Mar 29, 2017. Discover more music, gig and concert Download torrent file or zippishare in good quality lossless (FLAC, APE) or 320 Kbps mp3 album Heartless Doom. On MP3 CBR 320 Kbps High Quality Audio. 2LP - 25,99 EUR. I Saw the End 2. eBay!PALLBEARER Heartless AZURE BLUE VINYL. Cruel Road 6. Kilauea; Mount Etna; Mount Yasur; Mount Nyiragongo and Nyamuragira; Piton de la Fournaise; Erta Ale.

Matt here again. I took an mp3 listening test here a while ago. The audio test was between an. A number of people commented that a test between a pure wav. File against a 320kb/s mp3 would be more useful. So I went into my vault and pulled out a 24bit wav file with plenty of harmonic content – all sorts of broadband sound just begging to be handled with kid gloves.

Then I shot it through my iTunes mp3 encoder and yanked out a 320kb/s version. The mp3 is only 25% the size as the wav, but is there a sonic trade off? Which file is the mp3, and which is the wav?

It’s hard to disguise the files using this format. In order that you don’t cheat (by looking at the file names or file load times), have a friend play these for you in random and see if you can hear a difference. *** DO NO READ BELOW UNTIL AFTER YOU TRY THE TEST *** I’ve attached a frequency chart and a null test. The frequency charts are identical, but as you can see the 2nd frequency chart (representing the mp3) has a steeper roll off after 16khz.

The reveals the sonic difference between the two files. Not all of this represents loss of sound – it represents change in sound. The mp3 quantizes differently, which is not a loss of sound – just a micro-auditory restructuring of sound. The loss is broadband information which is harder to perceive than designated frequency information. However, if you notice the biggest difference exists where the snare drum is hitting – and it’s no coincidence that snare drums contain the highest content of broadband sound. Frequency Chart for.WAV file Frequency Chart for.MP3 file Like the song in the sample? It’s called Memorabilia by Mechanical Minds.

Come on people, stop this bias [removed] There is certainly and ABSOLUTELY a difference if u compare a 1536kbps WAV file between a 320kbps MP3 file of the same music. How can a 320kbps MP3 has more details and richness compared to a massive 1536kbps of sound being spill out from a WAV file. Even if you use a spectrum analyzer, you can certainly see the WAV holds a better spectrum compared to the MP3.

In order to detect this difference, you will need to use a very good Studio Monitor headphones and a headphone AMP will be desirable as well and not by using some ordinary crappy headphones for goodness sake. From there on, I am sure you can tell the difference so clearly already especially when u try to compare music like Techno Trance with all the ambiance and beats in it. Through the 320kbps MP3, all the richness in the music is tone down slightly. In fact there is also a noticeable difference if u compare WAV with FLAC, don’t believe me? Well try it for yourself then. But again, you can only hear such difference with a good Studio Monitor headphone and not through the speakers please with all the environment noises.

For goodness sake! I hope I do justice for this topic once and for all.

Yes, I definitely heard the difference between the samples. The higher-frequency portion of the vocals is muddied and as someone else pointed out some loss of dynamics. I’ve also noted these differences before on 320kb/s rips from CD’s (specifically Josh Groban’s vocals). Then there is the difference in the quality of the audio reproduction circuitry in the computers themselves (not all audio chipsets are equal). To say the least, I am quite the purist when it comes to my music, however I have discovered that not all people can hear the difference or else they just don’t notice.

I noticed this phenomenon when working in a high-end audio shop back in the 80’s. For a better test, try samples from a DDD recorded CD such as some produced by Telarc or ‘Brothers in Arms’ by Dire Straits.

I will clear all this: – If you listen to modern [low quality] music, WAV files can’t help, MP3 are more than enough, because studios master with mp3 in mind: LOUDER [low quality music]. -if you listen to old music or a music to feel ( except modern music ): WAV files can blow your mind.

