Should I get over my prejudice/ignorance/snobbery for WAV and change to mp3? A combination of audiophile snobbery, ignorance, prejudice and an ability to convince myself that I CAN hear the difference has resulted in me only buying WAV files from Beatport and JunoDownload. I am also fortunate enough to have a 500GB ASUS NJ61 that only has my (stripped) OS, Traktor and music library on it. Our currency is about to hit 8 Rands to 1 Dollar and I am reconsidering the cost of WAV upgrades. I've read the science (I'm sick of reading about WAV's "voracious appetite for disc space" and "once lost with compression, always lost to compression") but want to hear from this community.
1. Is WAV REALLY worth it?
2. Will I notice the difference?
I really appreciate the sound quality of the S4 and don't want it compromised. |
Lilliana Perris
08.05.2012 | The listening devices need to remain constant for it to be accurate.
So we all need to listen on the same device. Not so? |
Hipolito Scionti
08.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by mostapha
If I get bored enough, I'll record one.
The thing is that because of the different sound systems the conclusion is different. It would be trivial–with that setup–to show that there is a difference between mp3 and wav. Failing to reject the null hypothesis (that there is no difference) would not be conclusive because that design begs the question of whether or not a better listening environment would make a difference.
So, if you guys want to do it, I'll throw something together (if I can find a Mic for instructions and what not) ……… but know that the only conclusive outcome of the experiment would be to possibly confirm my side…and a result against my side won't be conclusive because of the way logic and statistics work.
Na!
I'm doing it Mostapha cause we want to see if you can tell the difference because you're saying you can |
Dorie Scelzo
08.05.2012 | If I get bored enough, I'll record one.
The thing is that because of the different sound systems the conclusion is different. It would be trivial |
Lilliana Perris
08.05.2012 | I wanna see BLINGFOLDS people!!
|
Lin Danek
08.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by photojojo
I would record random songs into one file in traktor if I was doing a test.
Just reread your post Chris - after Max1's reply - makes most sense. My suggestion was to get someone (else) to LOAD random mp3/WAV files for playback (without visual indication). |
Hipolito Scionti
08.05.2012 | I might do this then...
I like the idea of one traktor WAV recording.
The same song 4 times maybe with a random amount of mp3 to WAV ratio
and 4 x 4 tests? different genres etc |
Lin Danek
08.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by photojojo
then there's the idiot with the iPod headphones
I would record random songs into one file in traktor if I was doing a test.
Put them out of their misery - PLEASE.
Better still, get someone else to do it for you. |
Lin Danek
08.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by mostapha
I thought that's what this thread was supposed to be about |
Leeanna Ayla
08.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by MaxOne
That shouldn't make a difference should it? people who are saying they can tell the difference surely have the gear
themselves.
It's what people believe they have. One person has a set of $500 monitors, one person has a set of $100 headphones, one person has a Funktion One system in their living room, then there's the idiot with the iPod headphones. They all believe they have the qualified gear
to do the test. Of course it should really only matter what you would normally listen to it on anyway. If you play at a club regularly then listen there, if normally play at home listen then there. The point is to listen to what you would normally listen on.
I would record random songs into one file in traktor if I was doing a test. |
Hipolito Scionti
08.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by photojojo
To many variables on what people are listening to the samples on.
That shouldn't make a difference should it? people who are saying they can tell the difference surely have the gear
themselves. |
Dorie Scelzo
08.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by Pagaille21
Theoretically there should be no differnce as 320bit mp3s 'keep' all the fundamental frequencies we could possibly hear.
There is nothing about that statement that's correct. I'm guessing you got it off some marketing site? |
Leeanna Ayla
08.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by MaxOne
Any way we can do a poll? Like maybe with a few downloadable sources... All WAV but some converted from 320mp3...
Would that work?
Then people could commit to which is which on the community
before releasing the results.
To many variables on what people are listening to the samples on.
Can you please take the sound cloud player out of your sig pagaille21. |
Staci Brionez
08.05.2012 | Theoretically there should be no differnce as 320bit mp3s 'keep' all the fundamental frequencies we could possibly hear. This being said, i notice an audible difference on big speakers.
also i gotta admit, mp3 is hella convenient
In saying that if you are playing to a crowd, you should be using wav files, you need any extra edge as a dj and slightly better sound quality could be the reason you get another gig. |
Hipolito Scionti
08.05.2012 | Any way we can do a poll? Like maybe with a few downloadable sources... All WAV but some converted from 320mp3...
Would that work?
Then people could commit to which is which on the community
before releasing the results. |
Dorie Scelzo
08.05.2012 | I thought that's what this thread was supposed to be about………………oh………i see what you did there. |
Lin Danek
08.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by sarasin
Ooooh BURN!
That last remark is gonna open the can!
LOL!
Here we go again.......... |
Lilliana Perris
08.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by dj matt blaze
Seriously?? I have worked with television engineers, broadcast technicians, professionals in this field that live and breathe this stuff and not ever has anyone ever said that HD sucks and looks like shit. Your opinion is your opinion but reallly, it doesn't take a genius to see its better. You sound like the old guys who refused to get a color tv because the black and white one is the same thing. I never worked at best buy, I worked in broadcast television. The only thing I see that is shoved down consumers throats and is nonsense is that 1080p HD is pure HD top quality when you can't tell the difference between 1080p, 1080i, or 720p. Those who say they can see a difference are the same ones that say they can tell the difference between a 320 mp3 and a wav. Its all in the mind.
Ooooh BURN!
That last remark is gonna open the can!
LOL! |
Antonetta Wikel
07.05.2012 | FYI my test were double blind MP3 vs wav. Also 23.98 fps is not film speed, it's video speed. Film is 24 fps and is equivalent 30ndftc. 23.976=29.97ndftc. A difference of .01%. Let's not even get into PAL. |
Dorie Scelzo
07.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by dj matt blaze
Seriously?? I have worked with television engineers, broadcast technicians, professionals in this field that live and breathe this stuff and not ever has anyone ever said that HD sucks and looks like shit. Your opinion is your opinion but reallly, it doesn't take a genius to see its better.
Yes. It's better than SD or normal, old TV. It's not better than what was technologically possible a decade ago. Better. But not good enough to get the least bit excited about.
Originally Posted by dj matt blaze
Those who say they can see a difference [between HD versions] are the same ones that say they can tell the difference between a 320 mp3 and a wav. Its all in the mind.
I can tell the difference b/t 320 mp3 and wav in blind tests. The fact that you can't just means you don't know what to listen for. |
Layne Koop
07.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by dj matt blaze
Well the end result of your sound is only as good as your speakers. Its been said a few times about doing the blind test. The reason I say its in the mind is because you know its technically inferior therefore you believe you hear a difference.
+1
"Confirmation bias", "verification bias", "experimenters bias" by any other name are real. A "double blind" test is the *only* way to get a valid result. There is a reason that the "double blind" test is the standard in ALL of science. |
Roseanna Signorini
07.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by SirReal
@djmattblaze. I'm one of those people that can hear a difference between 320 mp3 and wav and I disaggree with your statement wholeheartedly that it's "all in the mind" I also believe Mr Popinjay has a very good point about image size and quality of a soundsystem for easily telling the difference.
Well the end result of your sound is only as good as your speakers. Its been said a few times about doing the blind test. The reason I say its in the mind is because you know its technically inferior therefore you believe you hear a difference. I said this in an earlier post that I have literally had people complain to me about the quality of something and I tell them I did it over when I did nothing at all and they then said, oh you see, thats much better. I kid you not, I wouldn't change a thing, I just told them I did but because they thought they were gettting something better they believed it was better. |
Roseanna Signorini
07.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by MrPopinjay
Surely it depends on the gear
you're viewing with? The larger the resolution the more obvious the flaws become? Or am I misunderstanding what these numbers mean?
