Traditional House
Progressive House
Tech House
Techno
Electro House
Trance
Electronica

United States
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
France
Spain
Netherlands

Should I get over my prejudice/ignorance/snobbery for WAV and change to mp3?

Home :: General Discussion :: Should I get over my prejudice/ignorance/snobbery for WAV and change to mp3?Reply

Should I get over my prejudice/ignorance/snobbery for WAV and change to mp3? Posted on: 24.04.2012 by Lin Danek 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.
Roseanna Signorini 10.05.2012	I have to give big props to Mostapha for taking the time and energy to create the test whether I whole heartedly agree with it or not. The basic test is either it is or it isn't, plain and simple. No matter what, there will always be the human factor of "I just guessed on that 1". You took 10 tracks 10 times and mixed em up. The end result will be a % of wrong and a % of right. I believe it would be more accurate if you took 100 different tracks, some mp3, some wav and said, tell me which is which. There still would be statistical data. I took the test. Im the guy who said you can't hear a difference and yes there was instances where I was like, "ok this is the mp3" and then the next trial comes on and I'm like "wait, no this is the mp3 and that last 1 was the wav" Then all those years of test taking comes into play with...I just said wav 3 times in a row, this 1 has to be an mp3 and the mind plays tricks. Im not surprised at the difficulty.
Tarsha Tammi 10.05.2012	I'm very much in the WAVE crowd, I can't wait to see the results.
Romelia Stankard 10.05.2012	Originally Posted by dj matt blaze Well here is my view. If someone says to me they can tell the difference between an MP3 and a wav, then I play you a file, you tell me what it is. Simple as that. If you know what to listen for, it shouldn't matter what the content is, there doesn't need to be A mp3 and B wav of the same thing. You should be able to just tell me what you are listening to, wav or mp3, if there is a such an obvious difference as has been claimed. With that said, the test will be interesting, I may take it myself just for the sake of taking it since Im the one who says you can't hear a difference so I have nothing to lose lol. Originally Posted by soundinmotiondj +1 Consider the following... Color vision: If you can tel the difference between a B&W photo and a color photo...then you should be able to "tell" without needing to A/B the photos. Reality: If you can tell the difference between a photo of an outdoor scene and a window that looks out over the same scene....then you should be able to "tell" without needing to see the photo hung next to the window. ...... At what point in that progression does the difference just fade away? Does the difference ever fall below the "threshold" of the human perception of sound? These are good points
Antonetta Wikel 10.05.2012	Originally Posted by dj matt blaze Well here is my view. If someone says to me they can tell the difference between an MP3 and a wav, then I play you a file, you tell me what it is. Simple as that. If you know what to listen for, it shouldn't matter what the content is, there doesn't need to be A mp3 and B wav of the same thing. You should be able to just tell me what you are listening to, wav or mp3, if there is a such an obvious difference as has been claimed. With that said, the test will be interesting, I may take it myself just for the sake of taking it since Im the one who says you can't hear a difference so I have nothing to lose lol. If a higher percentage of people taking the test can identify the difference I will have no problem admitting that in fact there is an audible difference. No shame, it is what it is, the data doesn't lie. I mean technically we know that a wav is a better file, throw it up on a scope and you will see it very easily but when just listening to something and without a reference and something else to compare it to, can you tell the difference? Now that's a statement I can agree with. I highly doubt there's anyone that would be able to tell you if a single file on a single hearing is a 320 MP3 or wav. I've always said in similar posts to this that the difference is slight and somebody could play an all 320 MP3 set on a good soundsystem and it would sound just fine. But when you can A/B between an MP3 & Wav of the same file there are noticable difference in audio. You hear it in both the upper and lower registers and especially in glissando's, reverb tails and long sustained fades. That's why I was hoping the audio used in Mostapha's test would be a cross section of all kinds of music and not just dance tracks. With that being said, I'm really looking forward to taking the test but won't be able to get to it until at least this weekend and that's if I don't have to work Saturday. Thanks Mostapha for putting in the time.
Dorie Scelzo 09.05.2012	Originally Posted by photojojo Can we do the test multiple times with different listening devices? Maybe picking just one to count to the overall result, but I would be curious what the results would be using my ipod headphones, my MDR7506's and my HD25II's Go for it. Just add in which one was which and I'll keep track of it. Actually, if everyone wants to do that, I could do a few more statistics on the data (if we have enough people) and see if there's a threshold of quality that's required to hear it. For one thing, I kinda can't wait to see if there's a reliable difference between the songs I chose. Originally Posted by TCMuc Just on a side note: a double-blind setting is only necessary in situations where the person being tested can acutally observe the tester. If the tester knows the results he can (unconciously) influence the person being tested, e.g. through his body language. There are verbal instructions recorded with the file which could (maybe) influence things. There was a lot of copypasta, but that's why I did it that way. Plus, I'm okay at remembering patterns, so if I hadn't done it that way, I wouldn't have been able to take it myself. Originally Posted by 3heads Tried the test and PMed you my results, mostapha. Very interested how it's gonna turn out. However the results, the differences were minuscule if existent. Replied. Counting me, that's 2. I'll wait for a few more before I post anything resembling results (though I have scored mine). Originally Posted by dj matt blaze Well here is my view. If someone says to me they can tell the difference between an MP3 and a wav, then I play you a file, you tell me what it is. Simple as that. There's basically no way to make that test statistically valid. Mine is supported by math. Originally Posted by soundinmotiondj I started taking the test this morning. I got interrupted. About two hours later I restarted the test from the beginning. My answers on the first three sets differ from one session to the next. That's why there are 10 different songs. You don't have to be perfect or crappy in order to get a result.
Layne Koop 09.05.2012	Originally Posted by dj matt blaze Well here is my view. If someone says to me they can tell the difference between an MP3 and a wav, then I play you a file, you tell me what it is. Simple as that. If you know what to listen for, it shouldn't matter what the content is, there doesn't need to be A mp3 and B wav of the same thing. You should be able to just tell me what you are listening to, wav or mp3, if there is a such an obvious difference as has been claimed. +1 Consider the following... Color vision: If you can tel the difference between a B&W photo and a color photo...then you should be able to "tell" without needing to A/B the photos. Reality: If you can tell the difference between a photo of an outdoor scene and a window that looks out over the same scene....then you should be able to "tell" without needing to see the photo hung next to the window. Music: If you can tell the difference between a live piano and a recording of a piano.... If you can tell the difference between a 1940's recording of a piano and a modern recording of a piano.... If you can tell the difference between a live concert bootleg and a studio recording.... If you can tell the difference between an LP recording of a piano and a CD recording of a piano... If you can tell the difference between an AAA (analog) recording of a piano and a DDD (digital) recording of a piano... If you can tell the difference between a WAV and an mp3... At what point in that progression does the difference just fade away? Does the difference ever fall below the "threshold" of the human perception of sound?
Layne Koop 09.05.2012	Originally Posted by mostapha The test. I started taking the test this morning. I got interrupted. About two hours later I restarted the test from the beginning. My answers on the first three sets differ from one session to the next. So...I can't tell. Now...I didn't believe that I could tell...and yet again I prove that to myself.
Roseanna Signorini 09.05.2012	My test is valid. If some of your experience in TV qualifies you to speak about research statistics, I'd love to hear it. 10 trials each of 10 songs. The 'score' for each song is averaged and a Student's T-Test is applied looking for significance at the .05 level. Meaning that if your T-Score is above the T* critical value, there's less than a 5% chance that you did better than random based purely on luck. That's good enough for me. I can do the test at .01 if you prefer. Well here is my view. If someone says to me they can tell the difference between an MP3 and a wav, then I play you a file, you tell me what it is. Simple as that. If you know what to listen for, it shouldn't matter what the content is, there doesn't need to be A mp3 and B wav of the same thing. You should be able to just tell me what you are listening to, wav or mp3, if there is a such an obvious difference as has been claimed. With that said, the test will be interesting, I may take it myself just for the sake of taking it since Im the one who says you can't hear a difference so I have nothing to lose lol. If a higher percentage of people taking the test can identify the difference I will have no problem admitting that in fact there is an audible difference. No shame, it is what it is, the data doesn't lie. I mean technically we know that a wav is a better file, throw it up on a scope and you will see it very easily but when just listening to something and without a reference and something else to compare it to, can you tell the difference?
