| Author
|
The diffrence between a 320kbps mp3 and the wav?
|
gill
Melorix
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
628
Posted : May 7, 2006 17:41
|
+ another point is ...
at parties the sound (PA) isn't allways well done too...
So, who will hear it?
The ppl that are stoned or the ones that can see the music under LSD or mushrooms ... ?
Perhaps the people that walk arround with their "Find-the-mp3-in-this-party-analyser" to check if the dj is playing mp3's ... ? (You know the guy with his meters and analysers wounded on his body that guesses right at the end of the party and fill's in the winning ticket for the only mp3 between the wav's  , he'll get a price.)
Or is it the guy/owner of the soundsystem that will found out that his loudspeakers are crap after the party? He must think: "Damn hippie's next time don't download mp3's anymore" or "Fucking dreadlocked hairball's, why did you played the music that loud, they're to stoned to listen properly".
  http://trishula-records.com/artists-pages/melorix.html |
|
|
|
koalakube
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
48
Posts :
437
Posted : May 7, 2006 18:30
|
lol
;-) |
|
|
|
gill
Melorix
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
628
Posted : May 10, 2006 02:23
|
|
ichabod
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
28
Posted : May 10, 2006 12:19
|
I am pretty firmly with spindrift and Collin on this one.. My job has envolved MP3 decoder design so I would consider myself to have a strong leg to stand on. If proffessional 'golden ear' listneres can not tell the difference on high end audiophile equipment then I dont think anyone else can!
All of this bs about hearing the difference on Acid.. hasnt it crossed your mind that THE PLACEBO EFFECT is probably massively increased while tripping? You heard the difference in your head only because you KNEW that it was MP3 anyway.
MP3 works by splitting the spectrum into frequency bands and applying a psychoacoustic model to calcualte the effects of masking between bands. Each frequecny band can then be individualy quantised to use less encoding bits. With high bit rate MP3, you are not cutting chunks out of the audio spectrum you are just introducing low level (well masked) quantisation noise to specific frequency bands. This does mean that very busy music with a full frequency spectrum is more dificult to compress transparently. With 320KBPs MP3 the quantisation noise added is tiny - as demonstrated by the proffesional blind tests!
The only reason that I can think of for an MP3 sounding worse on a big rig is that the psychoacoustic model used in the masking algorithm is based on a fixed listening volume. This is inaccurate as masking in the human ear does change slightly depending on volume. In other words, when listening at extremely high (or extremely low) volumes the masking model used for the MP3 encouding will not match the true masking effect which could possibly lead to artifacts ecceeding the masking threshold and becoming audible. However, the audio quality on a big rig is actually way worse than on a good monitoring system - I would think that imperfections in the system frequency response, room acoustics etc etc. will be far more obvious than any imperfections in 320KBPS MP3 |
|
|
|
ichabod
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
28
Posted : May 10, 2006 12:26
|
also forgot to emtion.. LAME isnt the best MP3 encoder. It may be the best FREE encoder but the Fraunhofer encoder (The company that owns the rights to the MP3 format) is apparently better quality.
I'm not positive about this but I expect that the Fraunhofer encoder is liscenced for commercial products such as Cubase so you may be better off exporting to MP3 directly from Cubase than using LAME. |
|
|
|
e-motion
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
71
Posts :
933
Posted : May 10, 2006 13:53
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-07 17:41, gill wrote:
+ another point is ...
at parties the sound (PA) isn't allways well done too...
So, who will hear it?
The ppl that are stoned or the ones that can see the music under LSD or mushrooms ... ?
Perhaps the people that walk arround with their "Find-the-mp3-in-this-party-analyser" to check if the dj is playing mp3's ... ? (You know the guy with his meters and analysers wounded on his body that guesses right at the end of the party and fill's in the winning ticket for the only mp3 between the wav's , he'll get a price.)