Kinda the opposite. The 1080 number is the number of lines. The more lines the clearer the picture will be. The letter i or p represents interlaced or progressive which means how those lines are scanned. A single frame is made up of 2 pictures of video called fields. Standard def is 480i. 480 lines scanned interlaced meaing it scans all the odd lines first and then goes back and scans all the even lines. Now this done in a 60th of a second. 29.97 frames of video per second which people round up to 30. HD has 1080 lines and scans at 59.94 frames per second giving you a crisper cleaner clearer picture. 1080p scans those lines progressively at a slightly slower frame rate of 23.98 which is the same rate as film. Progressive meaning its scans them in order twice, not like interlaced that does odd then even giving you an even clearer picture technically. To your eye though, you can't tell the difference, its too fast. |
Antonetta Wikel
07.05.2012 | @djmattblaze. I'm one of those people that can hear a difference between 320 mp3 and wav and I disaggree with your statement wholeheartedly that it's "all in the mind" I also believe Mr Popinjay has a very good point about image size and quality of a soundsystem for easily telling the difference. |
Kiyoko Wellisch
07.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by dj matt blaze
The only thing I see that is shoved down consumers throats and is nonsense is that 1080p HD is pure HD top quality when you can't tell the difference between 1080p, 1080i, or 720p. Those who say they can see a difference are the same ones that say they can tell the difference between a 320 mp3 and a wav. Its all in the mind.
Surely it depends on the gear
you're viewing with? The larger the resolution the more obvious the flaws become? Or am I misunderstanding what these numbers mean? |
Roseanna Signorini
07.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by mostapha
I believe you're the blind one. I can see pixels from a reasonable viewing distance on every single LCD I've ever used except my iPhone at arm's length. I couldn't see pixels on my Trinitron. And it actually made black instead of that weird glowing whiteish black that doesn't even look like gray.
1080p looks great when the diagonal size of the screen is about 8". Any bigger and the dot pitch gets so fucking big that it's just as ugly as anything else on LCDs.
So, congrats. You're probably part of the problem. Shoving HD down consumers throats and telling us it's better when yes, technically, it is better…but it's still ugly as fuck.
I'll wait for the next standard and maybe end up with graphics quality that I got out of desktop backgrounds and video games at the turn of the century.
Seriously?? I have worked with television engineers, broadcast technicians, professionals in this field that live and breathe this stuff and not ever has anyone ever said that HD sucks and looks like shit. Your opinion is your opinion but reallly, it doesn't take a genius to see its better. You sound like the old guys who refused to get a color tv because the black and white one is the same thing. I never worked at best buy, I worked in broadcast television. The only thing I see that is shoved down consumers throats and is nonsense is that 1080p HD is pure HD top quality when you can't tell the difference between 1080p, 1080i, or 720p. Those who say they can see a difference are the same ones that say they can tell the difference between a 320 mp3 and a wav. Its all in the mind. |
Dorie Scelzo
08.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by dj matt blaze
CRT is high resolution but definitely not better than LCD, (its that old thing with your brain playing tricks on you) and not even close to the capability of maximum resolution of LCD.
I believe you're the blind one. I can see pixels from a reasonable viewing distance on every single LCD I've ever used except my iPhone at arm's length. I couldn't see pixels on my Trinitron. And it actually made black instead of that weird glowing whiteish black that doesn't even look like gray.
1080p looks great when the diagonal size of the screen is about 8". Any bigger and the dot pitch gets so fucking big that it's just as ugly as anything else on LCDs.
So, congrats. You're probably part of the problem. Shoving HD down consumers throats and telling us it's better when yes, technically, it is better…but it's still ugly as fuck.
I'll wait for the next standard and maybe end up with graphics quality that I got out of desktop backgrounds and video games at the turn of the century. |
Roseanna Signorini
08.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by mostapha
You know literally nothing about what you're saying. I was there. I set my monitor's resolution higher than I've seen any consumer LCD go. I am a photographer. I'm dating a girl who actually works in TV. I appreciate a legitimate dynamic range in my screen, and I like the color black. I'm not big on LCDs, but I've made my peace with them. HD video is something I'll never pay for.
HD video is the mp3 of the video world. It fucking blows, but it's marginally better than the cable tv we grew up with, so we're happy to have it.
The only difference is that video files at 30MP/frame and 24 frames/sec are legitimately too big to stream over the Internet. FLAC isn't.
Your numbers are little off. I spent 14 years in television and worked extensively every day with pro HD. SD is 480i 29.97fps. HD is basically 3 different resolutions, there are more but are rarely used. 720p 59.94fps, 1080i 59.94fps, 1080p 23.98fps. There is a significant difference between 480 lines of resolution interlaced at 4:3 aspect ratio compared to 1080 lines of resolution interlaced or progressive at 16:9. If you can't see that, time for some new glasses. To say that HD is only marginally better than SD is way off. There is also the matter of the chroma subsampling of 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 and it records at 440mbps standard or 880mbps high. Broadcast HD is recorded on tape. CRT is high resolution but definitely not better than LCD, (its that old thing with your brain playing tricks on you) and not even close to the capability of maximum resolution of LCD. |
Dorie Scelzo
04.05.2012 | That sucks. |
Lilliana Perris
04.05.2012 | Storage is cheap....but the bandwidth to get your data back down...is not.