Celestine Porebski 09.05.2012	Tried the test and PMed you my results, mostapha. Very interested how it's gonna turn out. However the results, the differences were minuscule if existent.
Lilliana Perris 09.05.2012	Originally Posted by mostapha The test. Okay, so the test is online (or will be shortly) at www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg054r/soundtest.wav. It's a ~500MB wav file, so bear that in mind if
Hipolito Scionti 09.05.2012	Originally Posted by photojojo Can we do the test multiple times with different listening devices? Maybe picking just one to count to the overall result, but I would be curious what the results would be using my ipod headphones, my MDR7506's and my HD25II's Thing is, if there is no difference then you should be able to listen to it on the best gear in the world and not hear a difference...
Nikole Resende 09.05.2012	Originally Posted by mostapha I know it's hard to trust, but I assure you that the test is double-blind. Just on a side note: a double-blind setting is only necessary in situations where the person being tested can acutally observe the tester. If the tester knows the results he can (unconciously) influence the person being tested, e.g. through his body language. As noone in this test can observe you there is no real reason to do a double-blind test. Anyway, making it double-blind at least guarantess a true randomisation of which track is A or B and gave you the chance to take the test as well. Thanks a lot for taking the time to actually putting together this test!!!! I don't know yet if I will find the time to participate, but if so I surely will send you my results!
Leeanna Ayla 09.05.2012	Can we do the test multiple times with different listening devices? Maybe picking just one to count to the overall result, but I would be curious what the results would be using my ipod headphones, my MDR7506's and my HD25II's
Romelia Stankard 09.05.2012	This should be interesting I'll do it when I get home today, although I don't expect to be able to really tell the difference.
Dorie Scelzo 09.05.2012	The test. Okay, so the test is online (or will be shortly) at www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg054r/soundtest.wav. It's a ~500MB wav file, so bear that in mind if–like our friend from S. Africa–you have to pay for bandwidth. I'll probably create a FLAC or ALAC copy as well (which will be the same, but .flac or .m4a instead of .wav) if people ask for it. It's about 45 minutes long. You'll be listening to 140 audio clips, plus some explanation of what's going on (yay…i found a mic on the floor), plus a section of pink noise to set your volume to a comfortable level. Please avoid changing your volume during the test (certainly only even believe about changing it between songs, not between individual trials). Every clip was normalized to the same volume and played with just a bit of headroom. So you shouldn't have to touch your volume control after you start. After a citation (artist, title, etc.) you hear 4 audio clips in this order: wav, mp3, wav, mp3 to orient you to what you're hearing. Some of them are introduced, others aren't. I just forgot to copypasta all the regions and was too lazy to fix it. If it bothers anyone, I'll fix it. And no, they're not full songs. They're 15-second clips. If I used full songs, the test would take around 12 hours to complete. The songs are mostly modern dance music leaning towards techno and house. Please format your responses thusly: Song[tab]Trial[tab][USERNAME] 1[tab]1[tab][guess, m for mp3, w for wav] 1[tab]2[tab][guess, m for mp3, w for wav] 1[tab]3[tab][guess, m for mp3, w for wav] 1[tab]4[tab][guess, m for mp3, w for wav] … 2[tab]1[tab][guess, m for mp3, w for wav] 2[tab]1[tab][guess, m for mp3, w for wav] … … Doing so means I can easily use a spreadsheet to do the analysis instead of doing it by hand and potentially making a transcription/computation error. Any text editor will work (or you could use google docs or excel or numbers…whatever) just make sure that you send me just that text and not other formatting information if you can. Please PM me your results. I'll do the analysis and keep the actual answers secret (though I'll respond with them once you've done it) to avoid people cheating. After a few people have done it, I'll post a description of the results (without revealing anyone's identity…so there's no potential for embarassment if your ears aren't as good as you believe they are……except for me……'cuz I'm a boss). I'll be publishing my results right after I generate a key. I know it's hard to trust, but I assure you that the test is double-blind. I created wav and mp3 versions (then converted the mp3 back to a wav) and in addition to naming them 1wav.wav and 1mp3.wav, they were copied to 1A.wav and 1B.wav…then, using a shell script, I gave each file a crap ton of chances to switch names (back and forth) based on random number generation…and kept track of it in a text file that I didn't read. So, when I was flipping coins to decide whether each trial was going to be the A file or B file, I didn't know which was the wav and which was the mp3 (they were both referred to wavs inside Logic). And yes, I know how to swap things (using a temp file) so they're not the same file. I look forward to seeing the results and hope I didn't waste all that time. If nothing else, I got to do the test at least…and we'll see if I've been sticking my foot in my mouth.
