›

MP3 VS. WAV VS. AIFF VS. VINYL

RAW_HAMBURGERRAW_HAMBURGER 1,438 Posts
edited December 2008 in Strut Central
After reading the Suzanne Vega article somebody posted here, and also having read previous online material regarding mp3s and the loss of frequency within.....do yall really think you can tell the difference, really ?b, 21b, 21how about something like a taste test challenge ? i dont think heads can tell the difference between a 320 quality rip vs a wav or vinyl.b, 21b, 21audiophile/sound engineer's chime in.....
«1

  Comments

  • GropeGrope 2,970 Posts
    who cares? F*ck MP3s!!! it's not a matter of quality. who is suzanne vega?
  • BurnsBurns 2,227 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21 how about something like a taste test challenge ? i dont think heads can tell the difference between a 320 quality rip vs a wav or vinyl.
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21b, 21A taste test is needed. I love to hold and look at my music though, not in a shiny black or white box like mp3's. I hate reading books online.
  • RAW_HAMBURGERRAW_HAMBURGER 1,438 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21who cares? F*ck MP3s!!! it's not a matter of quality. who is suzanne vega?
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21b, 21wow.... your smart.b, 21b, 21not that it should matter to you, considering you probably dont listen to music.b, 21keep it moving.
  • spelunkspelunk 3,400 Posts
    You can't just take any song and run the test. If you are using a track from a recent rap album that is compressed and volume maximized to hell you probably will not be able to tell. If you're listening to some lo-fi 45 you probably won't be able to tell. All the detail that you would be "missing" is already gone. But personally if I'm listening to something that was well recorded on some nice studio monitors, I can pick out differences. Especially with the disco 12s that I've ripped (through an Apogee Duet which is no slouch). But when I rip them I can use a really nice cartridge which on the whole makes them sound better coming out of Microwave than played live with a shure M447.b, 21b, 21But really in the WAV vs. MP3 debate your signal chain matters a million times more than which file format you choose. A well-recorded 192k mp3 is always better than a WAV file recorded straight into a laptop 1/8th minijack line-in.
  • GropeGrope 2,970 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21who cares? F*ck MP3s!!! it's not a matter of quality. who is suzanne vega?
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1
    b, 21
    b, 21wow.... your smart.
    b, 21
    b, 21not that it should matter to you, considering you probably dont listen to music.
    b, 21keep it moving.
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21b, 21i never heard of music! you're making me look like a fool now! stop it.
  • PABLOPABLO 1,921 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21But when I rip them I can use a really nice cartridge
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21b, 21Name names, sir.
  • hertzhoghertzhog 865 Posts
    I think when you go over 256 kbps most human ears really can't tell the difference. b, 21b, 21I stumbled upon this:b, 21b, 21a href="http://mp3ornot.com/" target="_blank"1http://mp3ornot.com//a1b, 21b, 21I got it right, but even that difference isn't so obvious. b, 21
  • canonicalcanonical 2,100 Posts
    When I reissued the Chandra "Transportation" EP the band had lost the master tapes for the original EP. So, I went to Peerless Studio in Boston and had them do a very expensive vinyl transfer. They used some really nice equipment and dare I say the output sounded better than the original EP. Both the MP3s and the vinyl release (which is at 33rpm as opposed to the original 45 rpm 12") sound more full and heavy than the original vinyl.b, 21b, 21In sum, with the right equipment and mastering techniques you i1can/i1 make MP3s and vinyl-rips sound really, really good.
  • GropeGrope 2,970 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21
    b, 21In sum, with the right equipment and mastering techniques you
    i1can
    /i1 make MP3s and vinyl-rips sound really, really good.
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21b, 21who would have known?!?!?!?!?
  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21I think when you go over 256 kbps most human ears really can't tell the difference.
    b, 21
    b, 21I stumbled upon this:
    b, 21
    b, 21
    /a1
    b, 21
    b, 21I got it right, but even that difference isn't so obvious.
    b, 21
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21The difference is hella obvious to my ears...
