| Author
|
The diffrence between a 320kbps mp3 and the wav?
|
gill
Melorix
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
628
Posted : May 1, 2006 17:11
|
Lately I've been discussing this with several people.
Some say they just can hear it.
Other say they can't because the diffrence is too little ...
I don't know anymore ...
Anyway here did it all started ...
Quote:
|
On a big system huh ...
Please tell me what you hear.
What and where is the diffrence?
Don't tell you just hear it.
I want to know exactly.
Just out of curiosity 
|
|
Quote:
|
I'd say "'Aim for quality" too, but i also think it's pretty save to play 320kbps on the big systems, just be sure there's no digital "blips & cracks" before you play it!
|
|
Quote:
|
The difference i hear is a slight decrease in clarity, and its not huge, but its there...
though 320kBit/s is better than 192kBit/s cause the difference is more noticeable with 192kBit/s compared to 24bit 44100hz wav, i have also made comparison against 192kBit/s and 16bit 44100hz wav and notice difference in clarity aswell...
really its nothing to argue about, i dont see how my opinion would change anything... for me you can play 128 mp3s at parties if you want...
i do my thing and you do your thing and we are all happy! 
just listen for your self, play at low volume and play the same sequence from both files... you have to listen very careful.......
now raise the volume and do the same test, than lower the volume again...
then cut the bass and listen only to the treble and do the same test..
Do you hear a difference in clarity?
the better listening system and environement you have the easier it is to hear the difference...
but of course you should be able to hear it on any system... if you listen careful.
though when we listen to music we dont listen for
this, we listen to the music, it could be a recording from the 50ies or whatever... its the music that matters most... the quality is second, at least for me, if there is not some evil distortion or other annoying artifacts... which can get by if the track is really good!
im merley saying that there is a difference, and of course there is a difference, i mean its sometimes a 1/12 compression, but consider that kind of compression its a great format and a very smart algorithm...
"formal and informal listening tests have shown that mp3 at the 192-256 kbps range provide encoded results undistinguishable from the original materials in most of the cases."
In most of the cases, and i really dont know how these tests has been preformed, also im sure that i could make the wrong decision about mp3 and wav..
i never did a real blind test, which would be very interesting.... though it also depends on how manytimes you get to compare, cause i think to some extent you have to become acclimatized with the sounds...
though i do believe that i can tell a 192kBit/s mp3 from a 16bit 44100hz wav, but i also believe it has to do with the recording, and how much information is has.... the more info it holds the easier to tell mp3 from wav....
but thats just what i think...
|
|
Quote:
|
Yea I think I can do it too between a mp3 > 192 kbps and the wav ...
But between a 320 kbps mp3 and a wav?
I hear it so often that people hear the diffrence between those, is it bullshit what they say? Because a few of them don't even produce music ...
(Perhaps we should make a new thread about it )
I would like to discuss this further till it's all clear for everyone
|
|
  http://trishula-records.com/artists-pages/melorix.html |
|
|
|
Freeflow
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
60
Posts :
3709
Posted : May 1, 2006 18:14
|
I will follow this thread,
maybe someone with more insight will share their thoughts...
Still i dont think mp3s has anything to do in a party.
but if you got a blasting track in 320kBit/s and you had no chance to get hold of the original copy then you should play it... because its a blasting track
but as a rule of tumb i think cd quality is what we should strive for... or why not vinyl which has a very pleasant sound..
i think we dig our selfs a hole with mp3s
those who dont buy cds and only listen to mp3s will get used to that quality and will not have anything to compare with....
i dont think the crowd cares as much as most of those who are audiophiles or those who create music..
i mean what would u choose, a bag of weed or 2-3 cds? or a bag of weed and some mp3s?
id probably go with the bag of weed and some mp3s.. haha
maybe when internet is much faster than now, and harddrives much bigger we will se a increasment in the spreading of wav....
|
|
|
|
jivamukti
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
21
Posts :
342
Posted : May 1, 2006 20:34
|
|
Speaking of audiophiles, there was a test some years ago by some audio magazine in which golden-eared audiophiles were put on test. They got to hear the same tracks in CD audio and 320 kbps mp3. The result was that most couldn't tell which were which. |
|
|
|
DarkHorse
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
63
Posted : May 1, 2006 23:22
|
I'd easily hear the difference between my CD player, vinyl setup (audiophile) and MP3. I can hear the difference very well between WAV and 320 MP3 on my computer.