Or is it the guy/owner of the soundsystem that will found out that his loudspeakers are crap after the party? He must think: "Damn hippie's next time don't download mp3's anymore" or "Fucking dreadlocked hairball's, why did you played the music that loud, they're to stoned to listen properly".
|
|
my point too  |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 10, 2006 13:58
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-10 12:26, ichabod wrote:
also forgot to emtion.. LAME isnt the best MP3 encoder. It may be the best FREE encoder but the Fraunhofer encoder (The company that owns the rights to the MP3 format) is apparently better quality.
I'm not positive about this but I expect that the Fraunhofer encoder is liscenced for commercial products such as Cubase so you may be better off exporting to MP3 directly from Cubase than using LAME.
|
|
I saw something on hydrogenaudio that there is a new Fraunhofer encoder that should be very good, and it's now free as well.
Otherwise it always seemed to me that the consensus was that the old Fraunhofer was surpassed by LAME.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Yuli
Retired
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1660
Posted : May 10, 2006 15:14
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-10 12:19, ichabod wrote:
I am pretty firmly with spindrift and Collin on this one.. My job has envolved MP3 decoder design so I would consider myself to have a strong leg to stand on. If proffessional 'golden ear' listneres can not tell the difference on high end audiophile equipment then I dont think anyone else can!
All of this bs about hearing the difference on Acid.. hasnt it crossed your mind that THE PLACEBO EFFECT is probably massively increased while tripping? You heard the difference in your head only because you KNEW that it was MP3 anyway.
MP3 works by splitting the spectrum into frequency bands and applying a psychoacoustic model to calcualte the effects of masking between bands. Each frequecny band can then be individualy quantised to use less encoding bits. With high bit rate MP3, you are not cutting chunks out of the audio spectrum you are just introducing low level (well masked) quantisation noise to specific frequency bands. This does mean that very busy music with a full frequency spectrum is more dificult to compress transparently. With 320KBPs MP3 the quantisation noise added is tiny - as demonstrated by the proffesional blind tests!
The only reason that I can think of for an MP3 sounding worse on a big rig is that the psychoacoustic model used in the masking algorithm is based on a fixed listening volume. This is inaccurate as masking in the human ear does change slightly depending on volume. In other words, when listening at extremely high (or extremely low) volumes the masking model used for the MP3 encouding will not match the true masking effect which could possibly lead to artifacts ecceeding the masking threshold and becoming audible. However, the audio quality on a big rig is actually way worse than on a good monitoring system - I would think that imperfections in the system frequency response, room acoustics etc etc. will be far more obvious than any imperfections in 320KBPS MP3
|
|
So basically u r suggesting that as an artist I will automatically save my music as an MP3 320 and it will be same quality just about 5th of the time it takes me to send it to label or 10th of the time if I compare it to 24bit wav files?
That can make my life much easier actually...
A man with a "master plan" is often a woman |
|
|
|
ichabod
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
28
Posted : May 10, 2006 17:30
|
Maybe fine to send as a demo but not for release! MP3s are no good if more mastering processing is required. For a start they are only 16bit, secondly, if any more processing such as EQ or dynamic compression is used then it could screw up the whole basis of the masking in the MP3. Also an MP3 cannot be re-compressed to MP3 without very large quality loss.
Thinking about this has made me wonder: The MP3 masking model will assume a flat frequency response from the playback device. Obviously this will not be the case in reality. This could render the masking model in-accurate. Perhaps the fact that the MP3 tests are conducted on high end equipment (i.e. close to flat freq. response) could make MP3 quality loss less evident than if it is played on a system with an imperfect freq. response?? (i.e. a big system with compressors, eq, limiting, room acoustics, etc all affecting the freq. and time response). Just an idea....
Spindrift.. I havn't been keeping up to date on MP3 encoder news.. I got my probably now out of date facts from a paper I read 3 years ago where the Frauenhofer encoder was compared to LAME. I guess LAME is under constant development so may be better by now! |
|
|
|
ThiagoNAKA
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
104
Posts :
1047
Posted : May 10, 2006 18:04
|
My humble opinion from a brazilian view: well encoded 320 mp3 are good enough to play. I think I can´t really point the difference between 320mp3 and wav if I make test(never made it). But listening to mp3 sets and wav sets makes a HUGE difference for me... Why? Cause I bet all mp3 sets are full of shit mp3 tracks, maybe some 320 mp3, but u don´t really know if the quality is this. So u ca fell what Yuli said, the power of wav.
