| Author
|
The diffrence between a 320kbps mp3 and the wav?
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 4, 2006 19:05
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-04 00:34, D-Alien wrote:
u'll see the diference, u'll see how mp3 compression eats all above 15.000hz
|
|
This just shows that your mp3 encoder/decoder isn't very good. When I convert my tracks with LAME encoder (--alt-preset insane), I see that it lowpasses at 20.32 Khz. Not 15 Khz.
Quote:
|
also it "Pixelates" the sound.. just like the JPG... Horrible
|
|
Pixelating sound doesn't mean anything. You can't just translate graphical stuff into sound stuff like that because we perceive sound and vision completely differently.
Quote:
|
here comes the real mess... mostly if u slow down the beat...
|
|
Ah well that is where you are going all wrong. You should only make tracks go faster. 
UnderTow |
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 4, 2006 19:13
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-04 18:31, D-Alien wrote:
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.
|
|
It would be exactly the same if you listened with your eyes.  But we listen with our ears so you can't just translate things like that.
Quote:
|
playing ON PARTIES (repeating ON PARTIES) well... let it here.
|
|
PA soundsystems are usualy a lot less good than studio monitors. Most PAs hardly go above 16-17Khz. I would say that MP3s are even less of a problem on a big PA than listening at home or in the studio.
This shows that there have been parts of the audio removed. Those are the parts that we don't normaly hear due to the masking effect.
Interestingly enough, it does show that there is audio content all the way to the top of the graph (highest frequencies).
Anyway, looking at graphs like this doesn't tell us how we hear things so it doesn't really proove anything. Double blind ABX listening tests are the only thing that can really tell us if people can tell the difference or not.
UnderTow
|
|
|
|
D-Alien
Oxidelic
Started Topics :
51
Posts :
619
Posted : May 4, 2006 19:34
|
..cool
we perceive diferently but bro its the same thing, frequency and vibration are generated by Waves. If they are Sound waves or Light Waves they have the same principles and structures. more oscure, more dark, blue and violet the color is, more long the amplitude of the wave is... doesent this sound like the waves of the low freqs?? U know that TASTE is also ruled by Frequencies. U know that bitter taste evokes one type of vibration in your neurons (long waves), and the acid taste reproduces short waves (as light colors and high freqs), sure we percieve diferently with our senses but the principles are the same, long waves, short waves. so, If u have to traduce an analoge wave to an digital wave.. well u need Bitrate (BIT, PIXELS.. hehe diferent names for the sme thing, lets tell GRAINS than). If u translate a vector curve (wave) to an bitmap one... u need Resolution (diferent names for the same thing one more time) well.. the same ocurrs. it's not a wave anymore, nor a curve, its cuadrated like stairs... but not to heaven, to compression...
so lets just kill than the good production than. lets listen to just crapy, saturated, flat sound.
its your years, dude... its your pleasure.
 Sound:
www.myspace.com/oxidelic
www.myspace.com/setanicmusic
Image:
www.antumbra-studio.com |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 4, 2006 19:50
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-04 18:31, Fingax wrote:
@ spindrift
although i've listened such bad mixed that even a mp3 of a proper mix would sound better than wav if bad mixed/engeneered.
|
|
Just a little comment...
In my experience when talking about lower rate mp3 where it's actually possible to spot the difference when performing a blind test, a really clean production can handle lossy compression much better, while a mix that is messy will make the compression much more obvious.
@D-Alien
Fist of all without specifying what encoder you used and what bitrate the file was the image says absolutly nothing.
And I listen to my mp3, not study them for artifacts in a wav editor.
I used to be very adversed to mp3's, until a few years ago when encoders actually managed to achive transparent results.
And when reading about tests done with some of the top mastering engineers in the audio industry and that not even they could tell the difference on top-end equipment I realised I was just being prejudgemental.
And I don't belive for one second that you get better fidelity on a PA compared to a set of Nautilus speakers...infact I think it will be easier to spot the difference on a half-decent pair of studio monitors than a decent PA-system.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....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 20:08
|
@ spindrift
i agree what you saying but what i said is that if you have a good track/mix and you convert to mp3 it sounds better then if you have a bad mixed track and just leave it in wav, because of phase problems, masking freqs and so on it would just sound worse. but i think i deviate a litlle here from the topic because im commenting about preceiving a track and not about the content of the track, for shure even if the wav file sounds worse it haves more audio content in it or information as i like to call it heheh
about the PA thing your totally right. most pa around are cheap and sound bad. yes they sound loud but they sound bad to me anyway. besides that the most venues ive been recently they have ok Pa sometimes even good PA but the acoustics are so terrible that the sounds is just nasty. please dont tell me ive been in wrong venues cause ive been in the so called good ones and not even this are exeption sometimes. Not to mention the amount of venues that only play Mono and you see how it affects the sound. Neverless i need to say that in these case i told about partys of BIG promoters and PA or acousitcs sound bad, i stoped too look around but nobody stoped dance. it seems only me was getting affected buy this incredibly. last one ive been not even in the chill out i was allright. the pparty was overcrowded as well and i know how this influences the sound absobtion by the people specially all hiend goes bananas and thank to bad acoustics, basses keep reinforcing and reinforcing and trespassing all the crowd hiting the stomach of the very last guy standed way in the back of the venue hehehe ok im going off topic...