But when I was in the sound labs at work I could never hear the difference between anything.
|
|
|
|
Elad
Tsabeat/Sattel Battle
Started Topics :
158
Posts :
5306
Posted : May 2, 2006 02:08
|
topic Q:
The diffrence between a 320kbps mp3 and the wav?
A:original cd quality = wav that conatain 1420 Kilo Bytes Per Second
mp3 320 = 320 KBPS
good vbr can be between 320-500 kbps usualy
wma can be encoded to 1000 kbps (original setup is 128 tho)
i can notice the diffrence specialy on the high end of the track. original quality sounds brighter and much more clear.
on party i usualy play 95% original .wav unless its very very good track that i have in 320 or more (not forgetting ogg vorbis encoding that is very very close to wav)
www.sattelbattle.com
http://yoavweinberg.weebly.com/ |
|
|
|
D-Alien
Oxidelic
Started Topics :
51
Posts :
619
Posted : May 4, 2006 00:34
|
tsabeat
exactly!!!!! one cannot compare 320kbps with 1420kbps its more than 4 time better quality. its like comparing a 150dpi JPG with a 600dpi TIFF images. one is pixelated and if u close up u'll see the compression, other is crisp and clean.
the best way to understand why mp3 SUCKS!!!! for playing in a party is if u can compare the Spectrum Analisis from an mp3 converted track and a wav or original track. one of the best and super fast spectrum analisis has www.exactaudiocopy.de software. its a free soft, u dld it, open it, strike Ctrl+E open a wav track and press in the display menu: SPectrum Analisis. U will see that the original track is clean, all spectrum is full, there is presence in all posible Herz from 0 to 20.000 !!!! if u convert this track to mp3 than reconverted to wav and compare it with the original one, u'll see the diference, u'll see how mp3 compression eats all above 15.000hz also it "Pixelates" the sound.. just like the JPG... Horrible
later if u play this track in a sound sistem.. ou.. the highs sounds terible and saturated, the mids sounds screaming and anoyning and the bass sounds all blurred without contrast.... compared with the original tack. aomething else. If u play an mp3 track in party and u change the pitch.. ou.. here comes the real mess... mostly if u slow down the beat... the sound saturates more and more... and its logical. its like expanding thi horrible jpg... u will not have a real image but a pizza...
the same with the mp3... even in 320kbps.
the best loseless compressor is the FLAC! it compres more than 50% but no quality lost...
chauuuu
Sound:
www.myspace.com/oxidelic
www.myspace.com/setanicmusic
Image:
www.antumbra-studio.com |
|
|
|
Nobita
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
30
Posts :
371
Posted : May 4, 2006 05:15
|
If you can't tell the difference (and you probably can't), then it all comes down to the placebo effect doesn't it?
And you can legitly dj with mp3s nowadays with all the online music shops selling psy mp3s.
Most of the information contained in a .wav is useless and imperceptible; the difference in perceivable quality is not proportional to the size difference.
I find my CDs sound better than some of my 360kpbs mp3s for sure, but that's due to the attachemenent caused by the money spent, it makes you pay better attention to a release (ie. placebo effect).
Peace
Row row row your boats gently down the stream; merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream. |
|
|
|
spannungsbogen
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
14
Posts :
71
Posted : May 4, 2006 07:41
|
Since 95% of the people listening to the music in partys are completly stoned and has no fracking idea of the difference between a mp3 and original wav...
well... this discussion has no point at all except for thoses people who has a hearing beyond human reach and like to bullshit over the intarnet!
The only reason is about buying the shit out of the artist and it would be way more simplier if they had all paypal account and a donate button somewhere to give them some money for their music. They'd get more money that way too...
http://www.spannungsbogen.com
For information, boooking and Demo |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 4, 2006 12:02
|
@D-Alien
Unless you compress at an extemly low bitrate the resolution of an mp3 is the same as the original wav, ie 16 bit & 44.1k
So claiming that an mp3 compared to a wav would be like a 150 dpi jpg compared to a 600 dpi tiff is completly off unless you are talking about a 24k mp3.
Can you really see the difference between a jpg compressed at the maximum quality and a tiff with the same resolution?
If you can it's probably due to the same placebo effect that made you conclude that mp3 sucks.
And I don't think there exists any encoders that will filter the sound at 15k if you compress to 320k...I know for sure that LAME wont.
Sure you can see a difference in a wav editor if you know what to look for....but thats pretty irrelevant considering that people cannot tell the difference when doing a blind test...the codecs is developed to be transparent to the ear and not to the eye.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
gill
Melorix
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
628
Posted : May 4, 2006 17:18
|
I'm considering to do the test here ...