MP3 is mathematical operations on your favourite MUSIC. Max 30% of WAV quality. FLAC does only ZIP wav files + removing silent parts. 80% of WAV quality. WAV is full untouched music. But bear in mind, with loudness war, wav sound [just as bad] too! Be careful never buy remastered albums.

FLAC, or WAV -everything else, especially “lossy ones” like mp3, are just plain cr*p. My wife refuses to listen to anything but “CD Audio”, and she always managed to pick out my (320 kbs)”mp3’s”, as sounding worse, against any of her Audio-CD’s. Mp3’s simply do NOT have the dynamic-range audio quality to handle extremely wide operatic, or classical tympanic swicngs, especially with “drums” invloved? However, Led Zep would probably be fine for mp3’s on your iPod.

We have a nice stereo, and she has a Marantz-CD6004, one of the BEST Audio-CD players for “Hi-Fi”, in the world. In fact, it ONLY plays Audio-CD’s, and does it extremely well. And yes, there is a big difference between the source quality of this, versus the myriad of el-cheapo (plastic) cd/dvd/bd combo players out there. I finally converted her fav CD’s to flac, unfortunately, flac only brought the ripped wav down to slightly more than half of the original wav size, but she could NOT tell the difference this time: Marantz-CD6004 Onkyo TX-8050 recv.(with latest firmware, and all settings”FLAT”/”Pure Direct”). In fact, when I randomly selected Audio-CD-track, against the same flac-track-(via Onkyo’s USB port), she picked the flac file 3 times outta 5.!!! This was a one hour test done twice on 2 different mornings, just to be sure.

So “flac”, is the plain winner!!! MP3 introduces difference which are generaly out of audible band. Higher end of the audible band (above 20KHz) is anyway cut-off by reconstruction filters after DACs. Lower end band will be affected in such a way that it is unnoticeable in speaker system. One can get subtle clues in good earphones. It is my belief that his might be due to joint-stereo in MP3 which selectively eliminates ambient information by merging two tracks as a single channel info to compress the size further.

Thats why I prefer to listen original music in FLAC VOG or WAV formats when they are available. This article and test are interesting for sure.

However, there is only one way to actually A/B two or more comparative tracks: You MUST be able to psychoacoustically perceive these tracks without silence in between. Any silence in between playing the tracks will “reset” the ear and more importantly, the mind. It is my opinion that the people who commented on perceived differences between the two tracks, if given the test in this way, would no way be able to tell ANY difference. Here’s how I would administer this test: First of all I would edit EVERY OTHER BAR of the music in an alternating pattern of WAV/mp3/WAV/mp3/WAV/mp3 – WITHOUT letting the listener know which one I started with.

After 3 bars I would place the edited bars in a RANDOM pattern of WAV/mp3 files. But again, the comparison would be done without silence in between the comparative files – edited together in one smooth streaming song. I would then NOT give the answer away just below the samples in the article. THAT’S HOW (in my opinion) these people got it “right.” I TEACH audio engineering and have for years and I won’t jump on the “Emporer’s New Clothes” bandwagon here and try to impress anyone with how I can hear the difference between the guitars strumming (no difference) or the snare drum (no difference) — because there is no psychoaucoustic difference when processed through a Human Being! The test should simply say choose which one is the mp3 and which is the wav and there should be a submit button to find out if you are right or wrong. Believe me, you’ll get a lot less people taking the test at all because many people, again in my opinion, would be afraid of losing status or value in case they were wrong!(Unthinkable!) Though people love to talk about these type of things — some more than others; I even consider it a Sport I call “Talk About.” A certain amount of communication on the subject is useful, but mostly, it’s a waste of time and it doesn’t parallel reality. I’m developing a plug-in that actually automatically sets up random order seemlessly edited A/B’ing.

I call it “Checkerboard A/B” because it’s the way I’ve A/B’d for years – creating a “checkerboard” sort of visual set up by muting every other segment on two tracks in a D.A.W. It gives a checkerboard visual by doing so. Remember, psychoacoustically, NO silence can exist between two or more comparative tracks, or you’ve lost your Scientific controlled experiment.

