|
converting mp3 to WAV...is quality lost? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Subtle |
| Hey guys. I think it is pretty logical, that if you convert an mp3 to Wav, you get an increase of quality. Since Wav files are of a better quality. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
Hey guys. I think it is pretty logical, that if you convert an mp3 to Wav, you get an increase of quality. Since Wav files are of a better quality. |
I hope you're joking...
Use a photo program to convert a photograph into a 256-color GIF. Now load the GIF back into your photo program and resave it, this time as a bitmap (BMP) file.
Now load the bitmap in any photo viewer: it looks exactly the same as the 256-color GIF. An irreversible loss of data occurred when you compressed the photo into a GIF, and converting the GIF into a BMP will not increase the quality.
The situation with MP3s and WAVs is exactly analogous. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I hope you're joking...
Use a photo program to convert a photograph into a 256-color GIF. Now load the GIF back into your photo program and resave it, this time as a bitmap (BMP) file.
Now load the bitmap in any photo viewer: it looks exactly the same as the 256-color GIF. An irreversible loss of data occurred when you compressed the photo into a GIF, and converting the GIF into a BMP will not increase the quality.
The situation with MP3s and WAVs is exactly analogous. |
If the WAV file is ten times bigger than the mp3, how can it then be of the same quality? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
If the WAV file is ten times bigger than the mp3, how can it then be of the same quality? |
You can put an apple in a little bowl or a really big bowl. It's still the same apple.
WAVs need to be big because they have to have "room" to express a lot more data than MP3s do. When you convert a WAV down to an MP3, that "extra" data is eliminated, never to return. But the MP3 compression algorithms are made in such a way that data is eliminated without your ears hearing a terribly big difference. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
You can put an apple in a little bowl or a really big bowl. It's still the same apple.
WAVs need to be big because they have to have "room" to express a lot more data than MP3s do. When you convert a WAV down to an MP3, that "extra" data is eliminated, never to return. But the MP3 compression algorithms are made in such a way that data is eliminated without your ears hearing a terribly big difference. |
Yeah, im not going to push it any further :p |
|
|
| System101 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
Hey guys. I think it is pretty logical, that if you convert an mp3 to Wav, you get an increase of quality. Since Wav files are of a better quality. |
turning a WAv into an mp3 back into a WAV is a whole lot like this...
you take a 600x600 jpg image in photoshop.. you resize it to 100x100... then you resize it back to 600x600 (not undoing, but stretching it to 600x600)... |
|
|
| Luke Terry |
In all honesty, as long as you are playing 192k or better in a club nobody will ever tell. I have played some 192k mp3s on some ing huge systems and it makes near as damnit no difference. A lot of my old vinyls sound worse than 160k mp3s i have
I can barely tell the difference between 192k and 320k on my monitors, and there is almost no chance I'd be able to differentiate between a 320k mp3 and a 1411 wav @ 16bit
|
|
|
| Jake Benson |
Wow thanks for all the answers. I think I got the answer in so many ways with so many analogies that there's no way I can misunderstand.
I was asking because I want to send links with my music to DJs, and I know some of them might be picky and want WAVs. But I was thinking are they REALLY going to take a half an hour to DL a 120mb song when they can DL one that's just 18mb just for the slight quality difference?
I do notice that changing an mp3 to a WAV the sound gets louder. But now I know that has nothing to do with quality, just amplitude eh. |
|
|
| richg101 |
well i can tell the different between a 320 and a wav. a wav is louder and clearer. 192 can be used in clubs, but on a real system they show up like a sore thumb. harsh mids are the order of the day.
converting a 320 to a wav will not harm quality if done on a decent converter. itunes is not what you want to be using for this i wouldnt have thought. itunes is for use with a ty sounding ipod and is probably set up to work best with compressed files - i mean they charge money for 128k files. |
|
|
| zodiac9 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
I was asking because I want to send links with my music to DJs, and I know some of them might be picky and want WAVs. But I was thinking are they REALLY going to take a half an hour to DL a 120mb song when they can DL one that's just 18mb just for the slight quality difference?
|
The question is, why aren't you able to render your songs as wavefiles? I don't understand why you are needing to convert MP3s to waves, when all you have to do is render your music in wavefile format in the first place. Even if you send your music off to be mastered, you should still get a wavefile back as the master.
320k MP3s are usually what DJs prefer. |
|
|
|
|
