The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Can you hear the difference between mp3 and wav? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 12th May 2012
  #151
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist.O.Legend View Post
I created wav and mp3 versions (then converted the mp3 back to a wav)

Never Convert Mp3 to Wav.You wouldn't get your desired results.
He did that for a specific reason to preserve the degradation/compression from the conversion to .mp3 so that when the mp3 version was converted back to wav he could assign the files randomly and they would look the same/be the same filesize while one was still actually the mp3 version disguised as .wav.
Old 12th May 2012
  #152
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioconsult View Post
i allways liked the atrac of the minidisks more.. maybe less neutral but has a musical sound to it i sometimes even used as fx to resample synths. Its not so smeary and icy as mp3 and has an intersting psychoacoustic property to it.

Absolutely agree.

I used to record a drumkit with minidisc and one sony stereo mic, and got the most beautiful compressed sound.

My portable Tascam sounds ok at 24 bit, but recording mp3 and/or using the built-in fx sounds like ass.
Old 12th May 2012
  #153
Lives for gear
 
Teknobeam's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thewhistler View Post
Where I work we received a (big) movie trailer where the music and VO supplied was mp3...


On the main topic I did a small study on this at university. Music and non-music participants. Summary: below 128kbps mp3 almost everyone could tell difference. 192 and above almost no people could tell difference in our listening situation (fairly large speakers in an untreated room).
Well, the same could be suggested in that little context of samples to asking some people that started eating chocolate bars after they became smaller....they would naturally reply..Oh yeah,, all good here. So, university? go figure,, a bunch of folks wearing backpacks hustling to class with an MP3 almost as an appendage. Definitely converts. It isn't surprising. Consider a ;larger context. You have zero control over what the format of the day will be...you have no choice but to accept in terms of purchasing music and really transferring media via the 'social media" matrix. The whole subject has many dimensions / angles. It all dovetails with the advent of the internet. So...back to crappy sounding \Mp3's A neccesary evil given the realities.
Old 12th May 2012
  #154
Lives for gear
 
Teknobeam's Avatar
 

[QUOTE=masaski;7868389]And re-evaluate your career path...if it involves identifying and acting upon subtle (or not so) nuances in sound


Well ..interesting comment. And I don't disagree with the spirit of it. I apply that same philosophy to many aspects of art / synthesizers, and life in general. But this is a discussion about a tangible element. It's kind of a coincidence for me because I recently picked up 6 used EAW JF80's and I was doing some listening tests to make sute they were all consistent. I listened to a bunch of very know material that I use when I commission a large sound system,, or any sound system following more mundane testing. The JF80's are extremly hi fi with output approaching 127 db. I started off listeng to CD's then I started to do MP's.....What a difference. But I knew it would be. I have run into this in large facilities many times just prior to having them pay much more attention to their playback media (another topic). As for career paths... again,, I agree...much more important things involved than the sound of a kick drum or a vintage analog or VA... but we should all be able to have a better medium for listening than the MP3.. It's a cost and bandwidth issue. As things evolve...so should this. If you haven't heard really good sound,, you don't have anything to compare lousy sound to. that's the truth. Oh and by the way.. a lousy sound system and MP3's are partners in crime...misery loves company.
Old 12th May 2012
  #155
Lives for gear
 

I much prefer Wav to mp3,its more crispy,the top end isnt so smooth like mp3 but its more defined,the bigger range is evident,its like whole new layer of sound uncovered

personaly I would never play mp3 if I had same music in wav,not in home,not in phone with earbuds,not in event,not anywhere.... wav just sounds better,I like it even more than vinyl but dont tell anybody
Old 12th May 2012
  #156
Lives for gear
 
projektk's Avatar
 

If you can't hear the difference then your ears must be checked.

Sent from my LG-P925 using Gearslutz App
Old 12th May 2012
  #157
Lives for gear
 
mattjew24's Avatar
 

Yes I can tell the difference between Mp3 and WAV. My god.

I admit you have to listen on monitors and listen CRITICALLY which you should be able to do by now...
Old 12th May 2012
  #158
Gear interested
 
mostapha's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist.O.Legend View Post
I created wav and mp3 versions (then converted the mp3 back to a wav)

Never Convert Mp3 to Wav.You wouldn't get your desired results.
OMFG, does anyone on GS actually read?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ausgeno View Post
Correct. But he'll still fill the next 10 pages with spelling errors trying to justify it.
I assume that's what all this is?


It's probably my fault for wanting facts and not being clear that my intention was to get data that there is a difference, but we're 157 posts into this discussion, not a single person has submitted results or even said anything about it except that they're too lazy to do it. And people are still failing to comprehend the most basic experimental design…I think I'm done.

Out of all the forums I posted this on, GS is by far the most disappointing.
Old 12th May 2012
  #159
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostapha View Post
OMFG, does anyone on GS actually read?



I assume that's what all this is?


It's probably my fault for wanting facts and not being clear that my intention was to get data that there is a difference, but we're 157 posts into this discussion, not a single person has submitted results or even said anything about it except that they're too lazy to do it. And people are still failing to comprehend the most basic experimental design…I think I'm done.

Out of all the forums I posted this on, GS is by far the most disappointing.
we're your little lab animals you experiment on?
sorry I don't play that game, you can keep your test.
as many have already said, it's TOO LONG.
Old 12th May 2012
  #160
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
People here really hate tests heh
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostapha View Post
OMFG, does anyone on GS actually read?
...can i say "i told you so" at this point?
Old 12th May 2012
  #161
Lives for gear
 
robot gigante's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostapha View Post
OMFG, does anyone on GS actually read?



I assume that's what all this is?


It's probably my fault for wanting facts and not being clear that my intention was to get data that there is a difference, but we're 157 posts into this discussion, not a single person has submitted results or even said anything about it except that they're too lazy to do it. And people are still failing to comprehend the most basic experimental design…I think I'm done.

Out of all the forums I posted this on, GS is by far the most disappointing.
45 minutes of hearing a bunch of of clips over and over, friend!

That rates right up there with getting a root canal done. Lazy... or working, do you think?

Grumphh, you like tests, be a hero and take it- or can it.
Old 12th May 2012
  #162
Lives for gear
 
masaski's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mostapha View Post
OMFG, does anyone on GS actually read?



I assume that's what all this is?


It's probably my fault for wanting facts and not being clear that my intention was to get data that there is a difference, but we're 157 posts into this discussion, not a single person has submitted results or even said anything about it except that they're too lazy to do it. And people are still failing to comprehend the most basic experimental design…I think I'm done.

Out of all the forums I posted this on, GS is by far the most disappointing.
So you've posted this test on lots of forums? Why do you care so much? Are you working in file development?
Old 12th May 2012
  #163
yeah Grumphh take the test and tell us.
Old 12th May 2012
  #164
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
we're your little lab animals you experiment on?
sorry I don't play that game, you can keep your test.
as many have already said, it's TOO LONG.
very polite put.. beside from being total useless and ... no way to put that polite ...
Old 12th May 2012
  #165
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by masaski View Post
So you've posted this test on lots of forums? Why do you care so much? Are you working in file development?
nice to hear that gearslutz is not the dumbest forum out there... participating in mp3 versus wav test 20 years after the introduction only appeals to a certain type i guess..
Old 12th May 2012
  #166
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mostapha View Post


I assume that's what all this is?

Wow, you learned how to use the ignore list. And you wanted to make sure everyone knows. How impressive!
Old 12th May 2012
  #167
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
I think I'm done.
One can only hope!
Old 13th May 2012
  #168
Gear interested
 
Pianist.O.Legend's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xonetacular View Post
He did that for a specific reason to preserve the degradation/compression from the conversion to .mp3 so that when the mp3 version was converted back to wav he could assign the files randomly and they would look the same/be the same filesize while one was still actually the mp3 version disguised as .wav.
that's no problem.Good.
Old 13th May 2012
  #169
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mostapha View Post
OMFG, does anyone on GS actually read?



I assume that's what all this is?


It's probably my fault for wanting facts and not being clear that my intention was to get data that there is a difference, but we're 157 posts into this discussion, not a single person has submitted results or even said anything about it except that they're too lazy to do it. And people are still failing to comprehend the most basic experimental design…I think I'm done.

Out of all the forums I posted this on, GS is by far the most disappointing.
Some people have given various reasons questioning the validity/integrity of your test.

Some people have stated they could only tell the difference in certain situations.

Some peope have stated your test is too long.

All of these are valid reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by projektk View Post
If you can't hear the difference then your ears must be checked.

Sent from my LG-P925 using Gearslutz App
Quotes like this with no disclaimers - perhaps these people should take the text.

Also, make the test shorter than 45 minutes. Maybe 10-15 minutes tops and I bet more people would be willing to have a go.
Old 13th May 2012
  #170
Registered User
 

"I'm not doing this test, of course I'll be able to hear the difference on my monitors."

"I'm not doing this test, nobody would be able to hear the difference without a club sound system"

Neither of those are valid reasons. The only valid reason is that the test is too long.
Old 13th May 2012
  #171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ausgeno View Post
.........snip..

"I'm not doing this test, nobody would be able to hear the difference without a club sound system"

....snip....
So, who are the people who listen to your music, and where is it played?
Are you using MP3 in your production (as raw material)? Why?
Old 13th May 2012
  #172
Registered User
 

Not sure what that has to do with anything. My point is that just because someone said there's no different outside a club sound system doesn't mean people shouldn't do the test, they may be surprised by just how much difference can be revealed using decent monitors, headphones and more importantly, ears.
Old 13th May 2012
  #173
yeah but I don't use MP3s (at all)
I know how they usually sound, and I know how they can sound.
but it's a hi-fi listener thing (or for confused DJs) this MP3 format.
not professional, or even semi professional audio production.
Old 13th May 2012
  #174
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robot gigante View Post
45 minutes of hearing a bunch of of clips over and over, friend!

