background noise that interferes. Still, using good headphones and a nice system, nothing beats the good ole vinyl...