Wave versus mp3 files

[Ronniebootwest]

I think that we all know that mp3 files are a compressed music file that reduces the size on a hard drive - as opposed to a WAV file that takes up considerably more hard disk space. These days, it is quite difficult for the average person to detect any difference in the sound quality when a WAV has been converted to mp3. There must be a difference though and I am sure that the 'techies' will advise us.

My question is this: If a track from a CD is recorded and then saved as an mp3 file and then later on you convert this up to a WAV file (using one of the many audio converters available); will the sound quality be much worse than saving the recorded track as a WAV file in the first place?

One for you Brian I reckon!

Ron West

[Ken Cox]

well Ron if you took the same file in wav and mp3 format

and played it in audacity

and viewed the patterns

you might get a hint as to the difference

a web bud that is quite knowledgeable told me one time that a mp3 160 bit or better equals the quality of a cd

i googled and found this thread that seems to answer your question

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=mp3+vs...v+quality&meta=

http://hometheaterhifi.com/forum/printthre...read.php?t=1655

revised the search and looks like i found the answer

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=sound+...omparison&meta=

ken

[JRR]

Ron:

I tend to think of MP3 and WAV in the same vein as jpg and psd/tif files

I wouldn't do anything with an MP3 file that I would not do to a jpg file in terms of compression and re-conversion etc etc

[Conflow]

Mp3 -v- Wav Sound Formats

Like all 'Audio Sounds' - its really down to the individual, and quite honestly a load of "Ruddish" is printed by so called

Audio Reviewers and the like - I guess it sell's Magazines !

It's down to Biology - Age - Gender - and Loudspeaker Quality and Background 'White Noise'. Women hear Sound differently than Men, and age in both genders reduces the natural 'Sound Frequencies' which we were capable of hearing when young.

The young can hear from 20Hz ~ 20,000Hz, but when in the Autumn of life this is reduced to 150Hz ~ 8000Hz approx.

MP3 Format

This 'fools' the human Brain through the Auditory System into thinking that it hears sounds which are factually not there.

Its brought about by using the most repeatitive Sounds & nuances and the natural 200millesec delay in the Auditory System coupled with extensive use of complex Fletcher-Munston Sensitivity Curves which all 'Human Ears' follow.

Consequently massive reductions can be made in the "bulk content" of the Music Track, however like JPegs all MP3 Sounds degrade drastically if one re-records them again and again.

WAV Sounds

These are pure 'Audio Sounds' which we hear in everyday life. You can record these with a Tape Recorder (Amplitude Recording) or you can Record Digitally with PWM or PCM Recording which faithfully reproduces the 'amplitude nature' of natural sounds.

HI-Fi Discs are a good example.

At the end of the day its down to the Loudspeakers and our Age Ability to hear the Sounds.

Hope this simple explaination helps.

Brian.Conflow.

[Ronniebootwest]

Hello Brian, 'a simple explanation' what on earth would one of your complex explanations be like?

I guess what you are really saying is that a WAV file is going to be better in the long run and that attempting to convert an mp3 back to a WAV is not recommended. OK, that answers my question. I have my music stored on a 250gb hard drive so it will take me quite a long time before I can fill it with WAV files.

For interest, I can say that currently I save WAV files which end up with a file size between 28 & 37 mb and I then save again as an mp3 at 320 which reduces the file size to an average 7 mb. I must be getting old, because I really cannot hear any difference in sound quality.

I find that I need to have the WAV file in order to 'burn' onto a CD.

Ron West

[Merlin]

Hello Ron,

More than anything else, it will depend on the sound quality of the system of the person listening.

Just as it matters if the person viewing will be looking at a computer monitor or old TV set when viewing pictures.

Think of the .WAV file as a .TIF at 1600x1200. Beautiful! but most people will never see it.

Often files are converted to .JPG at 800x600 or maybe 1024x but the 1600x1200 .TIF isn't used. Why? Most people won't have the equipment to see it.

