Can you tell between mp3 and wav format??

Phil2008 said:
mp3? god no. nasty compressed format! Not fit for human consumption on anything other than hold music down a telephone! CD quality WAV files stored at 1411kbps. Average 3min30sec songs is 45,000KB in size. Best quality MP3 is 320kbps and is only 9,000KB in size... very poor sound at best, you'd notice after out processing it would sound tinny and lackluster. LARGE CHUNKS ARE LEFT OUT ON mp3 TO FIT IT INTO THE SIZE!
Click to expand...

True, but at 320kbps, most of the data that's lost is inaudible to most people on most equipment. I have a semi-decent (~£800) hi-fi, and I can rarely tell the difference between lossless and 320kbps MP3 if it's ripped with a decent encoder. Go down to 192kbps and the difference becomes more apparent.

But disk space is really cheap anyway, and even if you do direct WAV rips from CD, you could still store several hundred albums on a £40 hard drive - so why not rip to lossless? Also has the benefit that if the CD gets lost or damaged, you still have a perfect copy of it.

Flibster said:
Californication CD vs 'Unmastered' Bootleg
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. I have a copy of Californication but I find it more-or-less unlistenable. Whoever mastered it wants shooting.
 
Flibster said:
I don't mind if the peak is at -1db... as long as it's not constantly at -1db. I like having the quiet bits and the slow buildup to the noisier areas. As long as there is suitably large dynamic range then it's all good.
Click to expand...
Yeah, unless listening environment is really quiet low volume points gets drowned so as overall somekind compression is OK...
Car is really worst example of that, movie soundtracks are plain painfull to listen in car.

But like in photography there has to be contrast or otherwise result is flat like empty tire.
 
I have to admit that I can't tell the difference between 160kbps MP3 and a FLAC file. I have an external DAC, amp and HD555 'phones and as long as the encoding is good an MP3 sounds just as good.

There was a thread a while back that I like to link to quite often. It suggests that telling the difference is much harder than many like to make out.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17565580
 
Mattus said:
True, but at 320kbps, most of the data that's lost is inaudible to most people on most equipment. I have a semi-decent (~£800) hi-fi, and I can rarely tell the difference between lossless and 320kbps MP3 if it's ripped with a decent encoder. Go down to 192kbps and the difference becomes more apparent.

But disk space is really cheap anyway, and even if you do direct WAV rips from CD, you could still store several hundred albums on a £40 hard drive - so why not rip to lossless? Also has the benefit that if the CD gets lost or damaged, you still have a perfect copy of it.



Ridiculous. I have a copy of Californication but I find it more-or-less unlistenable. Whoever mastered it wants shooting.
Click to expand...
I always did wonder why there was distortion on Californication.
 
It's funny i just playing through some albums this morning with my new DAC and i noticed just how terrible RHCP albums sound ...recent ones at least.

The better my hifi system gets the worse they sound.
 
Lots and lots of albums are horribly mastered. It's a real pleasure to find ones that arn't nowerdays :/
 
To be honest a Chilis album could have the best mastering in the world with superb dynamic range and it would still be unlistenable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom