WAV vs MP3, the showdown - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- WAV vs MP3, the showdown
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Posted by iTranscendence on Sep-10-2009 02:45:

WAV vs MP3, the showdown

SCM posted this over at isratrance, thought it was worth sharing here.
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch/work...mp3-showdown-hq

Can you tell which group of samples is which with just your ears? I know that I've sat for hours myself, doing it with the exact same songs, at different compressions out of Sennheiser hd 555's and was hard pressed to spot a "candles difference" in the sound.

Posted by Chimney on Sep-10-2009 10:00:

Can hear the difference between 320 and FLAC, but not between 256 and 320.

Posted by trancechan on Sep-10-2009 10:19:

quote:
Originally posted by Chimney
Can hear the difference between 320 and FLAC, but not between 256 and 320.

yep.

FLAC (or in my case apple lossless, lol itunes) tickles your ears

...

sexually.

Posted by Real on Sep-10-2009 10:42:

The sound quality of FLAC is absolutely identical to WAV. I'm impressed if you can hear the difference between a FLAC/WAV and a 320kbps mp3.

Posted by Syntonic on Sep-10-2009 11:36:

quote:
Originally posted by Real
The sound quality of FLAC is absolutely identical to WAV. I'm impressed if you can hear the difference between a FLAC/WAV and a 320kbps mp3.
FLAC is nice,but I can tell the difference FLAC & WAV.There's still a good chunk of data missing which would make dent with miniscule .mp3

Posted by stealthman on Sep-10-2009 12:29:

Creating this thread in the first place is dumb.

I recommend you get an ear check at your nearest doctor methinks.

The sound quality of a wav file is distincly improved over an mp3. Listen to the difference on a PROPER audio setup and you'll feel that the track actually has more "Oomph" to it, and the higher frequencies actually sound cleaner, unlike mp3's compression. Yes, I'm talking about 320kpbs. Just gotta analyse the difference a little more.

Posted by Real on Sep-10-2009 14:35:

quote:
Originally posted by Syntonic
FLAC is nice,but I can tell the difference FLAC & WAV.There's still a good chunk of data missing which would make dent with miniscule .mp3

No, you are wrong.

quote:
Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC) is a file format for lossless audio data compression. During compression, FLAC does not lose quality from the audio stream, as lossy compression formats such as MP3, AAC, and Vorbis do.

Posted by vinnie97 on Sep-10-2009 14:50:

quote:
Originally posted by Syntonic
FLAC is nice,but I can tell the difference FLAC & WAV.There's still a good chunk of data missing which would make dent with miniscule .mp3

Have you ever had the contents of a zip file not decompress to their original size (if they didn't, you'd have corrupted files!)? Case closed.

Posted by vinnie97 on Sep-10-2009 14:52:

quote:
Originally posted by stealthman Just gotta analyse the difference a little more.

The only ANALysis needed is a double-blind listening (ABX) test, easy to arrange on any PC.

Posted by iTranscendence on Sep-10-2009 19:01:

quote:
Originally posted by stealthman
Creating this thread in the first place is dumb.

I recommend you get an ear check at your nearest doctor methinks.

The sound quality of a wav file is distincly improved over an mp3. Listen to the difference on a PROPER audio setup and you'll feel that the track actually has more "Oomph" to it, and the higher frequencies actually sound cleaner, unlike mp3's compression. Yes, I'm talking about 320kpbs. Just gotta analyse the difference a little more.

I have great hearing, thanks for your concern though. I didn't say it wasn't noticeable, just that you have to listen very hard to hear it.

Posted by Flec on Sep-10-2009 19:09:

quote:
Have you ever had the contents of a zip file not decompress to their original size (if they didn't, you'd have corrupted files!)? Case closed.

it does not work this way for mp3s bro,

if you take an mp3 that was encoded at 128kbps and then transcode it to anything higher nothing will be improved

Posted by Zak McKracken on Sep-10-2009 19:11:

i can hear the difference on tracks i know from i was younger (like Prodigy - Music for the Jilted Generation), but i cant with todays music as it is heavily compressed even before mp3 convertion. I think wav sounds as shitty as mp3 today.

