Was wonder what the difference is between mp.3 and...

[Loren Littlejohn]

I was wondering how much noticible difference there is between 320kbps MP.3 file and 16bit 44.1 wav file is if any.


I encoded a song in both formats and I can't hear a difference but I was wondering what the technical difference was?

 

[gibbed]

mp3 files are compressed

wav files are not compressed

if you can't hear a difference, it means your mp3 is of sufficiently high quality to pass as the real deal. whenever you're saving something that you might edit later, you should use an uncompressed format like wav to keep your quality intact.

 

[JBroll]

The main thing you'll notice about mp3 if you put it through a frequency analyzer is that you lose a good chunk off the top in most bitrates. Bad encoding will result in 'compression artifacts' - I'd point to the most obvious being a 'washy' or sound in the high end (cymbal top end sounds like it's getting 'swished around' like mouthwash) around 128k, but now that I think about it most of the satellite radio I hear has some problems like this. If you can't hear a difference, though (as most people can't with 320), enjoy.

You might also want to look into trying Ogg Vorbis, which has no bitrate upper limit and is usually better sounding in my experience.

Jeff

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

Cool thanks JBroll.

I was aware that they are compressed .

I was just wondering the dif between 16 bit wav at 44.1 vs. 320kbps Mp.3 other than file size.

 

[gibbed]

I was aware that they are compressed .

sorry

 

[Torniojaws]

I've heard some production guys say that mp3 compression screws up the sound field, affecting the stereo separation etc.

 

[wishtheend]

Just reverse the phase on the wave file and play the files back together. You'll hear exactly what goes missing.

 

[LSD-Studio]

Just reverse the phase on the wave file and play the files back together. You'll hear exactly what goes missing.

just wanted to suggest the same thing
also the
encoding algorithm makes a significant differece...
I always use frauenhofer and prefer that to LAME caus I've got the feeling that it does "less harm" to cymbals and stuff.

 

[sparkyness]

yep....I can usually even guess the bitrate based on what LAME does to cymbals/high end. It's really starting to bug me so I'm going to go to a lossless format on my mp3 player methinks.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

Acutally I don't know the diff between LAME and frauenhofer I just use the encoder that is apart of cubase.

 

[TheDude]

Acutally I don't know the diff between LAME and frauenhofer I just use the encoder that is apart of cubase.

OUCH! Then I suggest you use 320kbit/sec, cause that encoder suck elephant ass...

I'm using my Ericsson w800 phone as a mp3 player, and that little sucker can play aac/mp4/m4a, which sound better in lower bitrate. 128kbit m4a sounds better than 192 Lame/Frauenhofer imho.

 

[Ben Johnson]

Be a man. Just use wav.

192kHz/64bit :Smug:

 

[TheDude]

Especially THAT spec

 

[JBroll]

GuitarGodGT, Fraunhofer is the group that developed MP3 and LAME is another encoder. I would honestly just download a Fraunhofer converter off the internet - you're much better off exporting WAV in Cubase and letting the Fraunhofer codec take care of the MP3.

Jeff