Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
-
wav vs mp3
Remember ages ago when lee live was going on about wav files vs mp3 well he was right
-
Originally Posted by
flatliners
Remember ages ago when lee live was going on about wav files vs mp3 well he was right
What makes you say that? Personal experience, or something else?
I've been playing with WAV's (i.e. downloading WAV where possible) and even on my RCF rig and on a couple of larger club rigs and I honestly can't tell the difference in a blind test.
Julian
-
Originally Posted by
flatliners
Remember ages ago when lee live was going on about wav files vs mp3 well he was right
On what basis would you say he's right? I'd still argue that it's not as clear cut as saying he was right and others are wrong. I've did a side by side comparison through my system of a wav file and an mp3 encoded at 320kbps of the same song, and honestly couldn't hear any audible difference. My roadie couldn't tell the difference either.
However, quality of the equipment components will play a big part in the sound quality you experience. You could play a 192kbps mp3 through a nice quality sound system and it still sound a lot better than a wav file through a cheap low quality system. It's all relative!
-
Dinosaur
Originally Posted by
Shaun
On what basis would you say he's right?
The events of Sunday. My ears aren't the best, but I picked each one right in a blind test.
However, I knew the test was coming, I had the comparison song to work from, and I was listening carefully. Had I been offered a random selection of wav and mp3, I'm not at all confident I could have picked correctly.
Also, we were running the tests on Andy's HK rig, and my LD rig, which both have very good definition in the areas which are most compressed by mp3.
I was perfectly happy with the sound of the mp3 files through both rigs, it's just that wav are in my humble opinion, undeniably better. The bass was much cleaner and richer.
Julian mentioned using his RCF rig, and I'd guess he has bandpass subs. Perhaps this type don't show the difference as much, I don't know?
This is going to be another debate where there are no wrong answers, only personal views and observations.
-
Originally Posted by
Excalibur
Julian mentioned using his RCF rig, and I'd guess he has bandpass subs. Perhaps this type don't show the difference as much, I don't know?
No subs - probably part of the reason why I wouldn't notice the difference (my RCF's are unlikely to be able to produce sub-audible frequencies). However, I regularly work on a couple of club systems where you feel the sub-audible frequencies and I also can't tell the difference there.
Julian
-
Thanks
Originally Posted by
flatliners
Remember ages ago when lee live was going on about wav files vs mp3 well he was right
Thanks.
-
I understand that some people probably have finer tuned ears than others, much the same some people are "supertasters" and taste more than most.
But .wav or flac files haven't really taken off with the average consumer for a very good reason.
Also it's not all about bitrate, you've got bit depth and most importantly the quality of the MP3 encoder.
Bad MP3 encoding = bad quality audio.
Using a good encoder such as those used in Cubase I cannot tell a real difference between 320kbps and 150kbps I can however start noticing a difference below 150kbps.
I personally believe those that can hear a difference between FLAC and 320kbps are the type that can see the difference between 1080p and 4K ... A.K.A nutters
-
Dinosaur
Originally Posted by
ukpartydj
I personally believe those that can hear a difference between FLAC and 320kbps are the type that can see the difference between 1080p and 4K ... A.K.A nutters
Hello. I'm Peter, and I'm a nutter. Spotted every one, and my hearing's not anything special.
( I can't however see any difference with the telly pictures, so I'm with you there. )
-
Originally Posted by
Excalibur
Hello. I'm Peter, and I'm a nutter. Spotted every one, and my hearing's not anything special.
( I can't however see any difference with the telly pictures, so I'm with you there. )
Haha fair enough maybe some have better ears! Can I ask - do you notice that one is of better quality or do you just notice there is a difference?
-
Originally Posted by
ukpartydj
I understand that some people probably have finer tuned ears than others, much the same some people are "supertasters" and taste more than most.
But .wav or flac files haven't really taken off with the average consumer for a very good reason.
Also it's not all about bitrate, you've got bit depth and most importantly the quality of the MP3 encoder.
Bad MP3 encoding = bad quality audio.
Using a good encoder such as those used in Cubase I cannot tell a real difference between 320kbps and 150kbps I can however start noticing a difference below 150kbps.
I personally believe those that can hear a difference between FLAC and 320kbps are the type that can see the difference between 1080p and 4K ... A.K.A nutters
The reason MP3 is more popular than FLAC and WAV is nothing to do with quality. It's all done to storage space. People could compress their music and store more MP3 on a high pence per gigabyte storage medium. However, as storage devices get bigger capacities and, more importantly, cheaper pence per gigabyte then file size is becoming less of an issue that it used to be. A knock on effect is that lossless formats are becoming more and more popular because people can now store their digital audio rips at full quality. Simples!
Dazzy D
Lightning Disco & Entertainment
Born to make you party!
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules