Save space on your computer and get better playback!

  • Thread starter Thread starter hybridsound
  • Start date Start date
hybridsound

http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/techinf/layer3/#2

Note the last sentence of this off their site let the experts in mp3 technology tell you that mp3's are not the same as .wav or other high quality recordings the picture explains how it works or does not work in a mastering environment.

Without data reduction, digital audio signals typically consist of 16 bit samples recorded at a sampling rate more than twice the actual audio bandwidth (e.g. 44.1 kHz for Compact Discs). So you end up with more than 1.400 Mbit to represent just one second of stereo music in CD quality. By using MPEG audio coding, you may shrink down the original sound data from a CD by a factor of 12, without losing sound quality. Factors of 24 and even more still maintain a sound quality that is significantly better than what you get by just reducing the sampling rate and the resolution of your samples. Basically, this is realized by perceptual coding techniques addressing the perception of sound waves by the human ear.
 

Attachments

  • layer3_block.webp
    layer3_block.webp
    16.6 KB · Views: 124
without losing sound quality...

????

I guess that's technically true: you're not **losing** it, you're throwing it away.
Does anyone else think it's ironic that, as our recording devices get higher and higher in resolution, the listeners are using crappier and crappier playback media? What's next? 4-bit CDs?
 
I’m sure the Technology will get better, it usually does. Then they’ll charge you an arm and a leg for it. At least when it is first available.

Then MP3 thing does bring up an interesting subject. Remember when CD’s first came out and they were $15-$20 each because of their superior audio quality to vinyl and tape? (supposedly that was the reason they charged so much) Doesn’t seem the consumers care about superior audio quality anymore. Just a good product and a reasonable price.

Bottom line: with internal and external hard drives out there for $100 or less why is this even an issue.
 
Ok just to support both sides of the arguement. It is true that you DO save a hellava lot of space by saving audio as mp3 files. As a result, programs such as FL Studio now support importing mp3 files. It is also true that most consumers cant really tell the difference between a ginuine Wav file and an mp3. Proof? People download mp3s all day off file sharing programs, burn the songs, and dance to them in cars and clubs just like the real cd version. Its only us purist, etc. that really can tell; why? BECAUSE WE MAKE THE SHIT THEY LISTEN TO! Its similar to the good ole battle of recording in 32, 24, or 16 bit. Eventually its going to have to be 16 bit when burnt to a cd so why care in the first place.

Now, it is definitely TRUE that mp3 files suffer from minor quality issues compared to Wav files. If you engineer on a regular basis, you should immediately be able to hear the difference in both formats. Making mp3s higher quality for this task is a waste of time because CD quality is like 128kbps or something. If you are producing a score for an orchestra, or big project I would highly frown on using mp3 format. Even though in the end those little downloaders wont know the difference, sometimes you're clients will.

I conclude, both sides have valid points but both sides are also wrong. Hybrid, there is a quality difference even if you dont hear it. Everyone else, how many consumers out of 1,000 actually purchase Mackie HR824s for their home setup? I rest my case.
 
so why care in the first place.

I guess it's hopeless. That's the most depressing thing I've read here.
 
I want it as close as I can get to what it was.

Listening to a .wav file is bad enough. Any more algorithms introduced are even more of a fudge, it seems to me.

Gone is gone, lost is lost, a good algorithm is a best guess, IMO.
 
lpdelux

I agree with you a mp3 file is a pigmintation of your imagination. That is why I said read the last sentence. Listening quality is not always the same as true quality. Most playback systems themselves reproduce what you want to hear, hence the decoders used in all disc systems are programed to excentuate the sound and may not truely reproduce it as it is. If you want to really see the destructive power of an mp3 find someone that has some rap with some of those slow roll deep bass and drum lines. encode it at 96kps, 128kps, 160kps, 192kps after that it really does not matter.
 
Well the mix on the MP3 is so bad that it is impossible for anyone to tell if it is good quality or not (the mp3 convertion).

Also, it is impossible for you to proove that mp3 has the same quality as wav because you could :
1) Create a mp3
2) Convert this mp3 in wav
3) and then post this as a reference comparition, which is faulty.

That is why it's best for every one of you to juge of this with your equipment. Anyone using laptop speakers propably won't see a difference between wav and mp3.

Good luck!

thx
 
Raydio said:
Ok just to support both sides of the arguement. It is true that you DO save a hellava lot of space by saving audio as mp3 files. As a result, programs such as FL Studio now support importing mp3 files. It is also true that most consumers cant really tell the difference between a ginuine Wav file and an mp3. Proof? People download mp3s all day off file sharing programs, burn the songs, and dance to them in cars and clubs just like the real cd version. Its only us purist, etc. that really can tell; why? BECAUSE WE MAKE THE SHIT THEY LISTEN TO! Its similar to the good ole battle of recording in 32, 24, or 16 bit. Eventually its going to have to be 16 bit when burnt to a cd so why care in the first place.