Dorie Scelzo 09.05.2012	Originally Posted by dj matt blaze The test is pointless with 2 files randomly assigned....you have a 50% chance of getting it right or wrong. There has to be 5 files, 4 mp3 and 1 wav, you have to pick out which is the wav. My test is valid. If some of your experience in TV qualifies you to speak about research statistics, I'd love to hear it. 10 trials each of 10 songs. The 'score' for each song is averaged and a Student's T-Test is applied looking for significance at the .05 level. Meaning that if your T-Score is above the T* critical value, there's less than a 5% chance that you did better than random based purely on luck. That's good enough for me. I can do the test at .01 if you prefer. I haven't scored my answers yet (because I haven't committed to them semi-publically) but I'm supremely confident that I got 100% on at least one of the songs (as in 10 out of 10 correctly identified as wav or mp3 for that song clip). But, after doing the test completely blind, I'll agree that the difference is smaller than I thought it was. I probably did no better than random on a couple of them, based solely on my confidence. I'll PM my answers to JohnathanBlake after this post, since he seems answered and then score them…which will probably take a while. Originally Posted by dj matt blaze Think about all the DJs on this community who claim to know it all and act like their word is law in their condescending snobby way....now multiply that by 10 and welcome to the world of television..... That hasn't been my experience on set. But, I've never worked in post. I have worked in a recording studio before, and I'll agree…clients can be kinda dumb when they believe they know everything. The sad thing is that it's really easy to act superior in that context…and it's never the professional approach. If nothing else, everyone is a slave to confirmation bias. It doesn't take long working in anything like that to adjust an EQ or some color correction or timing or something until you get the effect that you want…only to realize after the fact that you were adjusting a bypassed effector. It happens. That doesn't mean it's okay to do it intentionally without a really good reason (like saving the client embarrassment by tweaking an EQ on a dead channel instead of adding a 10dB boost at 192k or something else based on them misunderstanding jargon). Then again, doing whatever you were going to do next anyway would also work and not specifically insult them if they catch you Originally Posted by dj matt blaze Misinforming? Psycho shell game? Dude, all anyone has to do is put on a wav and put on an mp3, simple as that. That's why I put together that test. Statistics don't lie. Originally Posted by M.Beijer I'm jumping into this thread now too.. regarding your statement about a guy who can't tell the difference should not be mastering and stuff. I got a close friend, examined sound engineer from a respected academy, the studio blue(stockholm). The group of studio blue and their studio is regarded as one of the best in Europe. http://www.studioblue.se/studion He and the others at the studio all say you can't hear a difference between a GOOD mp3 320kb and WAV, remember some mp3s sucks even if its 320kbit due to made in a shitty software. I have been there too, doing blindtest and got the same result, could not pick out the wav. Based solely on the experience of the song, I'll agree it's small. But the difference is there. And, uhh…I don't read/speak Sweedish…but that looks like a recording school. Full Sail, Berklee, and SAE are well-regarded in the US. And I've spoken to graduates of all of them that thing DATs are analog or don't know that MIDI isn't Audio. Recording schools are a joke. I'll agree for lay people, but if you know what to listen for and it's in the song it's obvious.