|
|
|
|
psykoactiv
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
14
Posts :
651
Posted : May 5, 2006 09:31
|
i was a very strong believer of the fact that we cannot perceive the difference between 320 kpbs mp3 n wav files.. in fact this wat we had been taught at sound school..
then one fine day i ate some drops n went to a party where me n my friends did some testing of mp3 vs wav.. i could tell the difference instantly.. the waveform of the low end wasnt smooth enuf.. the high end sounded too sharp..
n now even when am not on drops i can tell the difference.. only on big sound though.. not on headphones..
(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
>>>>>H Y D R A<<<<<
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸) |
|
|
|
mescarajah
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
25
Posted : May 5, 2006 14:38
|
You can see the diffrence when you zoom in in the wave editor. The mp3 will be pixelated like hell. THe wave will become linear. Also on a beetter hifi you can hear the difference instantly - the hign tones - oh, ch , tamboorines in mp3 are deformated.
The easiest way - make a track, and then transform the render into mp3. Then listen to it and your original render. :- )
peace |
|
|
|
D-Alien
Oxidelic
Started Topics :
51
Posts :
619
Posted : May 5, 2006 16:12
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-05 09:31, psykoactiv wrote:
i was a very strong believer of the fact that we cannot perceive the difference between 320 kpbs mp3 n wav files.. in fact this wat we had been taught at sound school..
then one fine day i ate some drops n went to a party where me n my friends did some testing of mp3 vs wav.. i could tell the difference instantly.. the waveform of the low end wasnt smooth enuf.. the high end sounded too sharp..
n now even when am not on drops i can tell the difference.. only on big sound though.. not on headphones.. |
|
YEEAAHHH BOOOOOYYYY!!!
that's what I mean too!! but didnt want to write bout drops aaaaaaahahahahahahah. LAst week we had a 3 days open air party so one of the days I'd taken some half ticky eeeehehehehehehehe wow boy!!! Sure I've perceived this shitty mp3! and I know all my friend's music, so the friends that played mp3 even 320kbps (as I'd gave them eeheheh) wow horrible!!!! HORRIBLE!!! and oh my god! when the All MAjesty WAV appeared. wow!! portals of energy was opened!
ehehehehehehehehe
VIVA LA WAV!!!!!!
Sound:
www.myspace.com/oxidelic
www.myspace.com/setanicmusic
Image:
www.antumbra-studio.com |
|
|
|
Kitnam
Mantik
Started Topics :
110
Posts :
1151
Posted : May 5, 2006 17:34
|
at home you wont here the difference maybe.
but on a party, as bigger the pa is, as bigger is the lack of quality. |
|
|
|
e-motion
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
71
Posts :
933
Posted : May 5, 2006 17:51
|
sounding different doesn't mean sound worst. vinyl has worst quality than CD but try playing both and (depends on the person but most of the times) you'll like more the sound of vinyl. same thing with mp3 altough the difference is less. if you want to check it just do what undertow said. ask a friend of yours to play both files (good encoded mp3!), without you knowing which is mp3 and which is wav.
the placebo effect has a strong effect on our senses so you can only be sure with the double blind thing Undertow is talking about, thrust him.
an slight off topic but can give you an idea:
when i was a kid my father said to his wife that pepsi and coca cola are the same thing and she said both we're really different and she could feel the difference easyly. he filled to glasses one with coca cola another with pepsi. she failed... i tried too... i failed too.  yes we were sober.
so do you think you'll feel the difference in sound in a party? think again. |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 5, 2006 18:28
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-05 16:12, D-Alien wrote:
I know all my friend's music, so the friends
that played mp3 even 320kbps (as I'd gave them eeheheh) wow horrible!!!! HORRIBLE!!! |
|
You have allready explained that your mp3 encoder/decoder cuts out all frequencies above 15Khz which means it is very bad. So this still doesn't proove anything about what is possible or not with good encoders/decoders.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 5, 2006 18:33
|
For those who think they can easily tell the difference I would urge you to do a blind test using 320k mp3's encoded using LAME.
I also think I can hear the difference if I know beforehand what file is wav and what is mp3.
It's called the placebo effect and it's well know to be quite prominent especially with something as subjective as percived sound quality.
This discussion has been up before with many people claiming that there is an obvious difference, but when I put of some files for them to identify the was noone who could tell what was what...to my surprise not even with 192k VBR.
