|
MP3 Quality vs. .WAV sound quality
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Ultraphu |
I realize this is an old arguement, just need to back myself up on this. I know something is lost within the compression, but I was under the impression it was sounds we couldn't hear and other sounds were duplicated. The quality is nearly the same though, and it is nearly impossible to distinguish correct? Can someone help me on this? This kid i know thinks the sound quality of a .Wav is so much better that he'd sacrifice his HD space to just store .Wav's vs. Mp3's.
:D :o :conf: |
|
|
| KilldaDJ |
| mp3 just gets rid of the ultra high frequencies that humans cannot hear, therfore reducing hard-drive space :) |
|
|
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by KilldaDJ
mp3 just gets rid of the ultra high frequencies that humans cannot hear, therfore reducing hard-drive space :) |
NO, MP3s get rid of sounds that "mask" other sounds, such as a loud and and a very low sound. What would happen is, suince we can't hear the "low" sound, that's removed from the original file. It's not a big loss if you can't hear it, or is it? |
|
|
| a-aplz |
| quote: | Originally posted by ali92
NO, MP3s get rid of sounds that "mask" other sounds, such as a loud and and a very low sound. What would happen is, suince we can't hear the "low" sound, that's removed from the original file. It's not a big loss if you can't hear it, or is it? |
Umm..thats exactly what KillaDJ said. Frequencies are sounds. So he is right. |
|
|
| Hybrid Junkie |
Well actually all other frequencies which we can't hear (we can only hear to about 22k, the new logic can master in 90k! w00t!) effect the other sounds..so it's kinda important..
Kinda like playing 5 notes on a piano, it's one sound but it sounds different if you let go of one the keys. Although with frequencies it's not to the same strength..
SO yeah you do lose *some* quality, but it's pretty much completely undistinguishable...so mp3 is always the way to go. |
|
|
| Tranzmit |
| ok i encode now at 192 VBR which is better then normal 192 and the quality is indistinguishable from Wav so i use that. The mp3's encoded thus aren't small but very nice quality. Tell him to try that and see what he thinks |
|
|
| Flec |
well your friend is right, mp3s only go up to 320kbps while wavs are somewhere up in the 1000+'s
however 320 is bascily cd quality..... in order to tell the difference from say a 256kbps mp3 and a 320 you would need top of the line audiophile equipment which almost all of us dont have so there is really no need/point to get mp3s of that quality not to mention it is rediculace to waste the space |
|
|
| b i n k u n |
I think at the end of the day, it depends on wut kind of equipment you have. a 128 kbps and a wav. file aren't gonna sound too much different on crappy ol' comp speakers anyway. if u go into hi-fi stuff, then encode at a higher rate... As for frequencies, unheard frequencies affect the overtones, which alters the whole feel of the sound. That's the major debate used in why people prefer vinyls over CDs. You can "feel" the frequencies more in analog music then in digital music.
as for "hearing" frequencies outside the 20Hz-20kHz range, i personally think it only matters in a live experience. i.e. u wanna feel the bass at a club, and bass can go lower then 20Hz, and it just becomes a rumble that tears through you.....:D But of course it depends on wut woofers they have. so wut i do is just encode at wuteva rate is suitable for your speakers. *shrug. |
|
|
| afastest |
i posted this in poll section, but then i found this thread, so i should copy-paste it here:
About mp3 quality:
there is big difference bitween codecs, and the sound that you compress. Some codecs are that bad, that i can clearly hear bubling effect in music, and strange noise in silent places.
I have one track from trance master 21 as i recall.
Metal master - Odyssey of light Solid sleep mix.
If you have wav, please try compress it to 128, 192 and 320.
The first minute of the composition has something, what will make you hear the difference bitween wav and mp3, at least 192 an less.
The echo after vocals, and beep, reverbiration aswell will have strange bubling effect, like boiling water or something.
The best way to hear that bubling is to compress silent music with 24 kbits.
But there is another way. Get Nullsoft dsp plugin for winamp. Choose voice remove effect. You will hear that in almost all mp3. Only 320 kbit with lame codec will have the less of it. But i still can hear that. In 128 it will awfull, just try it.
That's why wav is the best it is cristally clear. it is fully digital. Mp3 is not fully digital. It does not have the wave in it. It only has frequences, with small discrepancy. They just try to make that discrepancy as small as possible, so human brains can't hear or recognize it.
The other thing i dont get is why ppl always want more, but not more quality. Few years back, when ppl had 2-4 gb hdds, they were happy to have 200 mp3. Now hdd are at least 10 times bigger, but many still want 128 kbit mp3s, thousands of mp3s are better that 200 wavs. |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by a-aplz
Umm..thats exactly what KillaDJ said. Frequencies are sounds. So he is right. |
nope, KillaDJ said that it removes 'high freq' sound, which is not entirely correct. Wav files do use up 'some' extra sepace, since they are effectively sampled to 22KHz, BUT removing those 2 KHz that most people cannot hear will not yield a 12x compression.
The way Mp3's work -afaik- is to remove subtle sound and introduce noise to mask that removal. It is kinda weird, but looking at the original soundwave and the mp3 compressed one, you will find that the mp3 has more noise whenever there is a strong 'change' in magnitude.
I don't remember all the stuff i read in the C't<, but they went through some lengths to explain that it does not just remove a set of frequencies, but rather dynamically adjusts, which frequencies to leave out, depending on the volume of the other frequencies. |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by afastest
The other thing i dont get is why ppl always want more, but not more quality. Few years back, when ppl had 2-4 gb hdds, they were happy to have 200 mp3. Now hdd are at least 10 times bigger, but many still want 128 kbit mp3s, thousands of mp3s are better that 200 wavs. |
I'd rather have 1000 192Kbps (VBR) mp3's than 10000 128Kbps mp3's or even 200 Waves..
the problem with waves is the filesize, which will lead to a huge access time.. slow response, no fun listening |
|
|
| Tranzmit |
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
I'd rather have 1000 192Kbps (VBR) mp3's than 10000 128Kbps mp3's or even 200 Waves..
the problem with waves is the filesize, which will lead to a huge access time.. slow response, no fun listening |
Actually waves are fine for playback. Even quicker then mp3's as they don't have to be decoded but finally the size of the storage is their problem |
|
|
|
|
