iPod Radiohead's New Album - Is .Wav Better Than .MP3?

[Amnesiac1]

They offer a choice. The .wav choice is priced higher than the .mp3, so I am guessing it is of higher quality. Is this true?

 

[bbydon]

Yes wav is better than mp3.
I am a huge fan of radio head but opted for the mp3 version. If I feel like I need better quality I will just buy the CD when it gets released a month or so later.

 

[Nermal]

WAV should be CD quality. I haven't seen the pricing, but I'd personally probably buy the WAV version and make my own AAC/MP3 versions from that.

 

[bbydon]

Its out, one day early. Yeah Fridays!

 

[Zimmy68]

If they are charging more for the WAV, it better be 24bit resolution.

 

[justaregularjoe]

Can't currently see for my coutry, but in the UK it is 9 pounds versus 6 pounds (not too bad IMO) and folks are reporting that it is full CDDA. Huzzah.

 

[tkermit]

I paid for and downloaded the .WAV-Version. I was kind of annoyed though that they don't offer a version in some lossless codec like ALAC or FLAC that has tagging capabilities. You shouldn't have to enter basic metadata yourself...

People are even arguing over whether it's supposed to say Mr Magpie or Mr. Magpie.

If they are charging more for the WAV, it better be 24bit resolution.

It's not.

 

[peterja]

It would probably be hard to tell the difference because it's 320 kbps MP3. Having said that, most of my music library is still in lossless.

 

[saving107]

WAV should be CD quality. I haven't seen the pricing, but I'd personally probably buy the WAV version and make my own AAC/MP3 versions from that.

MP3 version is $9 and the WAV version is $14. I would rather pay a few bucks more an own the WAV version, then convert that down to an AAC version.

 

[r2fa3l]

buy the mp3. download the wav from online