mp3 vs wav

  • Thread starter Thread starter sixer2007
  • Start date Start date
S

sixer2007

New member
Hey friends,

I've read a fair amount about people's opinions on the quality of a wav file compared to converting it to an mp3. For the life of me, I can't hear a difference in my own work after they've been converted. I really wish I had one of my favorite songs in wav format so I can A/B them, but that seems unlikely.
So with all of these people saying mp3s don't hold the same quality, I feel like I'm missing something and not listening for the right differences, if that makes sense.
Have you all done this? What do you listen for in terms of quality and how does it manifest itself?
 
I find a low quality mp3 will reveal itself, but i wouldn't know a 320 from a wav.
The lower quality it is, the more you'll begin to hear artefacts.

Try making several copies, reducing the quality each time. There'll probably be a point at which you hear the difference.
 
Ah yeah, that makes sense! I always covert them to 320. So at 320, with a wav file of 85 MB, but the mp3 is only 9.6, it must be compressing a bunch right? But why is it so hard to detect?
 
Honestly? I'm not sure.

Wiki says
"The MP3 lossy audio data compression algorithm takes advantage of a perceptual limitation of human hearing called auditory masking. In 1894, Alfred Marshall Mayer reported that a tone could be rendered inaudible by another tone of lower frequency."
So it must be true! :p
 
If you find anything about that I'd love to read it!

And man, what a great experiment! I just tried a 192 as well as a 96 compared to the original wav. I could already hear a difference in the higher one, and then the low one sounded terrible.

So another question that you might not have an answer for.. Once i rip a CD into itunes or wherever, the files are actually pretty small too. I noticed my 92 kbps file is only like 3 MB, but sounds like horse poo, but a file from a CD that's only maybe 4 MB sounds great. So how do they make files so small, yet retain that same quality? Industrial grade file converters instead of freeware?
 
Steenamaroo said:
"The MP3 lossy audio data compression algorithm takes advantage of a perceptual limitation of human hearing called auditory masking. In 1894, Alfred Marshall Mayer reported that a tone could be rendered inaudible by another tone of lower frequency."
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that.. I will have to consult google some more myself.
 
sixer2007 said:
I noticed my 92 kbps file is only like 3 MB, but sounds like horse poo, but a file from a CD that's only maybe 4 MB sounds great. So how do they make files so small, yet retain that same quality? Industrial grade file converters instead of freeware?
Click to expand...

You're right, I can't answer that. :p But I can tell you that you can adjust the file type and quality of itunes conversion.
It's under preferences/import settings, or something like that.
 
Yep, found it, thanks! My C drive is gonna fill up now, quality is at max. We'll see how that goes.
 
I guess it depends how you are listening to the files, too. Cheap computer speakers - no, you probably won't hear the difference.
 
Yeah...at 320 Kbs, it's hard to notice differences unless you have a quality/revealing monitor system, but at the lower MP3 resolutions, just listen to the upper end, it's pretty obvious even on mediocre speakers. There's often a phasy thing going on.
 
However, as has been said, the effect of compression is cumulative. Every time you open an MP3 in a DAW, it's converted to an uncompressed file, then the compression algorithm is run again if you've processed the file before re-saving. Starting at 320kbps you might not hear the difference right away but after a few goes you'll be aware of how much data you're throwing away.

At lower bit rates, you're throwing away everything above about 15k--check it out on a frequency analysis.

The other thing to consider is that the process of de-compressing your file takes a bit of computer power. Multiply it by 12 or 24 or 36 tracks and you'll likely get to the "glitch and buffering" stage sooner than you would with .wav files. The same thing applies in reverse when you're recording--your computer can send your interface output directly to disk with wave files but has to run the compression software to store it as MP3.

I'll convert finished mixes to MP3 for emailing or posting but I firmly believe compression has no place in the production process. Disks are cheap now and getting cheaper (I saw a 1.5TB drive for $139 Australian the other day). Why compromise your quality to save space?
 
Whether you can hear it or not is irrelevant.

Your speakers or your ears may be lying to you.

The bottom line is the only way to compress a 60mb .wav file to a 5mb mp3 file is to THROW AWAY INFORMATION.

Once it's gone, it's gone....
 
Right, I know that info is being lost. I was just curious about how this all worked. I never delete my wav files. They sit along side a 320 mp3 files till the end of time. Once I've totally finished a mix, i move all the files associated with it to a back up drive (including the wav files) and just keep that high res mp3 on my ipod and whatnot. I always have the wavs to recall if needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top