And as I mentioned previously there been many more
serious test done using all kinds of playback equipment. I never seen one test where the participants been able to consistenly tell the mp3 from the wav.
All I hear is a lot of stories about some friend who played an mp3 at a party once and how obvious the difference was, with no mention about bitrate or encoder used or if it indeed was a blind test.
I can only conclude that people who discount all the proper tests that have been done and still think there is an obviuos difference have no understanding about the placebo effect nor the differences between various encoders or bitrates.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
D-Alien
Oxidelic
Started Topics :
51
Posts :
619
Posted : May 5, 2006 20:43
|
people but you really insist. wow. will die from laughing.
here we have a new army of mp3 Pyrates Or What? why U should play mp3 on party if u're real dj? you should not concern on this, u SHOULD or better MUST have Original music and not some compressed (even with the best compressing technology) flat sound? I dont know what are u defending. Playng MP3s on parties?
call yourself DJMP3 than...
@spindrift.
dear friend, I'm using Advanced Mp3 Converter. Recomended by HERE! I didnt want to say that all my freqs are cutted from the 15Khz above but that the most compression effect u can observe above 15Khz. 320kbps dont cut it completely, but it "PIXELATE" it. it makes GRAINS (look carefully on the image I've put) its 320kbps, from a orignal cd quality source, Transparent Auido, from Advanced Mp3 Converter software, last Update...
sorry but when i'm on acid this GRAINS are like Stones for my ears. U know.. Super-Human Ears. I have to take care of them and I cannot expose them to Flat, Saturated and Compressed sound more than 30min... when i want to trip on good party with big and potent PA.
Dont forget about the breathing of the speakers, to have a full representation of a sound, the speaker must begin from zero vibration to the point where it traduces the electrical signal and starts to vibrate, so Contrast in the sound is Acheived. Mp3 smooths the compression and thats why there is continous vibration on the speakers even if there is no impulse, its because of the smoothing, this technology simply is not for playing on PA. sure at home i cannot tell the diference so fast or must spend some time. but on a party? In a SEC!
Sound:
www.myspace.com/oxidelic
www.myspace.com/setanicmusic
Image:
www.antumbra-studio.com |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 5, 2006 21:38
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-05 20:43, D-Alien wrote:
people but you really insist. wow. will die from laughing.
here we have a new army of mp3 Pyrates Or What? why U should play mp3 on party if u're real dj? you should not concern on this, u SHOULD or better MUST have Original music and not some compressed (even with the best compressing technology) flat sound? I dont know what are u defending. Playng MP3s on parties?
call yourself DJMP3 than... |
|
I'm simply discussing the technical merits of mp3's.
Personally I use wav when DJ'ing and like to get FLAC downloads when I buy music, but thats not relevant to this topic.
And I couldn't care less about what I should call myself but I like HardDiskJokey more than CompactDiscJokey personally
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-05 20:43, D-Alien wrote:
@spindrift.
dear friend, I'm using Advanced Mp3 Converter. Recomended by HERE! |
|
Never heard of it, but if you can hear the artifacts on a 320k mp3 in a blind test I can bet that it a sub-standard encoder.
LAME is widely recognised as the best encoder and when I say that the encoding of a 320k mp3 is transparent I mean one made using LAME.
All your ramblings about "pixellation" and the vibration means nothing to me.
If you are distributing music for users to look at in a spectral analyzer I would stick with wav or FLAC, but usually music is distributed for people to listen to and than it's not an issue how it look in an analyzer.
And I would seriously consider replacing your hi-fi if it really does not provide a more detailed sound than a PA.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
D-Alien
Oxidelic
Started Topics :
51
Posts :
619
Posted : May 5, 2006 22:38
|
well u said it.
for u its rumblings... but for me it is simple logic.
but one thing is the THEORY where the world is perfect, and other thing is the Real Material Life, where u have real SPEAKERS, not perfect. small saturations on 2 speakers are very dificult to be recognized, but small saturations on 30 speakers is another thing, If u wish to convert my "rumblings" in some sense to you, man... read smthng about speakers, how actually they work in real life and how they interact with diferent formats, how actually they traduce signal. Why a simple proggy tune sounds the same on 320 or wav. and why an intense forest trance doesent sound the same... Its all about dynamics, harmonics, richness of the sound.
really I'm surprised that A Big Artist As You Are cannot understand why mp3 sucks on big PA's. and why mp3 EVEN CAN DAMAGE speakers in long terms...
incredible no?
i repeat. mp3 is GREAT for sharing, for knowing new names, new tracks, for demos, etc... but for playing on EVENTS... its just unprofesional... sorry.
Sound:
www.myspace.com/oxidelic
www.myspace.com/setanicmusic
Image:
www.antumbra-studio.com |
|
|
|