To start from a wav putting it into mp3 and then again to wav (so the "lost" from the mp3 is happened)
and putting the same sample in the same file as a wav too
in a arbitrary order ...
Let's see who can figger it out ...
And when the person found out that he was right, well do a few more test with the samples 
Ok, who starts
http://trishula-records.com/artists-pages/melorix.html |
|
|
|
D-Alien
Oxidelic
Started Topics :
51
Posts :
619
Posted : May 4, 2006 17:33
|
ok...
let be more spesific because i see you didnt get what i mean. shure if u listen to some 320kbps mp3 and the same original track on a hi-fi system maybe you will not hear the diference, even though up in the high range of freqs man can observe this slight distortion, slight, slight saturation there. its because mpr3 compression cut all high freqs. sure These are freqs we dont here but the quality of the sound needs them as they give Air. Mp3 compression "pixelates" the curve of the sound wave. Using Algorithms. The same as the jpg makes and its very obvious in the contrast areas. so... imagine how the speakers play this "pixelated" curve. I mean Can U Imagina how realy your speakers behave? for the sound to be clear and crisp, the speakrs need "Air". I mean they need small "pause"(its minimum but nesecary) so that it can Pump Up one more time fully when another signal is received! when we put an mp3 its has all sound waves Pixelated but also Smoothed! this smoothing is very good for listening to your home hi-fi or your beautufil I.pod, but it fills this small air gaps in the signal as before the pixelisation(compression) has destroyed! SO, what happens at the Party? Imagine all this Speakers at the Party, all vibrating because of the sound signal the is received, if its from an mp3, even an 320 one, the speakers dont have this small "Air pause", they cannot "breath" and thats why the sound can saturate. Sure we are speaking to very small diferencies but when u listen to a 3h set of dj only playing mp3, dont ask me than.. ou boy... I'm deft... this man killed my ears. More progressive the music is, and more minimal is, the less the saturation is, but in geners like intense, night and forest trance, where a lot of sound layers are fighting for Freq Space plus if You as a Dj want to modify its pitch during the set, all this compresion is more and more audible. I can hear it. I can say which track the dj plays is from an original cd and which one from mp3. even 320. Its so obvious. If u dont here it... well.. call it placebo efect or whatever. I stay in the side of the quality and not the quantity...
dont forget. For house hi-fi system, mp3 is ideal. is good. i dont ignore this. the problem is with the big party systems, where we have so many speakers and all of them saturating in small doses the signal, so it is multiplicated. so saturation and Flatness in the sound can be heard. for the lack of Breathing that I mentioned.
Off:
speaking bout jpgs and tiffs. My friend. If u save an jpg to maximum quality (12), than your file will have almost the same size in mgb than the tiff and looses the meaning of using it as the jpg compresion is Permanent and Inrevertable. U can compress your tiff using its LZA compresion but its internal and at the moment u open your tiff it Decompress it, so no lost in the quality. its Called LOOSELESS COMPRESSION. like FLAC for WAV. if a wav is between 80 - 120mgb. a flac could be between 40 - 80mgb.
sorry, i forget to tell u I'm a grfic designer so this jpg-tiff thing i know quite good.
hoping this time u get the idea.
Sound:
www.myspace.com/oxidelic
www.myspace.com/setanicmusic
Image:
www.antumbra-studio.com |
|
|
|
Fingax
Cosmic Station
Started Topics :
82
Posts :
1235
Posted : May 4, 2006 18:13
|
[quote]
On 2006-05-04 07:41, spannungsbogen wrote:
Since 95% of the people listening to the music in partys are completly stoned and has no fracking idea of the difference between a mp3 and original wav...
[quote]
True....
Quote:
|
for thoses people who has a hearing beyond human reach
|
|
this makes no sence.
Of course if you train your preception in a mp3 basis you wont find the difrence. same shit if you see pirated downloaded movies for years. you get usted and then you start finding some of them are actually good quality. bullshit compared with the original. you are just training your preception. you can train to be accurate or to be mediocre is upon you.
here is some facts for everyone understands how much is going on here:
Mp3 in relation to CD quality audio:
Cd quality audio = 1411.2 kb per second of information
128 kbs mp3 = 11:1 quality ratio (in other words in 11 "parts of sound" you only listen to 1. now tell me is the same thing.. i wont even answer you)
192 kbs = 7:1
320 kbs = 4.4:1
minidisks are pretty close to 320mp3.
so conclusion: Mp3 is a lossy system of data compression. part of the original data is not registred during compression and it becomes irretrivable.
i hope this clarefies everyone here that defends themselves accusing the others to have subrenatural hearing. in fact who says such thing haves poor hearing.
