We need a .wav file clinic

[ido1957]

I've bought, or got for free, several CD's from the guys here. I am absolutely amazed at the sound quality on the CD compared to the MP3's we hear around here. I vote we get the gov't to install fiber optic installed in our neighborhoods so we can upload/download .wav files instead.

How can you tell the quality in a mix using an MP3 when the compression might be causing the issues?

We deserve better than MP3......

/rant

 

[Massive Master]

There are good MP3's though... Nothing I'd want to work from, but a 256kbps MP3 done with a good converter is going to sound pretty darn decent.

 

[stevieb]

Oh, sure- massive tax breaks for the rich, kill universal health care, oh, and fiber optics for everyone...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

How can you tell the quality in a mix using an MP3 when the compression might be causing the issues?

For a decent MP3 from a respectable encoder, it's not all that hard. A good MP3 is only really completely missing the stuff above 15kHz and a few overtones of some of the lower stuff. While, like John says, it's not something to actually work with/on, it should give enough to be able to judge most of the general mix.

Of course if the encoding sucks, all bets are off. Stick with a pure Fraunhoffer or ISO codec at 192k or greater fixed rate and IMHO there should be no reason not to tell if the mix itself is OK. The mastering, maybe not so much, but the general mix, why not?

BTW, if you want to hear what the MP3 is talking out of your mix, take the MP3, invert it in your editor program, and then sum it with the original WAV. What will be left is the part of the WAV that doesn't get carried over to the MP3.

G.

 

[RAMI]

I'd like to claim that my CD sounds way better than the MP3's I've posted here. But, honestly, a 320kps MP3 sounds exactly the same as a Wav file. I know some people have claimed they can hear the difference between a wav and a 320mp3, but I call total bullshit on that one.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I'd like to claim that my CD sounds way better than the MP3's I've posted here. But, honestly, a 320kps MP3 sounds exactly the same as a Wav file. I know some people have claimed they can hear the difference between a wav and a 320mp3, but I call total bullshit on that one.

Give me files for a listening challenge and I'll identify the MP3.

But no, MP3 encoding is not nearly destructive enough to harm the purpose of the mix clinic.

 

[miroslav]

I've done stuff at 320kbps, and I agree it sounds pretty darn good...
...but I still don't think it's as good as the original WAV file. It might depend on the material, and I think it really depends on the playback system.

The way most people listen to music these days even 320kbps is more than good enough, but on a high-end system with full bandwidth, with material that has a lot of dynamic range and clarity...you can hear some differences...though not always. I can hear sometimes in the high-end, an unnatural quality to it...I guess that's caused by digital artifacts. Other times the overall "space" of the material juts has a different feel to it, like the mix has changed/shifted a bit in size/depth. Maybe it's just my imagination...or desire to hear a difference...I dunno...but like I said, sometimes it's there, but not always.

I think the guys that do a lot of serious mastering can hear it much better since their ears are just more tuned for that kind of stuff

 

[DrewPeterson7]

BTW, if you want to hear what the MP3 is talking out of your mix, take the MP3, invert it in your editor program, and then sum it with the original WAV. What will be left is the part of the WAV that doesn't get carried over to the MP3.

That's actually a pretty interesting test I've never tried. I should.

I generally use the Lame.dll codec at 256kbps for anything I put on the net - last time I tried (years ago) that was the threshold where I couldn't reliably tell them apart on a good set of headphones more than 50% of the time. I should probably test that again too, however.