| Author
|
The diffrence between a 320kbps mp3 and the wav?
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : May 5, 2006 23:31
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-05 20:43, D-Alien wrote:
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!
|
|
With all due respect, even given your slight Engrish this paragraph makes little sense.
"MP3 smooths the compression"?
"there is continous vibration on the speakers even if there is no impulse" This is just untrue. MP3s (and VBR in particular, I think) output digital silence when there is no audio in a given frame - and silence is silence, whether it comes from an MP3 or a WAV.
  Mastering - http://mastering.OOOD.net :: www.is.gd/mastering
OOOD 5th album 'You Think You Are' - www.is.gd/tobuyoood :: www.OOOD.net
www.facebook.com/OOOD.music :: www.soundcloud.com/oood
Contact for bookings/mastering - colin@oood.net |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 5, 2006 23:55
|
@D-Alien
You are the one talking about theory.
I sure find it hard to understand how it's possible that an mp3 that is 1/10th of the size of the wav cannot be distiguished from the original even by some of the best ears in the industry on some of the best equipment available.
So I agree that in teory one would expect the sound quailty to "suck".
But there is only one way to practically analyze perceived audio quality and thats by making proper blind tests.
That kind of tests have been carried out in plentitude and the consensus is clear.
And thats what I base my conclusion on...not how it looks in an analyzer, not on how it sounded when one friend played a track at a party without me knowing what bitrate & encoder was used as well as all the details about the playback equipment used, and not on speculations about how the movement on the cone get affected by the compression.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : May 6, 2006 15:47
|
I can hear the difference.
Those golden-eared audiophiles didn't notice the difference maybe because they weren't listening to the correct type of music.
Psytrance is one type of music where the difference is actually audible.
I was making a track one day, and I exported just a kick+bass combo to send to a friend, and also encoded it as 320.
Then I loaded both files in winamp, the mp3 and the wav and I noticed that one of them sounded worse. I was a strong believer that there is no difference, but then I found (by mistake, I wasn't looking for it) that mp3 320 indeed sucks. The kick drum wasn't as sharp at all! I can't say anything about the bass since I'm not Tannoy monitors and bass is not what they excel at, but the difference at the kick drum was audible.
I made some more tests... From what I found out, 192 to 320 sound sort of the same. So use 192, less space.  Less is worse. But nothing compares to wav. Probably because the way mp3 works - I have no idea.
|
|
|
|
D-Alien
Oxidelic
Started Topics :
51
Posts :
619
Posted : May 6, 2006 18:59
|
think about this:
Mp3 technology cuts the non audible parts of sound piece. right? because we actually "Dont Hear Them" so thus less space is needed..
..BUT..
a big BUT (not butt   ) this doesent means that such frequencies are not reproduced by the speakers. U know there are a lot more frequencies we dont here but they are so potent, Bridges can be broken down! right? so... The fact that we dont hear them doesent mean we Dont Feel Them!!! the sound waves are impulses which are transmitted vie this plasmatic substance called air! even if i dont hear them I could feel them. very subtly, very undistiguishly But, here becomes the magic of Dynamics my friends. Dont be blind ppl. U cna hear with a lot more senses than just your Ears. So thats why i dont like to listen to Mp3s on PA.s cuz PA's give us very strong Impulses of sound waves which are Perceived By Our Whole Bodies. less frequencies, more flat the sound is.. even if the frequencies are not in the audible region... some frequencies stay but mp3 compr. "grains" them, "pixelete or better Digitalize them, more in the upper regions of the spectrum and even they are not audible this distortion is reproduced by the speakers and later when the electrical signal is transformed to an sound wave this distortion reflects somehow and give this anoying tickle in the ear... Also We cannot speak about wav or mp3 without looking at some very GOOD Spectrum Analizer. and not every spectrum analizer shows the truth...
think of it... frequencies we dont hear also reflect our perception of music, and especially on big partyes where the sound is very potent and the vibration is considerable... and of course I talking just for the INTENSE TRANCE, night full-on, dark psy, twisted dense trance, where the spectrum is filled constantly with a lot of sound material... not proggy tunes with 4 samples all along the track...
cheers
Sound:
www.myspace.com/oxidelic
www.myspace.com/setanicmusic
Image:
www.antumbra-studio.com |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 6, 2006 19:39
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-06 18:59, D-Alien wrote:
think about this:
Mp3 technology cuts the non audible parts of sound piece. right?
|
|
Wrong.
Just like with 44.1k wav a high bitrate mp3 contains the frequency range that a human with good hearing can perceive.
Not more not less.
Seems like you are trying to compare a 96k wav to a 44.1k mp3
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
D-Alien
Oxidelic
Started Topics :
51
Posts :
619
Posted : May 6, 2006 20:38
|
spindrift
no man. I'm just trying to tell you that the diference can be perceived in big PA's. Even with mpr encoded by the lame technology. I reapeat. with 2 studio speakers is almost impossible to distinguish this 2 tracks. wav and 320kbps from lame encoder. I speak about parties. where actually the music is played. sure mp3 320kbps lame encoder will sound just greaat! no doubt, but not so GREAT as if it was the original wav track. remember. there u have much more speakers, and even the smallest distortion or saturation (digitalization) is reproduced... so if they are not 2 but 20... the probability to hear this anoynig tickle in the ears from the mp3 is much bigger...
saludos demonios
Sound:
www.myspace.com/oxidelic
www.myspace.com/setanicmusic
Image:
www.antumbra-studio.com |
|
|
|
Yuli
Retired
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1660
Posted : May 6, 2006 23:16
|
@ Spindrift
I dont know who are those ppl that couldnt hear the difference between 192kbps MP3 and Wav, but I can tell u that I know to distinguish in MOST cases 320kbps MP3 from Wav. It is very easy actually and I dont go into high freq's that obviously get cut by the MP3 but it is very hard to tell, and it very much depends on the mix of that certain track, because if in the first place it wasnt too open around 16000hz and above then obviously the difference will be almost none.