Also its important to ention that souund exposition in abuse creates damadge in our ears and we use our auditory organ in a daily basis so it gets used and it loses sensivity to the freq.s wich is most exposd too becoming in the future unoticible.
|
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 4, 2006 18:19
|
@gill
I put up a test here a while ago...noone could tell correctly what was from 192k VBR, 320k CBR and Wav.
And there has been countless tests done with consumers, mastering engineers and producers using playback equipment rangeing from top of the range club systems to high-end mastering speakers to consumer hi-fi systems.
People who claim that there is an obvious difference between a 320k mp3 and wav is 99.99% of the time incapable of telling the difference when you make a blind test to avoid the placebo effect.
@D-Alien
First of all sound don't have pixels and don't get pixelated.
You are probably trying to compare resolution, ie. bit-depth and sampling frequency in audio and dpi in gfx.
But the resolution is the same in a 320k mp3 as in a wav. It's the same dpi speaking in gfx terms.
Jpg compression does not make the image look pixelated unless you use a very high compression setting, just as mp3 don't corrupt the sound unless you compress very hard.
Thats a fact supported by many tests.
Maybe you have superhuman hearing and could actually tell the difference in a blind test if you really tried, but to say that sound quality of mp3 sucks is simply silly.
With regards to dropping of high frequencies I must again emphasize that the codecs is not devloped to look perfect in a editor, they are developed to be transparent to the human ear.
There will be a slope at around 16k also on a 320k mp3 when you open it up in an editor.
But that doesn't mean that it actually is containing less audio in that range.
It has to do with the the way perceptive encoding is working by taking away information when a part of the audio signal anyway would be inaudible due to masking. Since most material does not have the same signal level in the top end of the frequency range there simply is more masking happening there.
You claim that frequencies above the human hearing range might help by adding air to the signal can be debated, but no matter if you compress it to mp3 or not a 44.1k wav does not contain information above the hearing range of a human with a good ear and hence the argument is irrelevant in this context.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Fingax
Cosmic Station
Started Topics :
82
Posts :
1235
Posted : May 4, 2006 18:31
|
@ spindrift
i can only agree whit you if your talking about audio w/ poor harmonic content. Sound rich in harmonic content especialy in the hi end (like a cymbal) produces harmonic freq. way above our preception. converting to mp3 only meens lost of content. you can choose the ratio you want to detriorate the signal in relation to the original. you can say you dont see the difrnce, thats subjective to your hears.
To be honest, with me most of times with good mp3 i can only find the difrence when comparing with the original because without a reference it becomes a mind game and thats not accurate. although i've listened such bad mixed that even a mp3 of a proper mix would sound better than wav if bad mixed/engeneered.
Mp3 are a good deal if youre talking about internet. and basically only that becames a proper medium for mp3 because of transfer rate issues. but even then there is lossless formats wich makes the whole difrence in this issue of audio detrioration/internet downloads tranfer rates.
This is my point of view on this matter.
bombole!
|
|
|
|
D-Alien
Oxidelic
Started Topics :
51
Posts :
619
Posted : May 4, 2006 18:31
|
ok friend. I respect your opinion and will not enter in discussion, less in califications as super-humans and etc... I told u "Pixelated" cuz the sound is digital and must have depthrate, it's the exactly the same as rcovert a Vector Curve to a Bitmap curve.
I'm leting you a test here I've made 2minutes ago. a wav and an mp3, the same moment, the same track. look the GAPS, THE HOLES, EVEN PIXELS and GRAINS and DUST u can see!!!!! and iots your favorite 320kbps MP3 GOD. So man, this is what your SUPER-HUMAN mp3 compression actualy make to your wavs, and reflecting to the 20-30 or 40 Speakers ON THE PARTY SOUND SYSTEM. If u tell me that this image is not convincing enough to change your mind about mp3 playing ON PARTIES (repeating ON PARTIES) well... let it here. I used to think as you some years ago until some real profesionals and sopund engeneers explained to me What actually hapenns in real world and not in some perfect theories. Maybe I'm sick by placebo effect but I see your a blind MP3 Fanatic too.
take care, and a lot respect to your music though
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/d-alien/wavmp3.jpg
Sound:
www.myspace.com/oxidelic
www.myspace.com/setanicmusic
Image:
www.antumbra-studio.com |
|
|
|