  • RAW_HAMBURGERRAW_HAMBURGER 1,438 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21You can't just take any song and run the test. If you are using a track from a recent rap album that is compressed and volume maximized to hell you probably will not be able to tell. If you're listening to some lo-fi 45 you probably won't be able to tell. All the detail that you would be "missing" is already gone. But personally if I'm listening to something that was well recorded on some nice studio monitors, I can pick out differences. Especially with the disco 12s that I've ripped (through an Apogee Duet which is no slouch). But when I rip them I can use a really nice cartridge which on the whole makes them sound better coming out of Microwave than played live with a shure M447.
    b, 21
    b, 21But really in the WAV vs. MP3 debate your signal chain matters a million times more than which file format you choose. A well-recorded 192k mp3 is always better than a WAV file recorded straight into a laptop 1/8th minijack line-in.
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21b, 21b, 21this is why i posted this, your saying one thing...while ive read otherwise, where nothing is lost.b, 21science of sound.
  • johmbolayajohmbolaya 4,472 Posts
    Lossless
  • canonicalcanonical 2,100 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21
    b, 21In sum, with the right equipment and mastering techniques you
    i1can
    /i1 make MP3s and vinyl-rips sound really, really good.
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1
    b, 21who would have known?!?!?!?!?
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21Dude. What's with the sarcasm? Making a vinyl rip sound better than the vinyl is a considerable feat in my opinion. Especially for music with a very full and deep sound (e.g. disco).b, 21b, 21I'm not talking ripping some loner folk record here.
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21
    b, 21But really in the WAV vs. MP3 debate your signal chain matters a million times more than which file format you choose. A well-recorded 192k mp3 is always better than a WAV file recorded straight into a laptop 1/8th minijack line-in.
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21b, 21I've heard this before but I tried it myself, comparing two sound files:b, 21b, 211) One recorded via my S*rato box, directly into my laptop via USB.b, 212) One recorded via my mixer, through RCA outs, into my mini-jack line-in. b, 21b, 21And the two sounded identical. If there was a difference in sound quality, neither myself nor my friend (who I sent both tracks to) could pick up any difference at all. b, 21b, 21Don't get me wrong - I'd definitely be open to improving my digitizing process but I haven't found that going line-in is some big disaster.
  • RAW_HAMBURGERRAW_HAMBURGER 1,438 Posts
    id really like to see a thorough test done.b, 21including all staunch mp3 haters/ vinyl purists, sound engineers and those behind the invention of the mp3/ digital format.b, 21b, 21reason being that i play out often, and also put records out.b, 21b, 21so many people think xyz, where as i would like definitive proof ending this debate......b, 21b, 21sure i've heard cats play mp3s that sound like tin...not talking about that.b, 21all digital sound would be of course the highest quality.b, 21b, 21"you lose the bottom end on mp3s...i cant use that in the club i need a wav, i can tell the difference"b, 21suuuuuure you can.b, 21b, 21i referenced the suzanne vega article cuz when she went to germany , the inventor of the mp3 used her song. she said something along the lines of...well, mp3s are inferior and that why people still use vinyl...he told her she was incorrect and used the black box theory as his back up.
  • PABLOPABLO 1,921 Posts
    Could you expand on your opinion and gimme a link to the Vega article?
  • RAW_HAMBURGERRAW_HAMBURGER 1,438 Posts
    the link is somewhere on here, from yesterday maybe ny times related toms diner storyb, 21im out the door otherwise id find the link and expand.
  • swissbeatzswissbeatz 152 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21After reading the Suzanne Vega article somebody posted here, and also having read previous online material regarding mp3s and the loss of frequency within.....do yall really think you can tell the difference, really ?
    b, 21
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21b, 21on sibilant material there's no way not to tell. S sound like shh, even at the highest bitrate.
  • deathvalley90210deathvalley90210 398 Posts
    a href="http://measureformeasure.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/toms-essay/?scp=5&sq=Suzanne Vega&st=cse" target="_blank"1suzanne vega article/a1
  • swissbeatzswissbeatz 152 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21...while ive read otherwise, where nothing is lost.
    b, 21science of sound.
