Should I convert my samples? - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Should I convert my samples?

Posted by ponsshin on Oct-23-2009 15:32:

Should I convert my samples?

Ok here is the deal... I am working on this remix and I can barely even play the damn thing in Ableton Live because my computer is not powerful enough.
The question is: should I convert my 32bit 44.1KHz wav files into 320 kbps mp3s? Would I lose any significant quality even though when I rebounce the files, they'll be back at 32bit 44.1KHz.

Please note that the original sample files that were given in the pack were 320 kbps mp3s.

In my opinion I will undeniably lose some of the quality but on the other hand, even after deleting all of the unused samples my project files is over 2 Gb! My computer would be better off handling a lot less data.

I would appreciate your opinions on this matter> Remix is due 9th of November.

Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Oct-23-2009 15:34:

Re: Should I convert my samples?

quote:
Originally posted by ponsshin
Please note that the original sample files that were given in the pack were 320 kbps mp3s.

Then that is the quality that they will always be, unless you downgrade them again.

Converting an MP3 back into a WAV does not increase the quality. Once you convert a sample into an MP3 the damage has been done, and you cannot "get back" the frequencies lost in the conversion by decoding the MP3. Whoever gave you the samples as MP3s has ensured that they will never be WAV-quality again.

Posted by ponsshin on Oct-23-2009 15:40:

Re: Re: Should I convert my samples?

quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Then that is the quality that they will always be, unless you downgrade them again.

Converting an MP3 back into a WAV does not increase the quality. Once you convert a sample into an MP3 the damage has been done, and you cannot "get back" the frequencies lost in the conversion by decoding the MP3. Whoever gave you the samples as MP3s has ensured that they will never be WAV-quality again.

Yes but let's think of it this way:
1) you put your mp3 into ableton
2) you put tons of effects on it, freeze and flatten it
3) is it still as good as mp3 considering ableton's sound engine (32 bit and all the shizzle) has "worked" on it?

Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Oct-23-2009 15:46:

Re: Re: Re: Should I convert my samples?

quote:
Originally posted by ponsshin
Yes but let's think of it this way:
1) you put your mp3 into ableton
2) you put tons of effects on it, freeze and flatten it
3) is it still as good as mp3 considering ableton's sound engine (32 bit and all the shizzle) has "worked" on it?

What do you mean "still as good?" Are you asking if Live "degrades" the audio in some way?

Posted by ponsshin on Oct-23-2009 15:49:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Should I convert my samples?

quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
What do you mean "still as good?" Are you asking if Live "degrades" the audio in some way?

Sorry I meant "better than mp3".

Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Oct-23-2009 15:51:

Audio data is removed from the file in the process of MP3 conversion. You can never get that audio data back. Even if you put the MP3 in a DAW and render the arrangement as a WAV.

Posted by ponsshin on Oct-23-2009 16:08:

quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Audio data is removed from the file in the process of MP3 conversion. You can never get that audio data back. Even if you put the MP3 in a DAW and render the arrangement as a WAV.

Here's another situation. You put a big reverb on a clap sound (which is mp3).
Is the reverb tail the same quality-wise in wav (directly off the DAW) as in mp3 (converted from wav off the DAW)?

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say

Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Oct-23-2009 16:12:

I doubt it's exactly the same, but I seriously doubt that anyone could tell the difference just from the tail.

This is all kind of academic, most people would not be able to pick out an MP3 sample even if you just dropped it in without changing it at all. If you made a track where all the samples but one were WAV quality and asked me to pick out which element was from a 320 kbps MP3, I couldn't do it.

Posted by ponsshin on Oct-23-2009 16:14:

Alright I'm gonna go with that and make a copy of the project using mp3s instead of wav.

Posted by evo8 on Oct-23-2009 17:21:

When you drop mp3s into Live, Live automatically converts those mp3s to WAV in a temp cache folder, so your still gonna be using wav files anyway...

Posted by ponsshin on Oct-23-2009 17:23:

quote:
Originally posted by evo8
When you drop mp3s into Live, Live automatically converts those mp3s to WAV in a temp cache folder, so your still gonna be using wav files anyway...

Clearing my cache folder might help then

Posted by KilldaDJ on Oct-23-2009 17:24:

most people cant tell the difference anyway. unless you pushed the track through a spectrum or something and really pick it apart.

Posted by Mr.Mystery on Oct-23-2009 17:26:

quote:
Originally posted by ponsshin
Alright I'm gonna go with that and make a copy of the project using mp3s instead of wav.

Just out of interest - why are you doing this, exactly?

Posted by ponsshin on Oct-23-2009 17:36:

quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Just out of interest - why are you doing this, exactly?

I'm trying to save some CPU. Might not work but at this stage I'm willing to try anything.

edit: I'm also trying to save my motherboard from overheating too.

Posted by Mr.Mystery on Oct-23-2009 17:38:

quote:
Originally posted by ponsshin
I'm trying to save some CPU. Might not work but at this stage I'm willing to try anything.

edit: I'm also trying to save my motherboard from overheating too.

Uhm... okay. I don't really see how it would make any difference but... ehh...

Posted by ponsshin on Oct-23-2009 17:43:

quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Uhm... okay. I don't really see how it would make any difference but... ehh...

Handling lighter, more compressed files could result in less calculations for the computer. My RAM is also maxed out.

Photoshop applies filters much more rapidly on small pictures so I'm guessing Ableton could run smoother with compressed files.

Posted by Cryogen on Oct-23-2009 17:53:

quote:
Originally posted by ponsshin
Photoshop applies filters much more rapidly on small pictures so I'm guessing Ableton could run smoother with compressed files.

No because Ableton has to waste power decoding the MP3 then storing the file in the cache. You actually end up with less space because you have the WAV and the MP3.

Posted by mfitterer1 on Oct-23-2009 18:40:

quote:
Originally posted by ponsshin
Handling lighter, more compressed files could result in less calculations for the computer. My RAM is also maxed out.

Photoshop applies filters much more rapidly on small pictures so I'm guessing Ableton could run smoother with compressed files.

The cpu is taken up by all of the reverbs and efx. All of the tracks that are heaviest on my cpu are the ones with the most plug ins running. The samples have essentially no effect on the project because it's an audio file there is no processing to be done, when the cpu goes to it for info all it has to do is play.

On the other hand itb reverbs/delays and other efx take a ton of processing power because of all the algorithms that are instantaneously calculated to get their function to occur.

Posted by RichieV on Oct-23-2009 19:16:

surely using mp3s will require more cpu. The DAW will probably convert to wav then use that converted file.

Posted by owien on Oct-23-2009 20:24:

of course a good way around this problem will be to work in two halfs.
the first would be to lay down all of ya samples and parts arrangement ect. then when you feal happy with it start adding fx and any synths plugins you care to need.

Posted by evo8 on Oct-23-2009 22:29:

Posted by DigiNut on Oct-23-2009 22:37:

Wow, this thread is a giant WTF.

Even IF Ableton could directly sequence MP3s - and it can't - it would actually waste more CPU cycles because of the decoding overhead.

The real question here is, if your original files were 32 kbps MP3s, why the hell did you convert them to 32-bit wave files? You should go back to the samples and decode them to 16-bit waves, because that's the maximum quality you can get out of an MP3.

Either way it's very unlikely to help if your problem is CPU-related. It would only make a difference if you've got tons of samples loaded and you're running out of (a) memory or (b) I/O bandwidth.

Posted by kitphillips on Oct-24-2009 04:16:

Yeah, you do realise that ableton converts any 320 MP3s to wav before commencing work on them right?

+ Everything diginut said.

RTFM