Convert MP3 to WAV. What’s the benefit?

Hello
Another interest for some: it's one of the ways to obtain a commonly used royalty-free file.

Decompression does not result in a loss of information. However, it will never allow you to recover the information from the original uncompressed file that was lost during the transition to mp3. Whether one can recognize the difference by listening is another debate.

Hello
No idea about the technical reason. I just know that the download speed is variable 1) within the limits on your side 2) within the limits on the servers 3) on the web, sometimes there are bottlenecks like on the highway. (And at one point the Europe/US bandwidth was intentionally reduced, all European ISPs were affected given the large number of servers located in America).

Especially if you upload a file to the internet, it is always slower than if you download the same file from the internet. 30 seconds to receive it but 1 minute 30 to 2 minutes to send it, for example, asymmetric connection decided.

Some sites allow me to download at 5 o/s and others at 800 o/s.
Before my move (2/3 km) without changing the contract, it was much better. You pay for Go/s, it’s just a matter of changing the contract to pay less given the service provided. Since the implementation of fiber, my copper wires are faster. And this August I exceeded one night the Ko/s: my many neighbors must have been on vacation.

On the server side, the finances allow for a good bandwidth for uncompressed files knowing that the files are much larger and possibly of better quality, especially if the site targets audiophiles. Sadly famous at the release of win10, the update servers for win7 and 8 slowed down: Microsoft transferred as many servers as possible to distribute win10.

If the bandwidth is shared among users, a less congested server will be less slowed down at the base speed. (More people downloading in mp3?).
Conversely on bittorrent, P2P, the more people have your file available, the less time it will take you to download a large file. That was the intended goal.

Conclusion: it's more of a lottery than anything else.
All this has nothing to do with whether your file is in mp3 or wav!

The internet speed is totally secondary, besides, you haven't thought about it, the speed would be multiplied by 4.4, but the file size by 6.6x! Where is the advantage?

In fact, a simple calculation: how many MP3s or how many WAVs can you store on 1GB?
You quickly understand the advantage, right?

The converter at best fills the gaps created by the compression to MP3, so no improvement but a digital compatibility adaptation.

I seem to recall that basically, MP3 describes the outline of the signal and WAV contains the entirety of a sound's digital signal, so indeed an original recording in WAV (the CD in DDD) is of much better quality.

Hello
And then the videos are not stored on the YouTube download site.
At the converter, you only give the link. It searches for the corresponding video in the best quality it finds on the server that also allows it the best bandwidth (well above what you get on YouTube), and we don’t know if it pre-stores processed files based on demand; that’s also possible. It must have optimized to send large files not too slowly; you give the example where it is 1 minute faster than YouTube, otherwise no one would go to this site, and it probably has a lot fewer downloads to handle than YouTube, which must help.

It can also use compression but non-destructive. We can do it "on-the-fly" on a hard drive (like encryption too) with the appropriate power and amount of RAM. You can try a compression test on a storage disk; your OS may offer it. You need to see if it is compatible with direct playback on your PC without slowing down.

Basically, if it's just to listen to the tracks, then yes, it's pointless.

But if you want to edit/tweak them, it's better to work in wav.

And for the 1411 kbit/s, that's normal; it's the standard bitrate for CD quality wav.

--
Be cool