You’ve entered in an infinite number of possible variables into the MIND of the listener each time silence occurs. In fact each time an ACTION occurs, the Mind will adjust – an ACTION such as clicking off one track and then clicking on another. Bottom line is, I think it’s better to spend our time as Audio Professionals on doing everything we can to help Songwriters and Composers create Masterpiece Songs and Compositions, and on ensuring the musical arrangements of those creations are also masterpieces.

THAT is where we have lost our focus and our priority. Let’s get it back!!! I don’t know how accurate this test is, first of all I don’t think the song had enough variants of sound for it to an accurate test or a good representation of spectrum of sound available. I am no musician or audio expert by any means but I notice that in some songs, in particular dubstep that quality matter. Take a youtube vid of a dubstep song for instance,there is a marked difference between a 480p version and a 780HD (or 1080HD) version of a clip. In the 480p there is a noticeable muffle to the sound quality plus there is a lack of depth and clarity that can be found in the pitch of certain beats and the amount of “drop” the song experiences. The 780/1080HD vers.

Experiences a much heavier drop, having much more base and giving the listener that boom factor. Try playing “The Glitch Mobs Seven Nation Army Remix” in 480p and HD to see what I mean. I all honesty I don’t think this article has answered the question – is WAV better then MP3? Very interesting comments out here, I think from my personal listening that wav files (especialy in Discos and Clubs) sound mouch “warmer” than mp3 files.

There are some Hi and low frequencies that Producers create in tracks that are important in a track. Those noises are all dissapaer in mp3 formats and you hear only the main frequency spectrums.

Also there are those clicks and “picks” of Bass sounds and reverbs that makes you feel “good”. All these when comparing to mp3 are lost. But thats only my opinion and some other opinions of producers. I think it is obiously that 24bit / 96KHz productions are the standard these days. At the end of the production the tracks are shrinked to 44,1 KHz 16Bit to fit the standards for CDs. If there are not such big differences, why should producers go on to produce with those settings and not go and produce just mp3 sound?

I noticed a few people here posting different quality between the two tracks, To really test this properly (at least at home) you would need some high quality speakers; a high quality sound card; and of course an acoustically sound room. Headphones work well but aren’t the same as speakers. I have some decent mid range Audio Technica headphones (Open type) and they really don’t compare to the quality of my KRK Rokit RP8G2 studio monitors.

I personally cannot tell a difference on this computer (on board sound D:) the two tracks sound the same In my own tests I do notice an absolutely huge difference between MP3 @ 128k to MP3 @ 320k (with almost all sources), and then another improvement to lossless FLAC (however not as large) I would imagine that WAV would be better, and then Vinyl on top 😀. MP3 is inferior to WAV. It may not be that noticeable to some but it is still noticeable.

Yet the consumers would rather go for the inferior product, that is downloads, over the quality product, the CD. Yes to play your tunes on a portable unit, the CD must be converted to MP3 (Please do not get me started on AIFF and Apple)but at least the consumer would still own a far better copy too. In all other aspects of consumerism, no one settles for an inferior product when you can afford the higher spec product. Why do so many do it with music. It cannot be just technology, surely not? I have had personal experiences with the wav versus mp3 question. I have noticed on recordings such as country music (George Strait, Tim McGraw) or pop (The Police, U2) that there isn’t much difference in perceived sound, however, classical music or music that has a very wide bandwidth (Bachbusters) the recordings loose quite a bit of the information.

For instance, many of the tracks on the Bachbusters CD loose some very high and very low notes as well as some overtones that are present in the original Recording and the subsequent Wav file. I have used various rippers and all of them seem to exhibit the same “lossyness” to various degrees when converting to mp3 (at 320kbs).The ripper that exhibited the worst problems was Itunes (go figure). I can’t remember what was the best one I’ve used since an unfortunate Windows accident (crash) forced a harddrive wipe:(.