Now, it is definitely TRUE that mp3 files suffer from minor quality issues compared to Wav files. If you engineer on a regular basis, you should immediately be able to hear the difference in both formats. Making mp3s higher quality for this task is a waste of time because CD quality is like 128kbps or something. If you are producing a score for an orchestra, or big project I would highly frown on using mp3 format. Even though in the end those little downloaders wont know the difference, sometimes you're clients will.

I conclude, both sides have valid points but both sides are also wrong. Hybrid, there is a quality difference even if you dont hear it. Everyone else, how many consumers out of 1,000 actually purchase Mackie HR824s for their home setup? I rest my case.
Click to expand...

128 kbps is Radio Streaming quality. 192 is "supposedly" CD quality and 320 is DVD comparable.

Just to clarify.
 
Change of POETS said:
128 kbps is Radio Streaming quality. 192 is "supposedly" CD quality and 320 is DVD comparable.

Just to clarify.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification; but can you honestly tell me that when you listen to MP3 encoded files you can spot that one is 128kbps and not 192kbps? I sure cant. And if the listeners could then Im sure that downloading music wouldnt be replacing the purchasing of records at such a high rate. My point, Wavs and MP3s do not sound the same if carefully comparing them on a decent-good system, but when the song is cut... a good song will always be a good song no matter the format.
 
Raydio said:
Thanks for the clarification; but can you honestly tell me that when you listen to MP3 encoded files you can spot that one is 128kbps and not 192kbps? I sure cant. And if the listeners could then Im sure that downloading music wouldnt be replacing the purchasing of records at such a high rate. My point, Wavs and MP3s do not sound the same if carefully comparing them on a decent-good system, but when the song is cut... a good song will always be a good song no matter the format.
Click to expand...

I get your point, even though I feel you don't even need careful listening. Playing a real CD and then an MP3 makes it pretty obvious to me, even on my boombox.
 
192 kbps MP3 = CD quality (16/41) ?
320 kbps MP3 = DVD quality (24/96) ?

Im not buying it......
 
boingoman said:
I get your point, even though I feel you don't even need careful listening. Playing a real CD and then an MP3 makes it pretty obvious to me, even on my boombox.
Click to expand...

I greatfully stand corrected. :)
 
Is there a hugely audible difference between a high (320kbps+) quality MP3 and a WAV file? I recognize that it's foolish to mix with MP3s for the same reason you don't save photo projects as JPEGs, but I don't notice a huge difference in everyday listening. Then again, maybe that's the point.
 
Is there a hugely audible difference between a high (320kbps+) quality MP3 and a WAV file?
Click to expand...

For the average john smith listener probably not but to a person with a trained ear and/or a decent playback system then definately.

Would you rather buy a mp3 CD that costs the same as the WAV version and pay the same for inferior quality? I know I wouldn't.

At the end of the day the problem really is that if you record all your tracks in mp3 and process/mix all your tracks in mp3 than your just multiplying the inferior quality. If you do all that in WAV and convert to mp3 after mastering than the difference isn't as noticeble.

But the original topic of this thread was saving space recording to mp3 which is just downright dumb.
 
Tukkis said:
For the average john smith listener probably not but to a person with a trained ear and/or a decent playback system then definately.

Would you rather buy a mp3 CD that costs the same as the WAV version and pay the same for inferior quality? I know I wouldn't.

At the end of the day the problem really is that if you record all your tracks in mp3 and process/mix all your tracks in mp3 than your just multiplying the inferior quality. If you do all that in WAV and convert to mp3 after mastering than the difference isn't as noticeble.

But the original topic of this thread was saving space recording to mp3 which is just downright dumb.
Click to expand...

I semi agree with what Tukkis says. By saying that its downright dumb to save space recording to mp3 is just wrong because you arent weighing pros and cons universally. Its a definite advantage when you need space and want less latency issues and such. Its a bad thing when you want to apply lots of signal processing, effects, etc. to the mp3 files. In short, if you were to leave the mp3 files as dry as possible (maybe just EQ, and a little compression) it shouldnt really be an audiable difference to your "listener"; besides.... in the end we make music for consumers and not recording engineers, am I right?
 
Gidge said:
192 kbps MP3 = CD quality (16/41) ?
320 kbps MP3 = DVD quality (24/96) ?

Im not buying it......
Click to expand...
You don't buy it because you know it's not true. :)

That's what MP3 standards claim the quality resembles... But the truth is, it's a lossy format which is compressed, and slaughtered.

Why anyone would work with anything but wav is beyond me.

And Raydio, yes, I can hear the difference between a 128k and a 192k MP3.

Rip a wav from a professional release CD, and encode them at different bit depths. Put them in your multitracker stacked on top of each other, and solo one at a time. You will clearly hear the difference if you have well trained ears.
 
For me, the difference between 128 and 192 is like night and day. Above that, the difference is less, but still noticable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top