Topic: Which is lossier - 22050Hz WAV or 128K MP3?

[framesaver]

Just thinking about the iRiver - I think you can adjust the sample freq for wavs. Would a 22050Hz sound worse than a 128Kbps MP3 (or an MDLP recording even...)? Seems like one way of increasing the record time should you want... Or would it just suck?

[Karl]

22050 Hz WAV would undoubtedly sound worse than 128 mp3.  The frequency response is chopped heavily on the high end.  Mp3 at least attempts to reproduce those higher frequencies.  Plus, mp3 will still be a fraction of the file size.

Are we ever going to have recorders that will record directly to flac or shn?

[fozzy]

I believe recording to shn and flac directly is a long way out.  sigma-tel makes ~90%(there is one in your JB3) of the consumer mp3 "chipsets" out there and i do not believe they have plans for flac or shn.  It is not that it is not feasable but not a market for it.   The devices that record directly to mp3 currently use a dedicated mp3 chip for decoding and encoding similar to a dedicated mpeg2 decoder/encoder for a video capture card.  

[hoobash]

get a nj3

[scb]

a  22050 Hz wav file can't contain any frequencies higher than 11025Hz...

[BC]

Are we ever going to have recorders that will record directly to flac or shn?

I doubt it. I think the mass market is more concerned with small file sizes than high quality. There seems to be 2 opposite pushes as far as file format. One side wants to shrink files as small as possible so you can cram a ton of music on a portable MP3 player. The opposite (most of us on this board) wants higher resolution digital with 24 bit word lengths and >44.1KHz sampling rates.

It kinda sucks, but I feel like most people out there don't really care about getting HQ audio as long as they can put hundreds (or thousands?) of songs in their pocket.

Just my 2 cents-
Take care,
Ben

[fozzy]

a  22050 Hz wav file can't contain any frequencies higher than 11025Hz...

so a 44.1 wav can only to 22.05KHZ and 48 can do 24KHz.  Is this correct?

interesting.  Your dog wants 24/96  

[BC]

a  22050 Hz wav file can't contain any frequencies higher than 11025Hz...

so a 44.1 wav can only to 22.05KHZ and 48 can do 24KHz.  Is this correct?

Yep-
Nyquist sampling theorem:
The highest frequency you can effectively sample is equal to half the sampling rate.

This is a basic principle of digital audio

[Terps]

22050 Hz WAV would undoubtedly sound worse than 128 mp3.  The frequency response is chopped heavily on the high end.  Mp3 at least attempts to reproduce those higher frequencies.  Plus, mp3 will still be a fraction of the file size.

Are we ever going to have recorders that will record directly to flac or shn?

Si'