I know it was a free one since I am a cheapskate. I wanted to post a hint for people that are feeling that the difference between the two tracks is minor. Don’t listen with your attention on the center. Mentally swivel your attention to either left or right perception.

It can help to close your eyes and rotate your eyballs as a physical mnemonic, like peering around a corner. What you will find is that the ends of the soundstage are solid, almost hovering, particularly to the right side in the.WAV, whereas the.MP3 has it pump in and out, like it is a ghostly shadow. The assumptions of Adaptive Sideband Compression are inherently flawed. There is the belief that since testing average possibly hearing damaged people from industrial settings in an anechoic sound isolation booth did indicated twin tones of differing level to be heard as a single tone, that those lower tones could simply be eliminated. The reason this does not work out in practice, is that in any acoustic environment during playback, reflections within the space will alter the TIME ARRIVAL information in a spectrally divergent way.

A simple way of saying this, is that the dominant tones you can hear now may come first, and the softer tones could be reflected at a later time and not be masked. But if the compression algorithm has discarded those tones, the soundfield richness is diminished. There is more: a structure in the brain named the “medial superior olives” is like a string tied to a hair trigger on a shutgun. A very minor difference in signal arrival timing (in some cases as short as 1uS, one MILLIONTH of a second, from sources other than WIKI which has it at 10uS), causes a chemical cascade like the shotty going off, and creates what I like to described as a mental location flash. It is far more sensitive to time arrival differences in the musical signal, and operates in parallel to the FFT-like frequency recognition we have based on discrete hair cell signals. It is looking for L-R, L–R, L—R time delays for transients, and the amazing human mind assigns sets for arrivals to fabricate individual archetypal sonic “objects” within our perceptual reconstruction of what we think is the source of a particular sound. It lets us LIVE if something is hunting us in dense jungle undergrowth(if we react accordingly).

Some of the time, the mangled.MP3 file will leave us with L-x, or x–L, or even x—x, (x represents missing information) and the azimuth soundfield collapses, essentially resulting in an amplitude panned mono version of the original recording. Unfortunately, the ear-brain system still struggles to recover the missing information, and this could lead to listener fatigue. Your brain gets confused and either tunes out the potential realness of the recording, or tries to find what is not there and makes it up, or tries to. I like to joke that it could go as far as brain damage, because if you listen to thousands of hours of music that way, you may stunt your ability to hear the effect in real life! Under the right conditions, music can uplift and relax you, or energize you.

Getting distracted by the “flatness” of aspect once important spatial location cues are butchered takes away from the pleasure of being transported. It is my belief that certain musical prodution styles at the professional level already damage spatial cues, or are processed in such a ham fisted manner that.MP3 will not make it much worse. I suggest instead using low microphone count acoustical recordings of guitar, string quartets, woodwinds, orchestra, human voice, massed choir in a real hall setting, or any of your favorite “rock” artists UNPLUGGED as a better comparison rather than big-board or DAW multichannel mastered tracks.

If you aren’t horrified by the collapse, you are likely partially deaf and I feel compassion for you as an invalid. I laugh out loud at “bandwagon” claims! Perhaps your favorite music is the Beastie Boys; I love their music, but they and many other acts of recent decades flatten their sound with a sledge hammer for artistic effect. After that, it MAY BE harder to tell between lossless and compressed.

Widen your musical horizons, and you won’t find.MP3 versions as acceptable on naturally recorded music. I see several posts from people here claiming that people are basically imagining the differences between the MP3 and WAV file. Just as some people have better eyesight than others, some people perceive the frequency content and phase anomalies of sound differently. It is ignorant and arrogant to assume that someone else is being pretentious, or jumping on a bandwagon just because YOU cannot hear the difference. A couple of my friends can’t pick the difference between an itunes encoded MP3 and 16/44.1 WAV files.