The major difference between MP3 and WAV concerned with dance music is the Kick drum compression vs other low elements and vs the track. and it is very easy to spot especially on well mastered material. Somehow, I dont know what exactly does it, but MP3 compression takes off that punchiness from the low end.
Yeah there are differences between MP3 and WAV and it is easy to spot - u need only to want to spot that's all
A man with a "master plan" is often a woman |
|
|
|
D-Alien
Oxidelic
Started Topics :
51
Posts :
619
Posted : May 6, 2006 23:23
|
|
Yuli
Retired
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1660
Posted : May 7, 2006 00:00
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-06 23:23, D-Alien wrote:
@yuli
its so obvious on parties right? I felt it last week. mp3 vs wav? no discussion
|
|
Yeah big sound systems usually make it feel even better - the thing with MP3 stuff is that the dynamics are usually gone - all is flat. Ofcourse it still sounds good and intact but try to mix same track WAV after u played an MP3 verse on a big rig and u will see the difference easy.
A man with a "master plan" is often a woman |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 7, 2006 02:05
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-06 23:16, Yuli wrote:
@ Spindrift
I dont know who are those ppl that couldnt hear the difference between 192kbps MP3 and Wav |
|
192k CBR should be possible to spot without too much difficulty.
But I was surpised with the results when I posted some test snippets that from the people that participated noone could concistently tell the 190k VBR from the wav.
I guess you call bs on all the tests that have been carried out and have carried out your own blind tests.
In that case you have to apologize that I rather question your methology that distrust test from reputable sources.
If you haven't even carried out proper tests yourself I would reccommend you do that or make yourself familiar with the concept of placebo in relation to perceived audio quality before you make any claims.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Yuli
Retired
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1660
Posted : May 7, 2006 08:28
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-07 02:05, Spindrift wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-06 23:16, Yuli wrote:
@ Spindrift
I dont know who are those ppl that couldnt hear the difference between 192kbps MP3 and Wav |
|
192k CBR should be possible to spot without too much difficulty.
But I was surpised with the results when I posted some test snippets that from the people that participated noone could concistently tell the 190k VBR from the wav.
I guess you call bs on all the tests that have been carried out and have carried out your own blind tests.
In that case you have to apologize that I rather question your methology that distrust test from reputable sources.
If you haven't even carried out proper tests yourself I would reccommend you do that or make yourself familiar with the concept of placebo in relation to perceived audio quality before you make any claims.
|
|
Spindrift I did not see that paragraph where I mentioned that your tests are BS. Please give me the reference for that. But what did happen to me is to listen more than few times believe me to a WAV set after an MP3 set and I heard the difference very well. Moreover since I am eager music collector more than once or twice I encountered MP3 files that some of them were of similar tracks I had in WAV format and there I spotted the difference.
I usually refrain from getting into any kind of argument with you since I have seen how long those last usually and I really not into this kind of long and tiring debate - just my personal opinion. You can make your blind tests as much as u want and I respect you for doing so, also I agree to certain extent that in definite club surroundings and noise of crowd around plus not that great sound system and here u go - no one would feel that it was MP3 played. But the fact is THERE IS difference, and you know it.
A man with a "master plan" is often a woman |
|
|
|
Pavel
Troll
Started Topics :
313
Posts :
8649
Posted : May 7, 2006 10:23
|
Spin mate can you post some links to those blind tests?
I am planning to make one this week for my friends.
Gonna put up 320K LAME vs APE vs Wav.
Everyone in the world is doing something without me |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 7, 2006 12:53
|
@Yuli
I'm not surprised you heared the difference when you knew that one set that you knew was mp3 and then heard one set that was wav.
Probably it was played thru different converters and cables, and the fact that you knew what the source of the material was from made you susceptible to the placebo effect.
Eliminate those factors and make a proper blind test, and you probably get results more in line with the proper tests that has been made.
@Pavel
The mixmag test was linked to here somewhere, but I tried to google for it and use InSearch but could not find it.
www.hydrogenaudio.org is an excellent resource on the subject with test, information about LAME presets to use, problem samples for testing and so on.
Here is some info on ABX listening tests:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295&st=0&p=162217&#entry162217
You might want to download winABX to use when testing:
http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
gill
Melorix
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
628
Posted : May 7, 2006 16:00
|
|
koalakube
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
48
Posts :
437
Posted : May 7, 2006 17:15
|
I agree with Spindrift and COlin all the way.
I may be able to spot a difference beetwen an mp3 and a wav if i listen in a pro stuio enviroemnt (and certainly not on any NS10 or similar),but in a club?
For anyone playing mp3s at a party and concerned about a lack of bass (and you believe ppl can hear it,which is hard to beleieve for obvious reasons we all know),i suggest to use those knobs known as being part of the EQ in your mixing desk ;-)
|
|
|
|