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21b, 21 img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/NO.gif" alt="" 21b, 21b, 21It's made for you not to notice what's lost, It's called psycho-acoustics. b, 21It's not like a wav 44100khz 16bit file (1411 kb/s) has at least 3/4 of redudant information that can be discarded with no alteration, That just don't make sense.
  • BeatsoupBeatsoup 511 Posts
    I made up a couple tests just for kicks, see if you can tell the difference... The tests have three different encodings ripped from CD. Mp3 128, mp3 320 and wav (uncompressed)b, 21b, 21Test 1 is red black and green - Roy Ayers Ubiquityb, 21a href="http://www.divshare.com/download/6030278-730" target="_blank"1http://www.divshare.com/download/6030278-730/a1b, 21b, 21Test 2 Freddy freeloader - Miles Davisb, 21a href="http://www.divshare.com/download/6030237-c7a" target="_blank"1http://www.divshare.com/download/6030237-c7a/a1b, 21b, 21 I can always tell between 128 and wav but 320 can be tougher. Cymbals are usually a give away for me like on Freddy freeloader, any high end stuff gets ugly with mp3s. b, 21b, 21I'll post what each file is tomorrow
  • MjukisMjukis 1,675 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21You can't just take any song and run the test. If you are using a track from a recent rap album that is compressed and volume maximized to hell you probably will not be able to tell. If you're listening to some lo-fi 45 you probably won't be able to tell. All the detail that you would be "missing" is already gone.
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21b, 21Exactly. A lot of recent music is so processed and compressed it doesn't really matter, and so much is about the recording end of it anyway. But if you're playing Roxy and Elsewhere on a good setup, on the other hand... I do think you can tell.
  • UnherdUnherd 1,880 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21I think when you go over 256 kbps most human ears really can't tell the difference.
    b, 21
    b, 21I stumbled upon this:
    b, 21
    b, 21
    /a1
    b, 21
    b, 21I got it right, but even that difference isn't so obvious.
    b, 21
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1
    b, 21The difference is hella obvious to my ears...
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21b, 21Hell yeah. Theres might be a little change in the warmth, but its the difference in the highs thats obvious. The 128 one sounds muffled and harsh, shit is just not smooth...
  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21
    b, 21
    b, 21Test 2 Freddy freeloader - Miles Davis
    b, 21
    /a1
    b, 21
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21Wav, 128, 320
  • bull_oxbull_ox 5,056 Posts
    I'm surprised there's much debate about this.b, 21b, 21I've definitely had MP3s that sounded like a 3rd gen tape dub w/Dolby added.b, 21b, 21I rip WAVs from CD all the time, and they are exactly the same as the source (just as they're supposed to be).b, 21b, 21Plus I wonder how many of you are doing the "taste test" on laptop/PC speakers, which really aren't going to reveal much anyway...
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    DigDug:b, 21b, 21I don't think people are debating the merits of burning from I>CD/i1. This is primarily about ripping from vinyl and how to encode from there. b, 21b, 21And I'm assuming people are taste testing using headphones.
  • prof_rockwellprof_rockwell 2,867 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21
    b, 21But really in the WAV vs. MP3 debate your signal chain matters a million times more than which file format you choose. A well-recorded 192k mp3 is always better than a WAV file recorded straight into a laptop 1/8th minijack line-in.
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1
    b, 21
    b, 21I've heard this before but I tried it myself, comparing two sound files:
    b, 21
    b, 211) One recorded via my S*rato box, directly into my laptop via USB.
    b, 212) One recorded via my mixer, through RCA outs, into my mini-jack line-in.
    b, 21
    b, 21And the two sounded identical. If there was a difference in sound quality, neither myself nor my friend (who I sent both tracks to) could pick up any difference at all.
    b, 21
    b, 21Don't get me wrong - I'd definitely be open to improving my digitizing process but I haven't found that going line-in is some big disaster.