Mimi Mahaffee 09.05.2012	Originally Posted by SirReal I, also, am in the "field" and while I won't get into territorial pissing match, I will say that if you really can't tell the difference between 320MP3 and wav then I know I'd never use you as a mixer, editor or mastering engineer. While you mention "tricking your clients" by adjusting some placebo fader/eq/button/switch and telling them you did what they asked may work with people who don't come from an audio background, I can guarantee that people who do have an audio background will call you on your shit. While being able to "fool" the general populace is definitely possible, the OP wanted to know about there being a difference between 320MP3 and wav and there DEFINITELY is a difference. Just because you can't hear it, don't misinform the people on this community who want to learn by saying there's no difference and backing it up with psycho-acoustic shell games. I'm jumping into this thread now too.. regarding your statement about a guy who can't tell the difference should not be mastering and stuff. I got a close friend, examined sound engineer from a respected academy, the studio blue(stockholm). The group of studio blue and their studio is regarded as one of the best in Europe. http://www.studioblue.se/studion He and the others at the studio all say you can't hear a difference between a GOOD mp3 320kb and WAV, remember some mp3s sucks even if its 320kbit due to made in a shitty software. I have been there too, doing blindtest and got the same result, could not pick out the wav.
Lilliana Perris 09.05.2012	Originally Posted by JonathanBlake My ignorance and prejudice is largely due to a vinyl background (as a listener, rather than as a DJ) - something that I still indulge in. And no, I won't initiate the vinyl vs digital debate. I have no prejudice against mp3 and grew to accept it as the industry standard when converting to portable (mp3) players. As for snobbery - that's what I'm accused of because I choose to use the 'technically better' (sic) format. @ Mostapha - thank you - look forward. Nothing wrong with being a Wav snob. I refuse to play anything but Wav's on an outdoor sound rig.
Roseanna Signorini 09.05.2012	Originally Posted by SirReal I never said that the "eyes & ears" won't/can't play tricks, especially to the inexperienced, which it sounds like you take advantage of by "faking" a change. All I've stated is that there is a definite and discernible difference between 320 MP3 and wav and if you can't hear it then I wouldn't want you mixing or mastering for/with me. Does that difference mean ANYTHING to the average punter at a club trying to get laid? I doubt it but there's still a difference and that's the point. Spoken like a true snobby audio guy. I saw it the first time when you said you wouldn't want me mixing or mastering, no need to repeat, its OK though, I have mixed and or fixed plenty of audio for tv and radio that has aired with no complaints....if a tree falls in the woods with no one around does it make a sound?? If I know that a wav is a better quality format than an MP3 does it sound better? Sure it does....until you listen to it. oh yea, and PAL blows...
Antonetta Wikel 09.05.2012	Originally Posted by dj matt blaze Misinforming? Psycho shell game? Dude, all anyone has to do is put on a wav and put on an mp3, simple as that. I already stated that just by the post itself its obvious what the anwswer is. You can get on your audio high horse all you like but I know from experience in both audio and video that the mind and eyes and ears play tricks on people when they know that technically something is superior. If you believe you can hear a difference because you're an audio pro, you're the man. I never said that the "eyes & ears" won't/can't play tricks, especially to the inexperienced, which it sounds like you take advantage of by "faking" a change. All I've stated is that there is a definite and discernible difference between 320 MP3 and wav and if you can't hear it then I wouldn't want you mixing or mastering for/with me. Does that difference mean ANYTHING to the average punter at a club trying to get laid? I doubt it but there's still a difference and that's the point.
Lin Danek 08.05.2012	Originally Posted by SirReal I, also, am in the "field" and while I won't get into territorial pissing match, I will say that if you really can't tell the difference between 320MP3 and wav then I know I'd never use you as a mixer, editor or mastering engineer the OP wanted to know about there being a difference between 320MP3 and wav and there DEFINITELY is a difference. Just because you can't hear it, don't misinform the people on this community who want to learn by saying there's no difference and backing it up with psycho-acoustic shell games. yup
Lin Danek 08.05.2012	Originally Posted by dj matt blaze title of the thread is about getting over the snobbery, ignorance, prejudice about mp3's. It is implying that yes I know that MP3 is a suitable format but I am a snob and I have to have what is technically better even though you can't hear a difference. So really the anwser is right there. My ignorance and prejudice is largely due to a vinyl background (as a listener, rather than as a DJ) - something that I still indulge in. And no, I won't initiate the vinyl vs digital debate. I have no prejudice against mp3 and grew to accept it as the industry standard when converting to portable (mp3) players. As for snobbery - that's what I'm accused of because I choose to use the 'technically better' (sic) format. @ Mostapha - thank you - look forward.
