| Author
|
The diffrence between a 320kbps mp3 and the wav?
|
EYB
Noized
Started Topics :
111
Posts :
2849
Posted : May 11, 2006 11:36
|
Yuli is for sure right. Mp3 is not a format which is made for doing final render and/or mastering. Therefore wave files should be used.
However wave and mp3 have there right to be. Mp3s are space savers, whats the reason of having mp3 at all. They can be shared easily via the net, and not all people have a 8mbit connection and so it is a very useful system.
There is music thats only released as mp3 so there isn't the possibility to play it as wave at a party, and people who complain about the quality are mostly lamerz/smartasses who want to show their 'sound knowledge'. A lot of parties have a bad pa setup anyway, what is bad indeed, but if i go to party i want to have fun there. Therefore i need quality sound, sure, but trying to check if it is mp3 or not all the time and complaining about the quality will harm this fun.
  Signature |
|
|
|
TopDown
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
62
Posted : May 11, 2006 12:04
|
All these placebo effects mentioned again give sort of flashback to another thread here. Its funny to see how ppl easily compromise for audio quality - u lose some in dithering, some on bad PA, drugs so wtf not MP3 ? Who needs quality anyway ?
|
|
|
|
Yuli
Retired
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1660
Posted : May 11, 2006 12:04
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-11 11:04, koalakube wrote:
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.
|
|
Yeah in a club in most cases it wont matter much altho u will feel it more than hear it in the really low subs if the sound system goes there ofcourse. But surely u will notice the difference with a good rig in open air..
A man with a "master plan" is often a woman |
|
|
|
ichabod
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
28
Posted : May 11, 2006 12:08
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-11 11:04, koalakube wrote:
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.
|
|
I'm not talking about home listnening... I'm talking about sending your track for mastering - not something I've ever done bu I imagine the mastering studio would not be happy if you sent it in 16 bit! Maybe you are the one who hasnt bothered to read about it? |
|
|
|
ichabod
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
28
Posted : May 11, 2006 12:14
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-10 19:31, Yuli wrote:
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
|
|
I think you have misread my post.. I did give several reasons why it is important to export in wav. I will repeat: The method used to encode MP3s makes them unsuiatable for post processing. The reason I wouldnt normally export to MP3 is not a sound quality issue, it is due to the fact that I will probably want to apply further processing such as normalisation, limiting, EQ etc. Therefore only .wav is suitable. |
|
|
|
koalakube
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
48
Posts :
437
Posted : May 11, 2006 18:42
|
Ichabod,
I never heared of anyone sending a track for mastering as an mp3.
And most of the people i know (me included) send music to be mastered as wav 16bit/44.1 and never got a complain so far ;-)
There is another tread where it has been largely discussed this issue. |
|
|
|
Yuli
Retired
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1660
Posted : May 11, 2006 19:08
|
@ ichabod
Yo man, I understood u perfectly... About me sending pre masters to labels u shouldn't worry I always do it in 24bit format. 
I just made a notice - Since it is very well known that pre mastered formats should be WAV 24bit, I believe that the preferred format for playing before crowd that paid good money supposed to be WAV 16bit, and the reason is that WAV quality is higher than MP3, moreover, most of the time the music played thru big rigs goes thru a definite bit of compression and limiting - sometimes way too much, so same as in post production process, MP3 are not good enough for that.
Coming back to the issue of that thread, I claim:
There is difference between MP3 32okbps and WAV 16bit, placebo or not it exists and in most cases it is not that hard to spot.
A man with a "master plan" is often a woman |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 11, 2006 19:45
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-11 19:08, Yuli wrote:
placebo or not it exists
|
|
Sure...but there is a difference when something only exists in your mind or is an actual fact that can be measured and perceived by everyone.
Actually there is two resons why I never use mp3 when I DJ:
1. Abelton does not play mp3 files.
2. The placebo effect.
Since so many people still are convinced that a 320k mp3 in not transparent as a DJ it feels better to stick to wav so the music doesn't sound bad for people who are convinced that mp3's sounds bad.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
fregle
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
982
Posted : May 11, 2006 19:46
|
to see if you think the quality is different, just ask yourself one question:
When you're making music, and you are rendering everything track per track to start producing, would you render it to 320kbps mp3 and feel good about it? Or would you still render it to wav while it's much bigger like that and your project folder might go beyond 1Gb because of that?
If you would render it to wav, then you actually admit that you feel there is a difference...
And anyway, the theoretical and analytical difference is enough for me to decide on wav instead of mp3. Every little thing helps if it comes to production quality, even if it's only a theoretical difference. |
|
|
|
fregle
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
982
Posted : May 11, 2006 19:50
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-11 12:14, ichabod wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-10 19:31, Yuli wrote:
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
|
|
I think you have misread my post.. I did give several reasons why it is important to export in wav. I will repeat: The method used to encode MP3s makes them unsuiatable for post processing. The reason I wouldnt normally export to MP3 is not a sound quality issue, it is due to the fact that I will probably want to apply further processing such as normalisation, limiting, EQ etc. Therefore only .wav is suitable.
|
|
not exactly true... When you open an mp3, it will be decoded, then you put your processing on it, and save it as mp3 again  Ok, it was a wav in the RAM of your computer while you were editing, but not anywhere else. |
|
|
|
Yuli
Retired
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1660
Posted : May 11, 2006 19:53
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-11 19:46, FREGLE wrote:
to see if you think the quality is different, just ask yourself one question:
When you're making music, and you are rendering everything track per track to start producing, would you render it to 320kbps mp3 and feel good about it? Or would you still render it to wav while it's much bigger like that and your project folder might go beyond 1Gb because of that?
If you would render it to wav, then you actually admit that you feel there is a difference...
And anyway, the theoretical and analytical difference is enough for me to decide on wav instead of mp3. Every little thing helps if it comes to production quality, even if it's only a theoretical difference.
|
|
@ Spindrift
Here u go a very satisfying answer for you.
Again lets say I am hallucinating and you know for real that MP3 is same quality as WAV please export your own tracks in MP3 format it will save u heeps of disk space.
If u dont do that all this 5 page long discussion lacks of interest.
A man with a "master plan" is often a woman |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 11, 2006 21:18
|
It has been explained here over and over again that mp3 is not good if you use it for anything else than a format to deliver the track to the end user, and in many cases not even that.
I would have a very hard time accepting a demo that was only provided as an mp3 since repeated encoding and decoding would take place before the consumer get their copy.
The mp3 format is not good for post processing and I really try to get all masters as 24 bit files anyway, so hence it has to be FLAC or WAV.
And I always record my individual files as 24 bit and wouldn't like to have lossy compression on them since they will be processed an all sorts of ways before ending up in the mixdown.
But the mp3 format is not disregarded in pro studios.
Having a few individual tracks that is recorded as mp3 is not uncommon in high budget main-stream productions.
There have been very expensive hardware encoders on the market for years catering for studios that might want to for example make a vocal take without flying the singer from the other side of the planet.
It's not ideal....but the difference is so minimal and hardly noticable even with post processing applied so it can be an option if there is an actual reason for using the format.
IMO disc space is not a problem nowadays so I see no need to use mp3's while produing nor DJ'ing in the way I work.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : May 11, 2006 21:21
|
|
Fingax
Cosmic Station
Started Topics :
82
Posts :
1235
Posted : May 11, 2006 22:29
|
|
there was a track i did really fat and punchy kick and bass i liked a lot but when exporting to mp3 320 with lame converter there was a obvious annoying problem there. although this was the only time it was soo obviouse i still wonder why. but for shure people that are totally against mp3 they need to start changing their minds. but please if we are talking about partys please leave he mp3 at home about placebo effect heheh is beautifull phenomenum.. how many tyimes you tweeked the eq just slightly and start to see good improvements but just till you realise you didnt took the bypass off hehe that happened to me and i thank god i was alone im shure it would be embarassing as hell
|
|
|
|
Yuli
Retired
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1660
Posted : May 11, 2006 22:43
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-11 21:21, Colin OOOD wrote:
Yuli - have you done a proper blind test?
|
|
No I did not
I wouldnt mind to do actually altho I really think it is a bit silly because when u enter "test" mode you think differently, u will hate to fail and your judgement wont work as it should in normal situation, so u can make mistakes.
So proper blind test doesnt exist.
It did happen to me to hear a set of someone I dont know personally and assume he plays mp3 music and so it was.
A man with a "master plan" is often a woman |
|
|
|
