| Author
|
The diffrence between a 320kbps mp3 and the wav?
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 11, 2006 23:06
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-11 22:29, Fingax wrote:
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
|
|
It can be a bit funny, but we are all affected by placebo effect and it's nothing to be embarassed about.
When recording live bands it can be a life saver.
Even on a big console you can sometimes run out of aux channels to make individual foldback mixes for each band member.
So you end up having two people on the same mix and of course one want less drums in the mix and the other more.
You can spend ages trying to juggle around the channels to get everyone happy with their mix but a solution is to pretend to change the levels.
Just do a twisting motion with your fingers on the aux send and keep saying "is that better now?".
The muscian will say "a bitmore/less" a couple of times to eventually convince himself that it finally ended up on the right level...just because he really belived that the level was changing.
It never failed when I tried it.
Quote:
|
Yuli wrote:
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.
|
|
I'm not following your argument here...are you saying that you get a less objective judgement by making the tests blind???
  (``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Yuli
Retired
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1660
Posted : May 12, 2006 00:38
|
@ Spindrift
Ofcourse...
Since u have such interest in psychology and Placebo FX, u must know that most ppl knowing they attending certain exam / test act and react differently to circumstances then they would do lets say so spontaneously. There are heeps of ppl that can solve quite complicated mathematical equasions but suddenly when they are tested the get the Tabula Rasa.
Ofocurse our situation is a little different but never did it cross your mind that when u r knowingly doing a test your way of thougt differs?
A man with a "master plan" is often a woman |
|
|
|
ichabod
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
28
Posted : May 12, 2006 12:36
|
So Yuli, you seem to be saying that there is a difference but it is 'un-testable'. To me this is abit like people who argue that Biblical Creationism is true - they insist it is true but that it is scientifically untestable. It kind of ends the argument doesnt it! 
FREGLE:
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-11 19:46, FREGLE wrote:
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...
...
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.
|
|
You have completely missed my point - re-read my previous posts. I explicitly stated that I would never use MP3 DURING production as it is not suitable for post processing. You plainly dont understand the way that MP3 compression works or you would know that decompressing to .wav then re-compressing to MP3 is a big no-no. It will utterly destory the audio quality. The initial MP3 encoding process will inject masked quanitisation noise into various frequency bands. Decoding to wav will not remove this. Attempting to re-encode this to MP3 will inject even more noise and will probably bring the noise levels up above the masking thresholds and destory the audio quality. Dont try this at home! |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 12, 2006 12:37
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-12 00:38, Yuli wrote:
@ Spindrift
Ofcourse...
Since u have such interest in psychology and Placebo FX, u must know that most ppl knowing they attending certain exam / test act and react differently to circumstances then they would do lets say so spontaneously. There are heeps of ppl that can solve quite complicated mathematical equasions but suddenly when they are tested the get the Tabula Rasa.
Ofocurse our situation is a little different but never did it cross your mind that when u r knowingly doing a test your way of thougt differs?
|
|
It is a test no matter if you do it blind or not.
And we are not talking about a stressful exam...it's listening to file A and file B and telling if you can hear what is wav and what is mp3.
Blind tests is how we test things like taste, wellbeing or perceived audio quality and a discussion about if the established methods for measuring subjective matters is incorrect is IMO outside the scope of this thread.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Yuli
Retired
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1660
Posted : May 12, 2006 15:19
|
Heh Spindrift sorry I never been conservative enough
For me, and some of my friends, who's ear I trust more than mine, it's enough to hear the difference with no need to go behind a curtain and make a listening test.
And I will add a last time:
I never said I can distinguish EVERY WAV from MP3, it depends alot on the mixing of the WAV. It depends a lot on frequency range of the WAV, and finally it depends alot on the Dynamics of the WAV if mastering was applied.
But if I need to be a pedant with you guys, even if I succeed 1 time out of 10 to recognize the inferiority of MP3 against WAV, it means MP3 inferior... And I claim that it would be definitely more than a half!
A man with a "master plan" is often a woman |
|
|
|
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : May 20, 2006 10:11
|
I'm with Yuli here.
I myself just made a test... Took a track of mine and made it 320 with lame encoder on the highest quality.
