TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Sound Quality Question
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Sound Quality Question

I recently installed a higher quality audio system in my car, and I am realizing that a lot of my MP3s don't sound as good as some CDs.

My question is, are the WAV files you can purchase from Beatport higher quality then an audio CD? If I purchase a CD, and then rip it as a WAV file, am I pretty much getting the best audio quality I can get?

At what bit rate would an MP3 have to be to be indistinguishable from CD quality?

Any idea what bitrate the mp3's are encoded at? Anything below 192kbps & the drop in quality becomes noticeable.

Initially I was always told that 192kbps was "CD quality". That then moved to 320kbps. Now I'm told that WAV is the only acceptable format.

To be fair I wouldn't buy mp3 at less than 320kbps. I think probably only audiophiles in perfect test conditions could tell the difference between that & WAV. Having said that, maybe if anyone here plays in clubs they could tell us if there's any difference on a huge club system?

i'm into hifi,

rule of thumb,

192 on your protable mp3 player

320 at home if you got a good rig, virtually indistinguishable from cd quality

wav or on macs aiff for playing out in clubs,

the speaker system in clubs has a lot of wiring, use the highest file quality you can get to retain a good sound in club environments

Good info people, thanks. Now my question is, if I buy a CD in a store or online and then use Winamp to rip it as a WAV file, is that pretty much the best sound quality I get (good enough to play out in clubs)?

Wav files would be the best quality yeah, something like 1411 kbps (not completely sure). For me, when I had a wav version and a 320kbps version of a song, the wav version seemed ever so slightly brighter sounding...but the difference is very small.

Another question. How about WMA files? Is a 192kb/s WMA file same quality as 192 kb/s Mp3? I thought it was different, don't know for sure though.

a 192kbps mp3 should be fine sounding, they only sound shit if the encoder doesnt know what hes/shes doing

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Nickazz Another question. How about WMA files? Is a 192kb/s WMA file same quality as 192 kb/s Mp3? I thought it was different, don't know for sure though.

Its just Microsoft's version of an encoder, they all differ in quality depending on the accuracy of the acoustic model programmed into them. Its all down to perception by the individual.

We did a shedload of testing for a 3rd year assignment and Ogg Vorbis came out the best at lower bitrates. Shame it doesnt play on a Pioneer!

WAV files you purchase are exactly the same as the wav files found on a CD..

As for quality. WAV rocks... but i really dont think its worth the extra money to purchase them (seeing they are nearly double the price). Unless you have a kick ass system 320 is more then enough detail.

My two cents

quote:

Originally posted by DeepSix Good info people, thanks. Now my question is, if I buy a CD in a store or online and then use Winamp to rip it as a WAV file, is that pretty much the best sound quality I get (good enough to play out in clubs)?

Ripping it to wav won't improve the sound quality so you're wasting your time. Wav format is only better if you directly purchase it as a wav file from a download store.

Wav > CD > 320kbps mp3

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian Wav > CD > 320kbps mp3

that's total rubbish,

a wav is a perfect digital copy of a cd,


rest assured that beatport etc will be ripping wavs from cds, :-)

quote:

Originally posted by pvdclubber that's total rubbish, a wav is a perfect digital copy of a cd,

it's a perfect digital copy of anything because it's the highest quality format. Obviousely if you copy it from a low quality source it'll be low quality.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian Wav format is only better if you directly purchase it as a wav file from a download store

i didn't get this bit at all,

the wavs from download portals are the same as if you were to rip a cd you bought in a shop

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian it's a perfect digital copy of anything because it's the highest quality format. Obviousely if you copy it from a low quality source it'll be low quality.

cd audio has the same bitrate as wav though. what you said is true but in the same fashion, burning a wav to cd won't cause the quality to lessen

quote:

Originally posted by pvdclubber the wavs from download portals are the same as if you were to rip a cd you bought in a shop

Yes, that is true.

Back when I was in college I remember that the difference between a 320k mp3 and that from a wav file (1411k) can only be distinguished in a kick ass audio system or by a rather fine ear. Other than that, if you have the money to buy wav go for it as long as you play it in extremely good audio systems, if not it would be just a waste of money.

I'm happy just buying 320 kbps MP3s from BeatPort, AudioJelly and others. If WAVs were really the thing, then you would think more sites would be selling them, and the only ones I know of that do are BeatPort and TrackItDown. AudioJelly and DJDownload are two popular sites, and all they sell are 192 or 320 kbps MP3s. The MP3s they sell aren't cheap either, especially with the exchange rate, so for a 320 kbps MP3 it comes to around $2.25 to $2.50 per track. A month ago I was going to download $40 worth of tracks on BeatPort as MP3s, and then I went to see how much they would be for WAVs, it was around $70 dollars! I couldn't believe it. I didn't want to spend an extra $30 on them, esp with gas prices being as high as they are here, that extra $30 would go towards gas not slightly better audio files.

