Can you tell between mp3 and wav format??

[Phil2008]

I cant if a mp3 is 192kbs or higher.

 

[Uriel]

Depends on the quality of the mp3 and the type of music. LAME encoded stuff is pretty good these days.

I've been using ripping lossless since I went from an Xtreme Music to a Xonar D2 and could suddenly hear the difference on a few tracks. I figure that isn't going to happen again with a hardware upgrade if I just stick to lossless.

 

[Hairybudda]

Yeah, thats why I generally rip in FLAC

 

[Flibster]

Yes, depending on several factors.

Original source
Wav file quality
MP3 Bitrate
Listening devices.

Generally, I use FLAC anyway and downsample where necessary to 320kbps mp3.

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

A weird statement coming from me..

- I have severe sight loss but I can tell the difference between JPG and BMP.
- I have less severe hearing loss but I can't tell the difference between MP3 and WAV.

 

[Vegetarian]

A lot of comercal studios compress music anyway for cd's. Synth's also use compressed sound banks... So with certain types of music wav and mp3 wont sound much different. However, accustic stuff is a different story... Classical can sound bad at even 320bps.

Most cases I cant tell much differance. Sony mp3 players sound better than many cd players.

 

[Uriel]

I agree that it's usually only acoustic music where I really start to notice the difference between 192kb/s and lossless.

It's not so much as hearing the differnece but I find listening to lossy formats quite fatiguing when using Dolby Headphone (with both Xonar D2 and Victor SU-DH1). I don't notice it at first but after an hour or so of listening I start finding I'm getting a headache. It doesn't seem to happen so often with lossless.

 

[Nick1881]

Do you not find that Dolby Headphone adds echo? Am I setting it wrong? Or is it my Senn 555's?

 

[bledd]

I can't tell the difference between wav and my 32-320 vbr LAME mp3's, so I rip all my music at that.

 

[marc2003]

i have a crappy stereo, my hearing is nothing special but i still rip all my cds to flac. my collection is so small, it doesn't matter that it takes up more room. plus some of my cds are knackered so it's nice to have a perfect copy.

also, for those who can tell the difference between 320kbps mp3s and wav, have you actually done any double blind testing? not many people can succesfully do it at all. i'm always sceptical of people who say they can....

 

[Uriel]

Do you not find that Dolby Headphone adds echo? Am I setting it wrong? Or is it my Senn 555's?

Yes, but DH1 adds less echo than DH2 or DH3. I use DH1 for the vast majority of my music listening. I only really use the other two for direct close-miked music with little or no acoustic ambience to the recording.

Additionally, I very rarely use upmixing such as prologic II when listening to stereo music. I just let DH simulate stereo speakers.

I don't think headphones with engineered soundstage enhancement suit DH particularly well. The HD555s have either angled drivers or reflectors (or both, can't remember which) that I would expect to mess with the DH imaging. Haven't heard HD555s with Dolby Headphone though.

 

[Borden]

I can tell the difference between 320kb/s mp3's and lower bitrates but not between 320kb/s and wav.

I used to not be able to tell the difference between 192kb/s vbr's and higher bitrates but now since i've had my Beyer DT770's and Aego M's the difference is night and day.

 

[ChazHurst]

I can, depending on musical content, hear significant difference between wav and even 320kbps mp3. But I work in a studio most days and thus am surrounded by top of the range studio speakers worth many thousands of pounds, which pronounce every detail in the sound...

A lot of comercial studios compress music anyway for cd's

That's a different kind of compression... and that happens to almost every commercially available cd currently produced. There is also bit-rate conversion from some high sample rate recording standards down to 44.1kHz but a reduction in overall sonic quality should be negligible.

 

[Uriel]

That's a different kind of compression... and that happens to almost every commercially available cd currently produced. There is also bit-rate conversion from some high sample rate recording standards down to 44.1kHz but a reduction in overall sonic quality should be negligible.

There is an issue of compressed dynamic range too. It's very noticable if you listen to 80s and 90s commercial pop CDs vs today's equivalent. Today's music is generally louder overall but has a compressed dynamic range as a result. It's a shame, but is only really notieable on half decent equipment.

 

[-Ad-]

Yes

But you need good ears, and a damn fine hi-fi/headphone setup also helps.

 

[james.miller]

you dont need either of those to hear the results of an overly compressed music track. even the most basic of equipement will show that up

 

[Flibster]

Just listen to Red Hot Chilli Peppers - Stadium Arcadium on vinyl and then on CD for how bad it gets.

Then throw away the CD and stick with the vinyl.

Spot the difference *taken from another site*

Vinyl on top - CD underneath - 3 songs from Stadium Arcadium.

 

[james.miller]

i didnt even know there was a better version of stadium arcadium

 

[-Ad-]

you dont need either of those to hear the results of an overly compressed music track. even the most basic of equipement will show that up

But comparing a well encoded 320kbps mp3 to a wav on a supermarket special won't be easy

 

[Caged]

To me there is no difference between a WAV file and an MP3 made using EAC+LAME using the -V2 preset. If I take a CBR MP3 made by some random encoder then I can normally tell the difference (unless it's 320k which is a waste of space).