It wasn't a blind test but the mp3 was worse without a doubt.
|
|
|
|
TopDown
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
62
Posted : May 21, 2006 22:18
|
|
To make this test even more precise you don't need to tell which source is better, but only try to spot a difference. In theory we know wave should be better, so only recognising as same/other source will do. |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 22, 2006 03:55
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-12 15:19, Yuli wrote:
But if I need to be a pedant with you guys, even if I succeed 1 time out of 10 to recognize the inferiority of MP3 against WAV, it means MP3 inferior... |
|
Actually, no. Statisticaly that means you can't tell the difference.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 22, 2006 04:02
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-21 22:18, TopDown wrote:
To make this test even more precise you don't need to tell which source is better, but only try to spot a difference. In theory we know wave should be better, so only recognising as same/other source will do.
|
|
No, some people might think the MP3 sounds better.
If anyone really wants to test this for themselves they can test like this (on windows):
Get CDex and the latest LAME encoder. Set the encoder quality to "--alt-preset insane" (in CDex). Use both CDex to encode and decode the file.
Then get PC ABX from here: http://www.pcabx.com/
Now you can do a proper ABX blind test between the orignal wave and a wave that has passed through MP3 encoding and decoding.
(CDex isn't the only tool to encode/decode MP3s but I know it does it properly. Not all players decode MP3s properly. Some versions of Winamp for instance don't and cut out all the high-end. This could be what some people are hearing: Badly implemented MP3 technology. More encoders/decoders are broken than not).
UnderTow |
|
|
|
Yuli
Retired
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1660
Posted : May 22, 2006 12:26
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-22 03:55, UnderTow wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-12 15:19, Yuli wrote:
But if I need to be a pedant with you guys, even if I succeed 1 time out of 10 to recognize the inferiority of MP3 against WAV, it means MP3 inferior... |
|
Actually, no. Statisticaly that means you can't tell the difference.
UnderTow
|
|
I am not talking to u statistically LOL
I am talking to u as one that plays WAV music and to make me play MP3 one should provide 100% proof that MP3 is as good as WAV
Capish smart UnderTow?
A man with a "master plan" is often a woman |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 22, 2006 18:32
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-22 12:26, Yuli wrote:
I am talking to u as one that plays WAV music and to make me play MP3 one should provide 100% proof that MP3 is as good as WAV
Capish smart UnderTow?
|
|
I'm just saying that if you can only tell 1 out of 10 times, you are statisticaly just guessing. In other words, you can not tell the difference.
Anyway, no one is telling you to play MP3s.
Note that instead of commenting about the quality of 320 Kbps MP3s, I have given people a way to test for themselves wether they can or can't hear the difference.
All the other "tests" mean absolutely nothing as anyone that knows anything about testing and the placebo effect can tell you. Anyone that really believes they are immune to this is deluding themselves big time.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
Yuli
Retired
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1660
Posted : May 22, 2006 22:55
|
Yes u have given a test disregarding the fact that tracks differ one from the other in terms of frequencies and dynamics, which may lead to different results vs the MP3
If I can tell 1 out of 10 times doesnt mean statistically that I am guessing of course - where did u study statistics heh.. If I can tell 1 out of 10 means that 1 out of 10 samples I got is lesser quality and the rest I dont feel difference then overall WAV sounds a tad better then MP3. Ofcourse 1 of a 10 was just example which now u r using in the same way u use the 'Placebo' thing...
A man with a "master plan" is often a woman |
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : May 22, 2006 23:31
|
|
Yuli
Retired
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1660
Posted : May 23, 2006 00:50
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-22 23:31, Colin OOOD wrote:
Cool... then that means that most of the time, a well-encoded MP3 will be just as good (except for during production or mastering) as a WAV.
BTW I did a blind test, and failed to adequately pick out the MP3 - and I consider myself to have fairly well-trained ears. Obviously, with a badly-encoded MP3 it would have been much easier.
|
|
Most of the time or not I cant tell but for sure there are cases that very hard to distinguish WAV from MP3 and I never claimed differently. My say on this is as long as there is difference WAV is better. Dont forget there are frequencies we dont hear but feel ( as well said in the track of Pixel @ Wrecked Machines )
And about the blind test u did to yourself, I would consider it a REAL test if someone would pick up some 100 samples of different tracks, with totally different productions, frequency ranges and dynamics. I would personally attend this extensive one and not just 'take this sample and see yourself' test. I bet Colin, that you would recognise some differences wouldnt you?
A man with a "master plan" is often a woman |
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : May 23, 2006 01:05
|
|
