Ok i need help I'm not really into webdev, and my client

>>57270417
>raw WAV at maximum quality
do you have any idea what you're talking about?
>average persons internet
whats an average person? where do those people live that would visit your site?

fuck off retard

File: 1474054238181.jpg (97KB, 915x960px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 915x960px

>>57270417
Do you live in Africa?
Of course it's not going to be fucking slow, retard.

>>57270417
I'm not a webdev either, and I only know entry-level shit about digital audio, but here are some random thoughts.

How long are the recordings? If they're ~30 seconds, you could make do with WAV files.
What format are the recordings in currently? If it's some obscure format, you'd probably need to convert them to a more common one. Otherwise, the less conversion you have to do, the better.
As for which format to choose, honestly Opus would be the best compromise of quality and file size, but older versions of IE and Safari probably don't support it. WAV is commonly supported, but if the recordings are longer than 30 seconds, streaming it isn't going to be possible for people with slow connections (1 megabit). MP3 is also commonly supported, but you'd probably have to convert, not to mention pick a bitrate (I'd probably pick v0, 320 CBR if your client is really picky about fidelity).

If I were assigned this project, I would pick a "minimum spec" target and design around that (internet speed, browser, hardware age, etc.)

>>57270417
Rob Pike has so much swag.

>>57270970
fuck off neet
>>57270958
~5 mbps because old people
>>57271447
according to my calculations streaming it would be ~4.5 mbps which is already maxing out some poorer old people
>>57271555
I'd do opus, but like you said its not supported in safari and my client uses that so having to explain that is a nono