CDs are different to the Downloads

[fcollazo]

The CD is clearer, with better instrument separation and clarity. Louie's toms are also more clear and distinct. So far thats what I hear when I compare the two.

[jeremywg]

The guitar parts are far more impressive on the cd. The mp3 made them sound weak. The cd is a must have.

[executioner]

CDs always have a better sound; unlike with MP3 you actually get to hear all layers of the music and sound.
I urge everyone not only to buy this CD but go out and get some CDs of MP3 you already have and it will blow you away in the difference in quality and sound.

[SCJ-7]

That's why I want the CD... and I will buy it.

[bakersfieldpethead]

Now that the industry is up to 3tb on external Hard Drives. The larger the hard drive size I think MP3 should go away, I think when I can afford it I'm going to buy a couple of 3tb external Hard Drivers and re-rip all my CDs again in Wav format instead of WMA or MP3. Just because someone wants to store their music on their computer shouldn' mean the quality has to suffter.

[Boray]

So, why did you buy both the mp3s and the CD? Or do you get to download the mp3s if you order the CD?

[Boray]

I think when I can afford it I'm going to buy a couple of 3tb external Hard Drivers and re-rip all my CDs again in Wav format instead of WMA or MP3.

Then you should try FLAC instead of WAV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec

It compresses the data to about 75% of the original, but uses a completely undestructive compression.

(My latest songs are available in 24 bit flac by the way: http://user.tninet.se/~hlw771b/boray_music.html )

[fcollazo]

Oh, I got the downloads first because I could not wait!

[executioner]

For Petra I always buy both and also buy multiple copies of the CD; There is not a Petra CD out there that I don't have at least three copies of. I always keep one sealed in the original plastic.

[rexreed]

I think when I can afford it I'm going to buy a couple of 3tb external Hard Drivers and re-rip all my CDs again in Wav format instead of WMA or MP3.

Then you should try FLAC instead of WAV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec

It compresses the data to about 75% of the original, but uses a completely undestructive compression.

(My latest songs are available in 24 bit flac by the way: http://user.tninet.se/~hlw771b/boray_music.html )

I don't recall getting the option to choose flac when I bought the download.

[jonmcg93]

I think when I can afford it I'm going to buy a couple of 3tb external Hard Drivers and re-rip all my CDs again in Wav format instead of WMA or MP3.

Then you should try FLAC instead of WAV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec

It compresses the data to about 75% of the original, but uses a completely undestructive compression.

(My latest songs are available in 24 bit flac by the way: http://user.tninet.se/~hlw771b/boray_music.html )

I don't recall getting the option to choose flac when I bought the download.

I didn't get one either, I'd have snapped that up in a hearbeat. Matter of fact I read here that I thought they were going to have a FLAC version available.

[bakersfieldpethead]

Then you should try FLAC instead of WAV:
It compresses the data to about 75% of the original, but uses a completely undestructive compression.

I'll listen to a couple of files in order to compare to a Cd. But the wav format is being used in a lot of studios today. So my idea is to get as much quality as I can for a digital format.

[Boray]

There is no difference in sound quality between wav and flac. You can compare it to zipping a wav file, it doesn't make it sound worse.

[brent]

I think when I can afford it I'm going to buy a couple of 3tb external Hard Drivers and re-rip all my CDs again in Wav format instead of WMA or MP3.

Then you should try FLAC instead of WAV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec

It compresses the data to about 75% of the original, but uses a completely undestructive compression.

(My latest songs are available in 24 bit flac by the way: http://user.tninet.se/~hlw771b/boray_music.html )

Sorry. If I compress in ANY format, and then open it up in ProTools next to the original wav, which is the native file format that the majority record with, and I invert the polarity of one, play them at the same time, they do not cancel out. There are still differences. ANY reduction of data is no good. If you can listen in wav, which is what the artist recorded, the wav is your best bet.

[Boray]

I think when I can afford it I'm going to buy a couple of 3tb external Hard Drivers and re-rip all my CDs again in Wav format instead of WMA or MP3.

Then you should try FLAC instead of WAV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec

It compresses the data to about 75% of the original, but uses a completely undestructive compression.

(My latest songs are available in 24 bit flac by the way: http://user.tninet.se/~hlw771b/boray_music.html )

Sorry. If I compress in ANY format, and then open it up in ProTools next to the original wav, which is the native file format that the majority record with, and I invert the polarity of one, play them at the same time, they do not cancel out. There are still differences. ANY reduction of data is no good. If you can listen in wav, which is what the artist recorded, the wav is your best bet.

That is nonsense, Brent! Have you tried that with Flac? I just did, and... total silence! Do you believe a wav file gets worse by zipping it and unzipping it too? Then how do you think an unzipped program can run without errors?