.mp3 or .wav

[Silverti]

What do you guys think?

Most of my early mp3's I ripped at 192K mp3. As hard drives got bigger I started ripping at 320K.

I’m starting to notice that even 320K can sound odd when I really crank up my systems so I have started recording in strait up .wav format.

320K seems like it = 200 megs per CD
.wav seems like it = 600 megs per CD

But... I swear .wav sounds better all around.

[PolkThug]

Yep, wav = 1411k It will sound better.

[fatchowmein]

+1 for .wav

I'm also happy with flac or apple lossless. I've tried the wav format and loved the sound quality but tagging can't be done (your tagging software keeps track of it but the actual file itself is not updated with tag info, especially cover art). I'm currently using apple lossless because my Xbox 360 can play it from a backend file server and my wife and I both have iPods.

[Zero]

.wav files are not compressed beyond whats on the original disc. Its as good as you're going to get.

As mentioned above, .FLAC (for PC) gives up very little and saves you a bit of space in the process.

[scottdwagner]

Flac, flac, flac, flac, flac....
Compressed and lossless. Is there any other format that is better? I'd like to know if there is.
Apple lossless if you want to have all your music available to your ipod without transcoding. It beats up your ipod battery though.

Incidentally, mine are in apple lossless. Ideally though, I'd have a master drive with FLAC, and a mirror drive in 192 for the ipod.

[wallstreet]

no compression in .wav. Shoudl sound just like the original. if it doesn't, there's something wrong with your hardware.

[bluzrip]

I still rip to high bitrate VBR MP3s because I use a Creative player and an iPod. I'll let those files play for background music on my 2 channel rig. But I always go back to the source for serious listening.