Roseanna Signorini 08.05.2012	Originally Posted by SirReal I, also, am in the "field" and while I won't get into territorial pissing match, I will say that if you really can't tell the difference between 320MP3 and wav then I know I'd never use you as a mixer, editor or mastering engineer. While you mention "tricking your clients" by adjusting some placebo fader/eq/button/switch and telling them you did what they asked may work with people who don't come from an audio background, I can guarantee that people who do have an audio background will call you on your shit. While being able to "fool" the general populace is definitely possible, the OP wanted to know about there being a difference between 320MP3 and wav and there DEFINITELY is a difference. Just because you can't hear it, don't misinform the people on this community who want to learn by saying there's no difference and backing it up with psycho-acoustic shell games. Misinforming? Psycho shell game? Dude, all anyone has to do is put on a wav and put on an mp3, simple as that. I already stated that just by the post itself its obvious what the anwswer is. You can get on your audio high horse all you like but I know from experience in both audio and video that the mind and eyes and ears play tricks on people when they know that technically something is superior. If you believe you can hear a difference because you're an audio pro, you're the man.
Roseanna Signorini 08.05.2012	Originally Posted by djproben Do you really do this a lot? I'm kind of on your side of this argument but this just seems rude, especially if you're getting paid to cut the frame or whatever. No, definitely not done a lot but when you get some real ahole who you know is full of it who acts like their little BS video thats going for some corporate presentation that no ones is going to give a crap about is barking orders at you....little things like that will happen.... Think about all the DJs on this community who claim to know it all and act like their word is law in their condescending snobby way....now multiply that by 10 and welcome to the world of television.....
Antonetta Wikel 08.05.2012	Originally Posted by dj matt blaze HD was technologically possible over 20 years ago, but its only been the last 8-10 years that its been really pushed and available. The reason being, because all the networks and stations had to spend millions in gear , not too mention the consumers having to buy HDTV's. So just because something is "possible" doesn't make it economically feasible. Nothing to get excited about? Its twice the frame rate, double the lines, and a bigger aspect ratio, are you waiting for holograms to get excited about? In terms of knowing what to listen for. I have been in the business for a long time, I hear and see things a lot differently than the average person, so believe me, I know exactly what to listen for, and how to listen. You want to believe you hear a difference, then you hear a difference, you're the man. My collection is filled with MP3's, wavs, flacs, and I know the drunk chick on the dance floor or the guy sitting at the bar believes they all sound the same. The title of the thread is about getting over the snobbery, ignorance, prejudice about mp3's. It is implying that yes I know that MP3 is a suitable format but I am a snob and I have to have what is technically better even though you can't hear a difference. So really the anwser is right there. I, also, am in the "field" and while I won't get into territorial pissing match, I will say that if you really can't tell the difference between 320MP3 and wav then I know I'd never use you as a mixer, editor or mastering engineer. While you mention "tricking your clients" by adjusting some placebo fader/eq/button/switch and telling them you did what they asked may work with people who don't come from an audio background, I can guarantee that people who do have an audio background will call you on your shit. While being able to "fool" the general populace is definitely possible, the OP wanted to know about there being a difference between 320MP3 and wav and there DEFINITELY is a difference. Just because you can't hear it, don't misinform the people on this community who want to learn by saying there's no difference and backing it up with psycho-acoustic shell games.
Danae Dumler 08.05.2012	Originally Posted by dj matt blaze I have edited video where some hot shot wants 1 frame taken off, I do absolutely nothing and pretend to take off the frame by rerunning the edit and they tell me how much better that looks. Same exact thing in audio, with this exact scenario, I use an MP3 and they want the WAV, I do nothing and they tell me how much better the wav is, how crisper and cleaner and better sounding, I just smile and say "oh yea, big difference" and send them on their merry way. Do you really do this a lot? I'm kind of on your side of this argument but this just seems rude, especially if you're getting paid to cut the frame or whatever.