Likewise with sound. While some of us have the expensive equipment to hear .WAV quality, or even beyond, most people will be listening on a computer's speakers or maybe a TV set speaker. In those cases MP3 sound quality is adequate.

>If a track from a CD is recorded and then saved as an mp3 file and then later on you convert this up to a WAV file (using one of the many audio converters available); will the sound quality be much worse than saving the recorded track as a WAV file in the first place?

An Audiophile, with lots of expensive sound equipment will be able to concentrate on the sound and hear a difference if s/he wants to.

The average person won't notice.

Even the Audiophile likely couldn't hear the difference on a computer sound system or TV.

Using the picture analogy again. A person with a 25" monitor and 1600x1200 video card can see the difference if they look real close. The average person with the average monitor won't.

>>If a track from a CD is recorded and then saved as an mp3 file and then later on you convert this up to a WAV file (using one of the many audio converters available); will the sound quality be much worse than saving the recorded track as a WAV file in the first place?

Think of converting a .TIF to .JPG to save disk space. If you do it once and store it, it's probably OK for most applications.

Convert back to .TIF? well you'd only have the .JPG quality in a .TIF format. Convert back to .JPG and you lose even more.

Me?

I keep original .WAV files archived on CDs.

I have MP3s on my computer for casual listening.

BTW, many 'seasoned' people can hear below 150 Hz.

They often don't care anymore, but they could hear it if they cared to.

>I must be getting old, because I really cannot hear any difference in sound quality.

It probably has more to do with the audio equipment than your hearing

-Merlin

[Conflow]

To:- Ronnie Boothwest (No:2 Reply

Well Ron, there you have it, both from Merlin and Myself - we are saying the same thing in different way's.

I will confirm that your 27-36mB Files being reduced to 7mB is about right at 4~5:1 Compression Ratio.

I personally use FM.Radio Quality MP3 Format at 22kHz Bandwidth and 96-128 bit Conversion rate. There I can achieve a 10:1 Compression ratio where-by your 27-36mB Wav Files are reduced to 2.7mB ~ 3.6Mb for Show Presentation on the available equipment in Public Premise's. If one listens to the BBC.FM Radio Broadcasts even on Quad Equipment one would be hard put to discern the differences between a CD and the BBC Transmission's

I might be a 'idea' worth looking at if you are into Multiple CD Productions or Downloads.

Brian.Conflow.

[Kurt S]

There are also non-destructive compression formats such as Flac and Monkeys Audio files. These will not compress the file size as well as an mp3 or wma will but you will not lose any quality either. If sound quality is important to you but you need to reduce the file size, have a look at these.

Flac - http://flac.sourceforge.net/

Monkeys Audio - http://www.monkeysaudio.com/

[Conflow]

Reply to Kurt

Hi Kurt,

Yes, quite true, both 'Flac' & 'Monkeys Audio' Compression Formats work superbly well, the

only problem being that apart from their own Players there are very few generic Players nor

Multi-Media Players capable of playing those Formats ~

Excepting the 'QCD Multi-Media Player' available (Free) from www.quinnware.com ~

Its like 'WinAmp' but much better, but also worth a try !

Brian.Conflow.

[Kurt S]

the

only problem being that apart from their own Players there are very few generic Players nor

Multi-Media Players capable of playing those Formats

Quite true. I don't normally use theses formats except when I'm archiving audio to hard drive or CD for backup. But I thought it would be good to give the original poster other options as well.

[Conflow]

Kurt,

I absolutely agree with you ~ My only concern about 'Flac & Monkey Audio Formats' was in consideration to others who may have thought that these Formats would work within a PTE Presentation ~ I'm not sure that Flac & Monkey are supported by the PTE Engine ?...That's one for Igor to comment on !

However, as Kurt has suggested they are both very good for 'Music Archival' purposes - the quality differences between them and LARGE WAV File's is insignificant.

If readers would like to try those Sound Formats, I know for certain that the QCD Player supports these Formats as I use the Player myself for other purposes.

Brian.Conflow.