|
320 kbps MP3 vs. WAV: can you hear the difference?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Lots of people claim to be able to hear the difference in sound quality between a 320 kbps MP3 and a full WAV file. This thread will put those claims to the test.
The following two files are for reference:
Orbital - "Belfast" (320 kbps MP3)
Orbital - "Belfast" (1411 kbps WAV)
The next file is the test:
Orbital - "Belfast" (test file)
The test file repeats the same excerpt from the Orbital track twenty times. Your goal is to figure out, using only your ears -- no spectrum analyzers or visualizers -- which of those twenty repetitions came from the original WAV file and which came from the 320 kbps MP3 file, e.g. "#1 is from [format], #2 is from [format]," and so on. I'm not even going to tell you how many instances come from the MP3 file and how many from the WAV: you have to figure that out for yourself, too. But I will tell you that there are repetitions from both WAV and MP3 in there; I'm not playing tricks on you here.
If you want to participate in this exercise, PM your answers to me in the following form:
1. WAV / MP3
2. WAV / MP3
3. WAV / MP3
etc...
[Edit: some people claimed that the original clip wasn't full enough, was too old, and so on. So here is a second set of reference files and test clip. If you want to use this one instead, or participate in both tests, use the same procedure outlined above.]
Hybrid - "Visible Noise" (reference 320 kbps MP3)
Hybrid - "Visible Noise" (reference WAV)
Hybrid - "Visible Noise" (test clip)
-----
In one week I'll reveal in this thread who got the right answers. ;) |
|
|
| Subtle |
| I think its impossible with this particular sample, its too little happening and its fairly low in volume, a fuller clip that has more going on and uses more of the available frequency spectrum might be more appropriate for a test like this. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
Blind tests like this don't necessarily prove anything BoJingles.
I can only tell the difference between wav and mp3 when I know the song reasonably well, and in this case it's usually glaringly obvious. It's like anything: I couldn't tell you if someone I met a week prior had changed their hair style or had a tooth fixed, whereas it’s immediately noticeable in someone you know.
It's only sometimes that it's apparent with new/unknown tracks. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
I think its impossible with this particular sample, its too little happening and its fairly low in volume, a fuller clip that has more going on and uses more of the available frequency spectrum might be more appropriate for a test like this. |
Too low in volume? Then turn it up. 
Here is the spectrum plot for the clip:
I will go ahead and add another file to the original post, though. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Too low in volume? Then turn it up.
|
I meant that its just a weak clip not enough sounds going on, thus not so much to be subtracted through conversion.
If that makes sense in any way, more sounds to distinguish the difference, i highly doubt that i could hear the difference either way though. |
|
|
| Darkarbiter |
After a couple of listens, I can hear the difference in the pad on the second one and possibly a little in the bass as well (on my bose companion computer speakers).
However, the clip goes for like 8 seconds, and it fades out really annoyingly and its a pretty ghey clip, so this is going to be hard. I'm too tired for this atm, I'll try listening again on my loungeroom speakers tomorrow.
I have a feeling the first is wav though. |
|
|
| Existo22 |
The red book audio cd standard is over 20 years old now and is based on scientific tests. They were looking for the perfect resolution to capture sound with and they settled at 44.1 16 bit Wav.
The compressed mp3 format is a mid-90s throwback from the days were computer space was limited and music had to be compressed to fit in the computer.
These days hard-drives can be bought for less than $100 that can store a whole f*****n record store so why settle for the compressed file and compromise?
If you are downloading the music for free I can understand you cant be bothered and the result is just good enough as the original master for you.
As far as mp3 goes the 320 resolution is close to the original and only with certain program material and a good pair of speakers you will tell the difference... it is when the resolution is lower than that that we can all start to hear a difference.
Also if you are producing you might find that after bouncing the track down to mp3 it sound different than you mix sounded.
How many of you have noticed this here?
As much as I like orbital (one of the most underrated edm acts of all time) whether you play this in 320 or wave is no more significant than what color socks they were wearing the day they recorded it.
I mean... come on now! This is from 1991. Akai rack samplers 12 bit converters dats ect
This much like the early rave stuff is low-fi.
It has that oldshool sound to it.
The music is what makes this track what it is.
All time classic 1989 chime was recorded on cassette. When Pete Tong decided to sign it to save themselves the embarrassment the recorded the cassette to dat lol
They talked about this at the house music documentary. |
|
|
| daveth |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
I meant that its just a weak clip not enough sounds going on, thus not so much to be subtracted through conversion.
If that makes sense in any way, more sounds to distinguish the difference, i highly doubt that i could hear the difference either way though. |
Agreed, I wanted to participate but there is just too little going on in this clip.
There are too few sounds, and too many of those few dominate too much over the rest, making it hard to simply turn it up to compensate, because those few sounds then become overpowering.
Also agree that I probably couldn't tell the difference anyway :tongue2 |
|
|
| gr8ape |
You need very high quality speakers and audio gear to actually hear the difference.
On average headphones, forget it.
Mp3's are made to remove sounds you dont hear |
|
|
| StephenWiley |
Didn't even bother to read the replies, I'm just giving my own, and that is it depends.
Sometimes yes
Sometimes no |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| i'll give it a shot with my setup |
|
|
| david.michael |
| I've got nothing... can't tell a damn bit of difference (on these ty headphones, anyway). |
|
|
|
|