That rates right up there with getting a root canal done.
Indeed. For me, this is the number one reason I can't be bothered with the test: it's too long. And life is too short.

In my own work at least I can certainly hear a difference. During the process of producing and mixing a track I get to know it intimately. For every project I will bounce tracks in various formats such as WAV, MP3, etc. Some tracks translate better to MP3 than others. The source material (instrumentation, dynamic range, etc.) plays a significant role. In some cases the differences are not obvious, but in others it's very obvious -- even at higher kbps. MP3 is by definition a compromise in sound. There is actually an art to mixing to MP3. I occasionally have situations where the final mix for a project is requested in MP3 format! I need to specially tailor the mix to the encoder I am using to get satisfactory results. To summarize, I can clearly hear the effects of MP3 encoding on my own tracks.
Old 13th May 2012
  #175
Gear interested
 

Hi, I have been researching a similar subject in my college work for the last year. The thesis of my piece was "Does perceptual encoding impact on the subjective enjoyment of the programmed material". In the research I conducted some scientifically controlled blind listening tests comparing MP3, AAC and WAV. If you would like to see the results and how I conducted the tests here is a link to all the information... RESEARCH - Stephen White Productions
Old 13th May 2012
  #176
Registered User
 

Quote:
there's no different outside a club sound system
nobody has said that... thats just the situation where it gets more obvious

but everybody knew that mp3 do a quality reduction...at least for the last 15 years..just lately we have things like the slices movie that tries to prove otherwise.. and redundant tests that have a 50/50 % chance to prove otherwise.. because abx tests do make everything that only has minimal differences sound the same when conducted long enough... and 45 minutes is long enough to tire your ears...

so another winer test. what dont says that everybody will get fooled by it..but 50% would be enough to give a result that would say that people dont get the difference...
Implying that also the 50% that did it wright was just by accident...

Thats just the kind of test and conclusion the fraunhofer institute has done themself.
Old 13th May 2012
  #177
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
Some tracks translate better to MP3 than others.
exactly..

so to do a perfect winer test you would choose intentionally only tracks that translate very well..
Old 13th May 2012
  #178
Gear interested
 
mostapha's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuckoo.old View Post
Some people have given various reasons questioning the validity/integrity of your test..…Also, make the test shorter than 45 minutes. Maybe 10-15 minutes tops and I bet more people would be willing to have a go.
Those two criticisms don't go together. You, literally, can't have both. So, which is more important?

Fewer songs or fewer trials per song would raise the burden on showing a difference from random guessing and bias the test towards accepting the null, concluding no difference.

Shorter clips increase the chance that the specific sample choice would influence the results, e.g., accidentally choosing more samples without plainly audible noise floors or reverb tails may serve to mask the difference, which would imply impropriety on my part.

Since half the thread seems to be people accusing me of manipulating my test AGAINST my original intentions, pandering to the lazy people wouldn't help.

All of the criticisms I'm getting show a complete absence of understanding for testing and statistical methodologies. And the resistance I'm getting seem to mostly be "I'm a professional, so my opinion is right and I don't have to prove it…so I'm going to misrepresent everything you say based on a combination of ignorance and stupidity."

When I say, "look, guys, I'm a published research scientist, my test is fine given some obvious constraints," the response is that they'll publish anything…in peer-reviewed psychopharmacology journals.

I'm sorry. I'm not willing to do a worse job at something I understand because of uneducated, hypocritical, lazy people, some of whom can't read or write at a high school level.

I get that people are busy. Fine. I will be next week too. This many posts with no real responses belies that excuse.
Old 13th May 2012
  #179
Registered User
 

he just dont gets it that people here dont fall for "is water wet" type of tests...
The stubbornness he shows indicates a comercial agenda behind the thing.. he needs participants... why that? who would pay for tests that show that mp3´s are as good as wav´s? or is our researcher here still at school and needs to deliver? probably..why should professionals waste time on doing redundant tests...
Old 13th May 2012
  #180
Gear interested
 
mostapha's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveW358 View Post
here is a link to all the information... RESEARCH - Stephen White Productions
Unless that site is a VERY broad overview intended for laymen, claims like this are probably why people think my test isn't valid.

The purely descriptive statistics I saw weren't sufficient to draw any conclusions. The image/video didn't load on my iPhone for som reason, but without a description of the analytic statistics you (may have) used in the text, I'm hesitant to believe they mattered.

Additionally, making people determine mp3 vs. AAC might not be valid and should have absolutely eliminated overall accuracy from consideration with regard to your conclusions.

The only thing you report is that determinations were correct ~39% of the time. It would be easy to get that value if people identified the WAV extremely well but couldn't tell the difference between mp3 and AAC much better than random, which would support the idea that lossless compression is evil for more than purely academic/ideological reasons.

Without statistics that are actually valid, that site says literally nothing.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Chaylon / So much gear, so little time
42
Ntchi / So much gear, so little time
4
85db / So much gear, so little time
31
Blast9 / So much gear, so little time
10
CareerTech1 / So much gear, so little time
15

Forum Jump
Forum Jump