I've downloaded a few WAVs of some of the same tunes I have on MP3, and I don't notice a huge difference. The only difference I notice is that in some conditions they might sound slightly louder. However, a few other WAVs i've downloaded actually sound quieter than the MP3s. So I guess it depends on the encoding of the files. Unless your a DJ who regularly plays out, and obviously have the money and a great sound system (all I have is $500 KRK RP8s, good but not exactly "professional" grade speakers), it's not worth it.

i disagree with you mate,

if you get wavs you have got the best possible audio quality that we have to date,

using 320kb/s or less will be problematic in the future if this is your master copy,

there are some new audio formats in the pipeline with extremely high rates and audio equipment is likely to progress as well,

just take for example cds produced in the 80s, good modern hifi equipment will reveal recording mistakes on these.

thats why 192 and 320 could not be enough in a few years down the line!

i personally think that selling 128kb/s files on itunes is a crime,

i can clearly hear the distortions in these files and would never buy them,

trance music has a wide frequency range, 128kb/s is no where near enough adequate to compensate for this,

trance music leads to large filesizes on lossless encoders compared to say classical music

128 kbps is rubbish yes, 160 too. It is clearly audible how the sound is downsized and distorted, especially high frequences. Spreading music in such quality like iTunes does is really fucked up. For me personally tho, 192 kpbs and above, VBR with a 192-320-range is really fine. There is no obvious distortion and the difference between a track encoded in that quality and a track in wav/cd-quality is audible only when doing a comparison.

quote:

Originally posted by pvdclubber i personally think that selling 128kb/s files on itunes is a crime, i can clearly hear the distortions in these files and would never buy them,

You are right in many ways, but I have to throw in something here...
iTunes sells aac-files, and their compression is better quality than mp3.
Furthermore, the quality you hear when you are prelestening to the iTunes songs, is a bunch lower than the finally bought file !

quote:

Originally posted by Tea-mo You are right in many ways, but I have to throw in something here... iTunes sells aac-files, and their compression is better quality than mp3. Furthermore, the quality you hear when you are prelestening to the iTunes songs, is a bunch lower than the finally bought file !

128 aac and the newest mp3 lame release are on par and both craptastic

If WAV was the best, wouldn't there be more digital download shops that would feature them? Besides a lot of people went or are going digital to save money. WAVs cost a few dollars less than vinyl, so you might be saving a few dollars here and there but your still not saving as you would be downloading 320 Kbps MP3s. And who has a tremendously great sound system for home use? I mean unless your a pro DJ and need them to play out, or are the biggest audiophille who has a $3,000 system, it just doesn't make sense. Are people really that picky with sound, with that great of ears to tell the difference?

And the loudness thing I was talking about more has to do with the encoding of the file and or the mastering itself of the file vs. the file format. WAVs really aren't the future, it probably is MP4, once they become more widely available, with higher bit-rates. WAV have been around a lot longer than these other formats. In three years MP4 will replace MP3, and WAVs will still be used by pros and audiophilles, just like they were with vinyl and some still are.

192 mp3s are 5 times smaller than wavs,

they offer tracks as mp3s as it saves them bandwidth,

it also takes some customers with slow broadband to download wavs,

which clock up a staggering 10mb/s per min compared to about 1,2mb per min for 192 mp3s


i like what www.vonyc.com do,

its pvd's download portal,

you get 192 mp3s but can have the wavs for free if you want them, you just need to request them, as they prepare them manually it sometimes takes a few days before you get them, you however get the 193 mp3 instantly

quote:

Originally posted by pvdclubber 192 mp3s are 5 times smaller than wavs, they offer tracks as mp3s as it saves them bandwidth, it also takes some customers with slow broadband to download wavs, which clock up a staggering 10mb/s per min compared to about 1,2mb per min for 192 mp3s i like what www.vonyc.com do, its pvd's download portal, you get 192 mp3s but can have the wavs for free if you want them, you just need to request them, as they prepare them manually it sometimes takes a few days before you get them, you however get the 193 mp3 instantly

I'm not talking about 192s, i'm talking about 320s...WAVs for free?? what??

i used to use some jbl monitors at home, and didn't notice the difference much, since I upgraded the home stereo though, I can easily tell the difference between 320, wav and vinyl. the extra cost of them is only one dollar.
The biggest hassle is the download time, not such an issue if I do that at work, but I once bought 25 tracks at home, took about 15 hours to download. not so convenient that way.

I wonder what will happen when the 96kHz 24 bit audio format becomes integrated into consumer audio (a la Super Audio CD) and renders these formats outdated?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.