|
Sound Quality Question (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pvdclubber |
| 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 |
|
|
| isoterra |
| 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 |
|
|
| luisjb82 |
| 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. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
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. |
|
|
| pvdclubber |
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 |
|
|
| SMC |
| 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 ed 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. |
|
|
| Tea-mo |
| 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 ! |
|
|
| pvdclubber |
| 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 |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
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. |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| 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?? |
|
|
| tubby |
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. |
|
|
|
|