Posted by iTranscendence on Sep-10-2009 19:13:

That's a good point palm.

Posted by david.michael on Sep-10-2009 19:31:

quote:
Originally posted by Flec
it does not work this way for mp3s bro,

if you take an mp3 that was encoded at 128kbps and then transcode it to anything higher nothing will be improved

He was referring to FLAC, not mp3. In which case, the analogy is plausible.

Posted by A.B on Sep-10-2009 19:37:

Unless you are playing at large arenas or festivals, I wouldn't worry

Posted by Syntonic on Sep-10-2009 21:46:

quote:
Originally posted by vinnie97

Have you ever had the contents of a zip file not decompress to their original size (if they didn't, you'd have corrupted files!)? Case closed.

lol If you really listen to FLAC with some nice phones and listen to WAV or vinyl especially, you'll notice highs are dynamic and lows have warmth.Besides this dumb, if anyone thinks mp3's sound is better is lying or hasn't experienced better.And don't make this into a FLAC thread all I'm saying is there still a good chunk missing from the master

Posted by iTranscendence on Sep-11-2009 00:31:

I've sat and compared the same song in wav and in aac before over and over segment by segment and it was difficult to tell the difference. Now aac obviously encodes A LOT better than the same bit rate in mp3, so this is understandable, because I've listened to an aac file vs a 320 mp3 and they sounded identical.

Posted by vinnie97 on Sep-11-2009 00:43:

quote:
Originally posted by Flec
it does not work this way for mp3s bro,

if you take an mp3 that was encoded at 128kbps and then transcode it to anything higher nothing will be improved

Who's talking about LOSSY mp3s, "bro?" I was referencing FLAC, which is lossless compression and not too dissimilar mathematically from zip compression. I'm sorry if I wasn't specific enough.

Posted by vinnie97 on Sep-11-2009 00:45:

quote:
Originally posted by Syntonic
lol If you really listen to FLAC with some nice phones and listen to WAV or vinyl especially, you'll notice highs are dynamic and lows have warmth.Besides this dumb, if anyone thinks mp3's sound is better is lying or hasn't experienced better.And don't make this into a FLAC thread all I'm saying is there still a good chunk missing from the master

Don't confuse mediums. Vinyl is a completely different animal, with higher resolution than 44.1Khz audio since it is analog.

As David Michaels already explained, I am *only* referencing WAV versus FLAC.

Posted by Syntonic on Sep-11-2009 01:51:

quote:
Originally posted by vinnie97
Don't confuse mediums. Vinyl is a completely different animal, with higher resolution than 44.1Khz audio since it is analog.

As David Michaels already explained, I am *only* referencing WAV versus FLAC.

That's right, I just had to argue that in some cases it takes an individual to hear quality differences. People might have to hear a vinyl to discern that quality of the mp3. Let's not get off topic this .wav vs. .mp3. Personally I prefer the more tangible choice, but I settle for .wav for obvious reasons.

Posted by vinnie97 on Sep-11-2009 02:18:

Well, the only objective reason one person might perceive an MP3 differently than another in such a showdown is, all other things being equal, differences in individual hearing.

I only mentioned FLAC because it had already been brought up and I felt the need to dispel a myth.

Posted by movingincircles on Sep-11-2009 02:35:

LOL AT HEARING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WAV/FLAC

they EXACTLY the same quality at runtime (assuming same sample rate), FLAC just takes up less space.

Posted by movingincircles on Sep-11-2009 02:38:

Posted by Cryogen on Sep-11-2009 08:59:

Free LOSSLESS Audio Codec

The clue is in the name.

Posted by Cryogen on Sep-11-2009 09:13:

quote:
Originally posted by Syntonic
There's still a good chunk of data missing which would make dent

There isn't anything missing, it's lossless. It discards whatever frequencies that aren't being used at the time. Try converting white noise into a FLAC file and do the same with just a kick drum. The file size of the kick drum will reduce much more than the white noise as there's hardly any high frequencies.

Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »