| Author
|
Mastering Service
|
willsanquil
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
93
Posts :
2822
Posted : Oct 4, 2012 20:46
|
|
xoC
Cubic Spline
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
179
Posted : Oct 4, 2012 20:55
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Oct 4, 2012 21:42
|
Quote:
|
On 2012-10-04 20:46, willsanquil wrote:
even the 320 mp3 don't sound like the wav?
bollocks.
|
|
how you can know wihtout having the file? they are not even at same loudness ,proper convertion should be transparent but it s not always the case in the mp3 you listen and buy 320 or not ,that just what i meant .
agree on a well encoded one the difference is very small and even if it spoted to find wich one is the wav good luck
file mastered for mp3 or low bit rate can benefit from a bit more headroom it could be cause of this,but doubt one would bother tought just by looking at all the isp tunes have ,always in the red, loudness is what matter 
it s suposed to make things sounding worst when compressed and leaving 0,5 or even 1 db can be recomended.. won t say if it s bullshit or not as i haven't done any test but it sure can t hurt
|
|
|
willsanquil
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
93
Posts :
2822
Posted : Oct 4, 2012 22:00
|
If the 320 MP3 doesn't sound like the WAV, the WAV was not converted properly.
I have never met a single person who has been able to tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and a WAV in a double blind test. I've asked a shitload of people - every single one of them who has claimed to be able to tell the difference hasn't done the test and if they do they fail it.
I can *see* the difference in the waveform very clearly, but I can't hear it. You probably can't either.
That being said, HD space is cheap so I prefer WAV/FLAC but let's not spread misinformation 
 If you want to make an apple pie from scratch...you must first invent the universe
www.soundcloud.com/tasp
www.soundcloud.com/kinematic-records |
|
|
|
xoC
Cubic Spline
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
179
Posted : Oct 5, 2012 10:56
|
Quote:
|
On 2012-10-04 22:00, willsanquil wrote:
If the 320 MP3 doesn't sound like the WAV, the WAV was not converted properly.
I have never met a single person who has been able to tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and a WAV in a double blind test. I've asked a shitload of people - every single one of them who has claimed to be able to tell the difference hasn't done the test and if they do they fail it.
I can *see* the difference in the waveform very clearly, but I can't hear it. You probably can't either.
That being said, HD space is cheap so I prefer WAV/FLAC but let's not spread misinformation
|
|
Yeah that's true. The RMS error is arround -30 (AES standart, so +3dB compared to the RMS value given by SPAN with the "pure" setting (i forgot to switch it to "pure3"), relatively broadband (with a slight emphasis as you go toward high mids, and a peak in the 16-22.05 kHz. You can hear it, but it really depends of the nature of the track. If there is lot of energy above 16 kHz (and add to that clipping and the decoding stage if done wrong with really hot tracks) for example.
Exemple with hot (-5 dB RMS) mastered track. It's the frequency response of the differences between wav and MP3 320 Lame 3.97, true stereo : 
And if you don't compare in double blind test, you will hear a lot more of placebo changes 
On a side note, I really prefer 320 True stereo than join stereo. Even on 320 tracks, if you have some hard panned closed hat for exemple that travel in the stereo space, in joint stereo, it's really obvious in the high those travels are affected. In true stereo it's a lot more transparent.
Joint stereo can be useful on track where all hats are centered.
http://www.storm-mastering.com |
|
|
|
specymen
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
119
Posted : Oct 5, 2012 11:56
|
|
so you say that mp3 can be as good as wav ? |
|
|
|
xoC
Cubic Spline
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
179
Posted : Oct 5, 2012 12:33
|
I Never said as good. there is still -30dB RMS error between the two. On certain conditions, it's really hard to tell, on other it's easier. (and it get harder and harder as you grow old, when you cannot hear above 16 kHz  ). That doesn't mean it's the same.
But for exemple, for mix review before mastering, i always said to the client to send me the preview in mp3 320, it's faster to send, and good enough to tell them "it's great" or "you should add 2 dB to the bass". For the master, always wav 24 bits if possible.
http://www.storm-mastering.com |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Oct 5, 2012 15:34
|
dunno how some convert mp3 but it s sure not transparent,320 or not.. on well converterd one with max quality even 192 it s really hard to spot.
but if you think you have same quality with downloaded or even mp3 that you bought ,sometimes you would be suprised when comparing to the wav... it can happen low end is not even the same, to be safe when i want something in original quality i always go wav (there is probably option to filter lowend to remode dc or stuff like this in some encoders,just a guess)
it s still very light and wont matter for listening music probably for most.. but when used for reference always go wav |
|
|
|
xoC
Cubic Spline
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
179
Posted : Oct 5, 2012 19:08
|
Quote:
|
On 2012-10-05 15:34, PoM wrote:
dunno how some convert mp3 but it s sure not transparent,320 or not.. on well converterd one with max quality even 192 it s really hard to spot.
but if you think you have same quality with downloaded or even mp3 that you bought ,sometimes you would be suprised when comparing to the wav... it can happen low end is not even the same, to be safe when i want something in original quality i always go wav (there is probably option to filter lowend to remode dc or stuff like this in some encoders,just a guess)
it s still very light and wont matter for listening music probably for most.. but when used for reference always go wav
|
|
that's another story. A lot of downloadable MP3 on online plateforms seams to be compressed by monkeys ...
http://www.storm-mastering.com |
|
|
|
Babaluma
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
729
Posted : Oct 7, 2012 00:35
|
i can hear the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and the original 16 bit 44.1kHz wav file in a blind ABX test on SOME material (usually well recorded, dynamic music, such as steely dan), but not on all. usually notice it most in the cymbals/hats, and lack of depth.
it's hard to hear the difference on modern ultra compressed popular music though . lady gaga sounds as bad at 24/96 as she does at 128kbps...
http://hermetechmastering.com : http://www.discogs.com/artist/Gregg+Janman : http://soundcloud.com/babaluma |
|
|
|
