SHARE MORE LOSSLESS MUSIC!! .WAV .AIFF .FLAC ect
 

im sick and tired of weeding thru everyones trash!! and by trash i mean wavs made from mp3s ...please never convert an mp3 to wav !! and if you must ,DONT SHARE IT ...or at least label it "converted from mp3" . wavs are un-compressed CD images basecly and they sound way better than mp3 ,even an mp3 at 320kbps dosent come close to a wav made from the origanal CD. wavs sound much more clear ,crisp and pure than mp3 . mp3 is a compressed formatt so it thows out moast of the sound quality to get it down to 5mb. my point is please dont convert mp3s ,wma, or any other compressed formatt to wav because it dosent sound any better than the mp3! i hate having to d/l 5 or more copys of the same song to find one that is "true" . onley make wavs from the origanal CD! im an audiophile and i can hear a big differance ,if you listen you probobley will too.

thank you.

Very good point! Songs compressed with lossless codecs represent exact digital clones of the originals (with regard to audio fidelity/quality.) Lossless formats: Apple Lossless (.ale), Monkey's Audio (*.ape), FLAC & I suppose Shorten for the more common lossless that use size reduction. I guess as high speed net connections & larger HDD's become more common we'll start to see more lossless songs being shared.

Some music encoded in mp3 really does show obvious loss of quality, be that loss frequencies or headroom. Yet some people swear by it. I suppose for heavy metal you're not going to notice much difference.

actualy rock/hevymatal is the type that i noteced the poor quality in first ....cuz the guitar sounds and the drums sounded all shlerrred together even at 320 ....but soft rock ie piano man by billy jole sounded pretty good at 112 kbps .....but it still wasent as good as the cd .....a virus recentley destroyed my music library so now im re building it with wavs.

Why wav's, why not one of the above formats? They're the same in quality but wav & aiff are uncompressed whereas the above are compressed (a little like zipping a file - it's identical to when it's uncompressed.) They also reduce the size to almost half. ;) iPod & iTunes will play Apple Lossless & some other portables will play one or 2 of the other formats listed above.

i guss because wav is the moast abundant and popular lossless formatt that i can find on limewire, it takes less time to burn to cd , it takes less time to rip from a cd , i dont have an mp3 player so i just use my cd player .... i guss i dont know why i dont use somthing els ...i just like wavs . plus im not 100% shur if compression can be done without herting the sound at all .....i mean how can you take half of the data away and still have something that sounds exactley the same as the un-compressed version?? its moastley cuz wav is all i can find.

That's b/c wav is uncompressed. Whereas those other formats are. How can you compress the file or program without hurting it? It's all to do with compression technology. Yes these are verified damageless & lossless formats. It's not compressing the file by throwing information away like mp3 or aac. They've been tested to show that there is no loss of quality. But stick with what you are used to. As you said, it's easier to find wav files. To find out more about lossless audio formats then google just that. Read & you'll learn.

By the way the above compressed lossless formats are very popular with audiophiles.

u do have some good points there. im not faithful to wav files ...like i sed its just all i can find right now ...im shur il end up getting my lossless library built up with a mix of .wav .aiff .flac and wma lossless and whatever els there is ...i dont reely cair what formatt its in , just as long as it sounds exactley the same as the origanal cd . the main thing i wanted to get out is that dling a song should be fun and ez ...and not like trash picking ...i hate "hunting" for a song that is "true" amung all the crap that was converted from mp3 or taped off the radio. i have been reading on the subject a lot ...thats one of the reasons i decided to go lossless in the first place. i would just buy my music but the pay p2p stuff is a rip off and they dont have any lossless music ,im broke ,and you cant buy just the song you want at the cd store-you have to buy a cd with 1 or 2 songs you like and 18 that suck.

Some swear by WMA lossless but I've also heard negative things about it. What about Apple's iTunes (it's free) & their A.Lossless format. You can always convert it back to wav at a later time or burn directly using their lossless format. Just a thought, but there's lots of windows alternatives.

what are some of the bad things about wma that youv herd? i know about the rediculus "digital rights management" crap but what els is there? i think il stick with wav and aiff cuz thayv been around for ever and ther "tride and true" ,and flac seems verry good too but the formats that wer thought up by microcrap (wma,wmv) and rottenapple (ale and whatever else) seem kind of shady....why else would big companies create new formats if thay diddent want to make mony off of it ? they look like scams 2 me. another thing ?? iv been reading lots of other threads and you seem to be in all of them ,how can you have time to reply to all these threads , are you a robot ? ...or a whole bunch of people using the same name???

Off-hand I can't remember the arguments against wma's lossless. iTunes is free so I don't know about that argument. As far as posting well actually ... there's minime, minimy & miniself. Takes turns.