Tom Fine wrote:
> This also scales to making audio available online. It is a HUGE step
> backwards to use a junky lossy format.
I'm sorry to disagree, but I must.
The right format for any purpose depends on that purpose. If one is
striving to reproduce the original sound as closely as possible, WAV at
96/24 may be the minimum acceptable. If one is trying to introduce an
audience to the breadth of repertoire, a lossy format is likely to be
I regard posts at my WWW site - almost always MP3 at 32 Kbps - as a
catalogue page on a particular subject. I could not afford to post and
many of visitors could not afford to download in a lossless format or in
WAV at 44.1 ksps. The esthetic advantage of such a format is
unquestionable, but it would be far inferior for my purposes.
Incidentally, I would recommend low-rate MP3 for other cataloguing
purposes, for example to support cross reference for an archive where
the archive itself is not compromised.
[log in to unmask]