Antonetta Wikel 08.05.2012
Roseanna Signorini 08.05.2012	Originally Posted by mostapha 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. 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. HD was technologically possible over 20 years ago, but its only been the last 8-10 years that its been really pushed and available. The reason being, because all the networks and stations had to spend millions in gear , not too mention the consumers having to buy HDTV's. So just because something is "possible" doesn't make it economically feasible. Nothing to get excited about? Its twice the frame rate, double the lines, and a bigger aspect ratio, are you waiting for holograms to get excited about? In terms of knowing what to listen for. I have been in the business for a long time, I hear and see things a lot differently than the average person, so believe me, I know exactly what to listen for, and how to listen. You want to believe you hear a difference, then you hear a difference, you're the man. My collection is filled with MP3's, wavs, flacs, and I know the drunk chick on the dance floor or the guy sitting at the bar believes they all sound the same. The title of the thread is about getting over the snobbery, ignorance, prejudice about mp3's. It is implying that yes I know that MP3 is a suitable format but I am a snob and I have to have what is technically better even though you can't hear a difference. So really the anwser is right there.
Roseanna Signorini 08.05.2012	The test is pointless with 2 files randomly assigned....you have a 50% chance of getting it right or wrong. There has to be 5 files, 4 mp3 and 1 wav, you have to pick out which is the wav. Personally I have no interest in doing any kind of blind test. I know what I know, and I have seen it a million times in both video and audio, people believeing they can tell the difference because they know its technically superior, but the human eyes and ears can't pick up the differences, its like saying you can hear a dog whistle. I have edited video where some hot shot wants 1 frame taken off, I do absolutely nothing and pretend to take off the frame by rerunning the edit and they tell me how much better that looks. Same exact thing in audio, with this exact scenario, I use an MP3 and they want the WAV, I do nothing and they tell me how much better the wav is, how crisper and cleaner and better sounding, I just smile and say "oh yea, big difference" and send them on their merry way.
Dorie Scelzo 08.05.2012	Just that it's not as arcane as you mentioned. My stuff is basically ready to go…just need to do the voice over if people are actually interested, but it'd take the better part of an hour for each person to do the test. Update: I'm done. The audio file is about 44 minutes. I haven't bounced it yet. I'm going to go ahead and do it so I can make sure there aren't any problems with the voice over. And no, I don't know what files are what yet. I mean…they're in a file…but I haven't read it yet. Everything is just [title]A.wav and [title]B.wav with the mp3 version randomly assigned to the A or B file.
Antonetta Wikel 08.05.2012	@ mostapha, not sure what the point of your wiki link is. I work in the audio industry and we use 95% wav/bwf, I rarely see AIFF anymore and it's never used as the final mastering file format. Besides the name of this thread was "wav vs MP3" not Aiff vs MP3"
Danae Dumler 08.05.2012	There's software that already exists that takes a lot of the work out of this; I use ABXTester on the Mac. And by "use" I mean "downloaded and tried once." You give it two files and it gives you five random choices and then tells you how well you scored; it's really basic and simple. I did a wav and mp3 of a tech house song and scored 80%.
Romelia Stankard 09.05.2012	this should be interesting Also if you are converting to .mp3 be sure to do it with LAME and encode to extreme settings 320 CBR which is pretty standard for mp3 encoding. If you are on windows you can use LAME frontend. http://www.pazera-software.com/products/lame-front-end/
Hipolito Scionti 09.05.2012	Originally Posted by SirReal Whie I won't quibble about AIFF vs WAV, I will say that WAV is the industry standard and AIFF is a legacy file format from Protools of years ago and not widely seen or used anymore. Take that for what it's worth. Well it's what Beatport sell ... either AIFF or mp3 I could do a couple of CD rips from classic stuff and have to convert to MP3 in itunes.