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21b, 21well, this wasn't a real good comparison, since the CW on the Microwave box is that the converters are crap to begin with anyways.b, 21b, 21and it really does come down to quality control, who the eff knows what you're getting when you get stuff from the internet. Digiwaxx says that all their files are at least 192, but considering how many people still don't grasp the concept of how MP3s work, it could easily be a 64k song that someone converted to a 192 thinking that all the missing stuff 'got put back in'
  • crazypoprockcrazypoprock 1,037 Posts
    /font1
    font class="small"1Quote:
    /font1
    h, 21
    b, 21id really like to see a thorough test done.
    b, 21including all staunch mp3 haters/ vinyl purists, sound engineers and those behind the invention of the mp3/ digital format.
    b, 21
    b, 21reason being that i play out often, and also put records out.
    b, 21
    b, 21so many people think xyz, where as i would like definitive proof ending this debate......
    b, 21
    b, 21sure i've heard cats play mp3s that sound like tin...not talking about that.
    b, 21all digital sound would be of course the highest quality.
    b, 21
    b, 21"you lose the bottom end on mp3s...i cant use that in the club i need a wav, i can tell the difference"
    b, 21suuuuuure you can.
    b, 21
    b, 21
    b, 21
    h, 21
    font class="post"1b, 21b, 21you act like tests of this kind have never been done. and that there are definitive answers to this...it's so subjective! why fight it...vinyl always wins. i agree with the post regarding not being able to tell the difference between a rip from a mini jack versus a better set-up but whatever, our ears can't pick up the frequencies that are lost but we know they are gone. it's inherent in the equation when the file gets converted and compressed.b, 21b, 21just because our ears don't hear much difference on a home stereo doesn't mean there is no difference. i mainly notice the difference in clubs...if you happen to be at a club with a good sound system and there are multiple dj's...and there's at least one vinyl dj you will hear the difference when the switch from Microwave to vinyl happens...trust me! b, 21b, 21i'll give one real world situation i experienced recently. i was at APT to see my friend dj Duane play...maybe you are friends with him too. anyways, Duane has the sickest record collection but now he's all Microwave and he still kills it with Microwave. but this night his guest was Dam-Funk and he plays wax. so towards the end of the night they were drunk and having a blast and trading off djing back and forth. anyways, Duane drops this dub version of Rah Band "messages from the stars"...and this is a big Dam-Funk tune...he referenced it in his WaxPo article. so the dub plays...dam-funk takes over and mixes into the vocal version of the same tune from his vinyl copy and BOOM the track suddenly sounds HUGE!!! Was this a coincidence? Did he just gain up the track with the trim knob? Maybe...i doubt it. Truth is...12" vinyl will always kills an mp3.b, 21b, 21why fight it? PLAY VINYL PLAY VINYL PLAY VINYL PLAY VINYL!
  • DuderonomyDuderonomy Haut de la Garenne 7,793 Posts
    OK, first off, excuse the pleb talk as I'm no sound engineer, butb, 21b, 21I seem to remember somebody dropping some knowledge on the sound-quality thing, and this guy explained that while there's very little difference between a high quality digital sound (WAV/CD) and vinyl, part of what makes vinyl sound much better is actually the process of playing the vinyl, the effect of sound being picked up through vibrations on the needle, that cannot be recreated digitally. Something to do with all sound waves basically being vibrations. So no digital format will ever sound as good as a record when it's playing, but a recording of that record being played, and then played back digitally is exactly the same as a CD or WAV, but CDs are generally mastered in a tiny, harsh way that doesn't sound as natural and 'warm' as vinyl.b, 21b, 21b, 21So play vinyl live!
  • izm707izm707 1,107 Posts
    This question is stupid to Studio rats like me and others onboard. It's quite valid if you're just a listener. I already hear it in the background "pleeease, explain".b, 21b, 21Well, studio addicts can tell the difference automatically when it's MP3. It's not about the human ear limitations, it's about certain frequencies not present when you use parametric EQ's. It's about some fuzziness that you ear in the background. It's about Elastic Time acting up (reel hedz know the deel).b, 21Now for listeners, the answer is simple. MP3 or WAV don't matter. Only the source is important and determine the ooutcome. A bad rip will sound bad in MP3 and WAV. The loss of infos is not really perceptible when you use computer speakers, MP3 players or such. In conclusion, since MP3 files are smaller, it's not a bad thing to capitalize on MP3.
Sign In or Register to comment.