Just to mention that in psy trance, most of 320 mp3 are not from original file. It´s an unfinished version, with artist master...
But I can´t agree with the guy who said 192 is good enough. For that I just took a SMS release from the net(wich is 192 or sometimes VBR mp3). For sure I can hear the difference between this file and original file.
Now a question for all:
This big thread is about mmp3 vs wav thing. What about wav vs wav? 24 vs 16 bits? Thinking about file size and even about theory, u can imagine 24 bits sounds better. More dynamic, more clearness.
So, are there differences between a 16 bits Live and a 24 bits one?
LOADING... |
|
|
|
D-Alien
Oxidelic
Started Topics :
51
Posts :
619
Posted : May 10, 2006 18:17
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-10 17:30, ichabod wrote:
Thinking about this has made me wonder: The MP3 masking model will assume a flat frequency response from the playback device. Obviously this will not be the case in reality. This could render the masking model in-accurate. Perhaps the fact that the MP3 tests are conducted on high end equipment (i.e. close to flat freq. response) could make MP3 quality loss less evident than if it is played on a system with an imperfect freq. response?? (i.e. a big system with compressors, eq, limiting, room acoustics, etc all affecting the freq. and time response). Just an idea.... |
|
its a real fact! this noise masking is the problem. sure in high quality system the diference is almost none, but on PA's.. people, stop thinking bout perfect world but 'bout real life... how this little noise masking or whatever is traduced by the speakers. here we need some real Sound Engeneer to explain Why Mp3 Sucks On Big PA's!!!!! not on studio monitors.. on big PA's whit a lot of Speakers and all the crossovers, eqs, compressors that the sound must pass by. why playing original wav (mastered from a VA for exapmple) on a big party PA sounds so much better than any other mp3???
WHY?
Sound:
www.myspace.com/oxidelic
www.myspace.com/setanicmusic
Image:
www.antumbra-studio.com |
|
|
|
ichabod
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
28
Posted : May 10, 2006 18:51
|
|
Another big question which sidesteps all of the MP3 issues: Why the heck isn't lossless compression such as FLAC used more? It is crazy that online music shops often only have 2 options: MP3 or (for an increased price) .wav. Why not use FLAC - it cuts the size in half with no quality loss full stop. With modern hard disks and 8MBit broadband it is also about time that P2P networks started using FLAC more ;o) |
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : May 10, 2006 19:25
|
|
Yuli
Retired
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1660
Posted : May 10, 2006 19:31
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-10 17:30, ichabod wrote:
Maybe fine to send as a demo but not for release! MP3s are no good if more mastering processing is required. For a start they are only 16bit, secondly, if any more processing such as EQ or dynamic compression is used then it could screw up the whole basis of the masking in the MP3. Also an MP3 cannot be re-compressed to MP3 without very large quality loss.
|
|
So I rest my case here.
If all u guys the protectors of the MP3 format go and defend it in quality tests but hey when I export it from my Cubase suddenly WAV is very important... And it is not because of 16bit or 24bit actually many tracks even today get to mastering in 16bit resolution. It IS because the quality of WAV is much higher than MP3 want it or not. When u reduce 9/10 of the information originally based in 24bit Audio file, u must loose something. As simple as that
A man with a "master plan" is often a woman |
|
|
|
koalakube
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
48
Posts :
437
Posted : May 11, 2006 11:04
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-10 17:30, ichabod wrote:
MP3s are no good if more mastering processing is required. For a start they are only 16bit,
|
|
1st: Ok mp3 are 16 bit.How many bit you think the music you listen in your stereo have?
why do ppl get so obsessed about this bit thing,without even be arsed to read about it?
Yuli,I think u missing the point here,which is,in a party enviroment playing an mp3 (at a considered rate )or playing a wav doesnt make any difference it rems of quality.
|
|
|
|