Dorie Scelzo 09.05.2012	As long as you can structure the test correctly, go for it. I know I can, so that's why I volunteered to do it. And I could do it in a way that was double-blind…it'd just require making a script that looked at song1wav.wav and song1mp3.wav and randomly renamed them 1A.wav and 1B.wav, didn't tell me which it was doing, and wrote what it did to a log file that I could look at later. As for buying tracks…unless they're the same tracks, the test is pointless…you're comparing the tracks and how they were mixed/mastered as much as the format. And there's no reason to buy things more than once. I'd suggest buying the lossless file, converting to mp3 on your system, then converting back to a lossless format on the same system. That's how I'd do it. Make sure to have enough trials and decide whether you want it to be an ABX test (as in…here's the wav twice, here's the mp3 twice, now here's 10 that are randomly mp3 or wav…which format is each one?) or a preference test (here's version 1, here's verison 2, which one was the wav?) with several trials for each song. Also, I'd avoid older stuff. All the classics were recorded pretty badly by today's standards and have a lot of specific noise and distortion as well as a much higher noise floor. I've never done a test like that (because I've never bothered with wavs for that music…only listened on iTunes AAC or vinyl) but something tells me the ridiculously loud noise floor would skew the results. Also, I found an sm58 sitting around. And I have some free time. Plus, I actually know how to analyze the results and get an answer with statistics instead of arbitrarily deciding 70% is lower than 100% so it's not good enough or whatever. I might go ahead and do it. Originally Posted by SirReal Whie I won't quibble about AIFF vs WAV, I will say that WAV is the industry standard and AIFF is a legacy file format from Protools of years ago and not widely seen or used anymore. Take that for what it's worth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiff
Antonetta Wikel 09.05.2012	Originally Posted by MaxOne I was believeing I was gonna buy songs direct from beatport. The same song as AIFF and mp3 We gonna quibble WAV vs AIFF btw? Surely lossless is lossless I was gonna use new tracks too... Whie I won't quibble about AIFF vs WAV, I will say that WAV is the industry standard and AIFF is a legacy file format from Protools of years ago and not widely seen or used anymore. Take that for what it's worth.
Antonetta Wikel 09.05.2012	Originally Posted by MaxOne I was believeing I was gonna buy songs direct from beatport. The same song as AIFF and mp3 We gonna quibble WAV vs AIFF btw? Surely lossless is lossless I was gonna use new tracks too... Personally, I'd use a cross section of music types. Also older tracks that you KNOW were recorded and mixed in a professional studio and mastered properly. Think Pink Floyd, Steely Dan, Fleetwood Mac along with select house and EDM tracks. The reason I say this is many of today's newer dance tracks use suspect samples as source and sometimes mastering on them is non-existant. I'd also include at least one Classical track and maybe a Jazz track.
Hipolito Scionti 08.05.2012	Originally Posted by SirReal We'd have to settle on what encoder to use to make the MP3's. Has anyone done a test between say, itunes MP3 encoder and WMP encoder? I wonder if there's a difference there? Does anybody know if the MP3 encoder is a single program licensed by many players or does each player write it's own code for MP3 encoding? Can of worms? Kettle of Fish? I was believeing I was gonna buy songs direct from beatport. The same song as AIFF and mp3 We gonna quibble WAV vs AIFF btw? Surely lossless is lossless I was gonna use new tracks too...
Antonetta Wikel 08.05.2012	We'd have to settle on what encoder to use to make the MP3's. Has anyone done a test between say, itunes MP3 encoder and WMP encoder? I wonder if there's a difference there? Does anybody know if the MP3 encoder is a single program licensed by many players or does each player write it's own code for MP3 encoding? Can of worms? Kettle of Fish?
Hipolito Scionti 08.05.2012	Originally Posted by sarasin The listening devices need to remain constant for it to be accurate. So we all need to listen on the same device. Not so? If you can tell, you can tell. If you can't you cant. This isn't going to prove anything once and for all. There are people who are saying they can 100% hear the difference. I personally believe i can but have never tested myself. It'll be a bit of fun

<< Back to General Discussion Reply

Copyright 2012-2023 DJRANKINGS.ORG n.g.o. Chuo-ku, Osaka, Japan	Created by Ajaxel CMS
Terms & Privacy

The best DJ in Puerto Rico is:

Should I get over my prejudice/ignorance/snobbery for WAV and change to mp3?