Google Drive - 100GB for $4.99/month. |
Lilliana Perris
03.05.2012 | @M...
LOL...yeah... we seen all the funny pics regarding this!
Like the Cellphone Camera? Cellphone....and camera...held together with an elastic band.
We are innovative!
But yeah, it sux dude. You have no idea. I DL at work...where it is FREE!
But for home...it sux man. Best way to do it, is get a decent line and share it via WiFi for your neighbours etc and get them to pay you a few bucks.
Then at least you split the costs etc.
The SpeedStick Mobile USB dongle I have, is REAL fast....5GB can go in an hour!
21Mb\s....but it rarely goes faster than 3Mb\s. |
Lin Danek
03.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by mostapha
it was cheaper and faster to tie a USB stick to a homing pigeon than to transfer stuff over the internet. I believe SAfrica has it a bit better off than that
Or strap it to a tortoise, and no M, we're not that much better off. |
Lin Danek
03.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by MrPopinjay
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a guy with a few hard-drives speeding down the motorway :P
that will work |
Kiyoko Wellisch
03.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by mostapha
I remember reading a study that in certain parts of southern africa (sorry…not sure which country) it was cheaper and faster to tie a USB stick to a homing pigeon than to transfer stuff over the internet.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a guy with a few hard-drives speeding down the motorway :P |
Dorie Scelzo
03.05.2012 | I remember reading a study that in certain parts of southern africa (sorry…not sure which country) it was cheaper and faster to tie a USB stick to a homing pigeon than to transfer stuff over the internet. I believe SAfrica has it a bit better off than that, but stilll……60GB over 12 Months? I've used that in a week before, easily. There are days when I've used 5 times that in a evening
(downloading linux live CDs to help people fix their computers). |
Lilliana Perris
02.05.2012 | YES!...yes it does.
IN London, before there was ADSL Internet, you STILL had ISDN lines to the houses.
No such luxury here in SA.
My Co-Manager has 4MB line, thats capped at 60GB's.
Thats cool and all, but it costs him a BOMB.
In the UK, my brother has a 10MB line, uncapped....that costs him 17 Squid a month. There are added extra's I have not mentioned in that package.
Here, for R170....you don't even get 1GB 3G.
We need more competition... |
Kiyoko Wellisch
02.05.2012 | Ouch! That really sucks! |
Lilliana Perris
02.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by JonathanBlake
Ek hoor jou!
I was sitting pretty for a year...when I got the Cell C Speedstick with 60GB's over 12 months.
I could surf at home and DL at work.
Now, its done. I paid R3000 up front for it.
Now, for a similar vibe....4GB a month....costs you R4500. Thats without the modem!
Fuck that man... |
Lin Danek
02.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by sarasin
Yep!
+1 with Jono.
Its all capped lines here. The uncapped is shaped.
Ek's gatvol 'bru! |
Lilliana Perris
02.05.2012 | Yep!
+1 with Jono.
Its all capped lines here. The uncapped is shaped.
The unshaped, uncapped lines...have HEAVY contention ratio.
So the bottom line is....bandwidth in SA...is still VERY expensive.
We have 2 new lines that have been installed here, from the left side of Africa.
You must have read about it Jono....the WACS line.
The design capacity of WACS is at least 3.84 Tbit/s, now upgraded to 5.12 Tbit/s.
http://www.techcentral.co.za/what-wa...nsumers/31012/
Should give us a kick in the ass and get the competition thing going!
|
Lin Danek
01.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by MrPopinjay
Sorry? What do you mean Jonathan?
Like you I DON'T buy the bandwidth argument -
- I am sure a business empire like beatport gets a preferencial deal from their ISP
- Your points about Imgur/DropBox/Photobucket (even facebook) etc are very valid
As regards SA - its a double whammy - we get whacked at the site AND use very expensive bandwidth locally |