Meanwhile other folks I know can hear the subtle differences between consumer grade and pro studio-recording quality DAC/ADC, and prove it by correctly identifying the difference in blind listening tests. The folks that can do this have a trained ear from working in professional audio engineering and mastering facilities. Just because YOU cannot taste the difference between microwave mac&cheese and a freshly made pasta from a Five Star restaurant, doesn’t mean the difference isn’t real. In my 60’s, hearing somewhat impaired, I ran a blind test on my pc with cheap headphones and found the wav recording consistently recognizable on the “make you want to get up and dance to it” scale. A little disappointing, because (a) I put a very high value on the kinetic energy factor of music as accompaniment to my outdoor labor (and I love to dance); and (b)I’ve converted my CDs to iTunes(MP3)thinking I was saving time in the conversion with no loss of audible sound quality. Still looking to convert my vinyl collection to digital – no loss of time going to wav format on that project. Don’t understand the value of converting MP3 to wav, though.

If the range of sound was diminished in order to record it in the more compact MP3 format, seems like the process would not be reversible, since the deleted/unrecorded sound is no longer present in the MP3 files. What am I missing? And what’s the most user-friendly music library for wav files? Will iTunes accept them? I am seeing the placebo and bandwagon effect in full action here. So we had the portable CD player, then we transferred to portable mp3 players; for 14 years no one complained, and now suddenly mp3 is so terrible and lossy that its a pain to listen to anything encoded in this format)).

I am predicting a future full of pseudo-audiophiles using flacs on their portable devices just because its the new thing, its LOSSLESS! The same people who buy 400$ mobile phones and use 1% of its functionality. (Non of this off course relates to producers and musicians.well ok Ill also add to this bunch the 1% of individuals with superior paranormal hearing ability.).

I find it amusing that some people are comparing their mp3s and cds on a laptop. I am a musician and a serious devotee of music and accurate sound.

For me, the journey is hearing exactly what the recording sounded like in the studio. I own a dream stereo–Bryston equipment. Bca Purchase Planning Handbook Of Nonprescription. I also own a DVD Audio and SACD player. Because the more information that is presented to the lsitener the more it will sound like the real thing when it was recorded. When I listen to CD media (including DVD Audio and SACD) I get a 3d sense of the music that hits me in my midsection. When I listen to mp3 I hear a 2 dimensional corpse.

The music i9ndustry should be moving beyond 24 bit/192 khz (recoprding software is now at 32 bit). Instead we have this corporate fostered lowering of the sonic bar through the argument of more is better. You can only listen to one song at one time.

The question is: do you really listen to music or is it wallpaper? I’ve been blessed/blighted with quite sharp hearing and I listen to a lot of acoustic/treble-orientated music. I’ve always found something ‘lacking’ in the higher frequencies under mp3 format, which has made me reluctant to switch to mass-storage since the 90’s.

Until now that is.I’m being overrun by CD’s and find them really tricky in the car I now yearn for USB and MP3 convenience! Today, I found and read and your article with great interest. I did your mp3/WAV ‘test’ over and over and the WAV format won for me each time, especially after focusing on the upper end of the hz range.(The giveaway for me is usually in the guitar-string/fingernail ‘clicking’ I then referred to your Null chart which was very revealing! Where’s this going? Well, I’ve just this week finished saving my burgeoning collection of CDs onto my PC hardrive as WAV files, at the maximum file size.

And also saved these directly onto my Ipod. I will soon convert my car stereo to accept IPod/USB formats. In truth, USB is preferred as the sticks can stay in the car. I note that most after-market Ipod interfaces will only support MP3/WMA files! Does this mean I have to re-record everything in MP3 format.?

Any light on the pool of my mp3/wav ignorance would be greatly appreciated! Mac PS Great choice of track btw! Mac (re: playback of WAV and FLAC files) and others newbie to the forum The Sansa Fuze mp3 player plays FLAC and OggVorbis files. (But not WAV files) In my very basic understanding, if you are not a sound/video editor, the FLAC files, as “native” FLAC, will be great for archiving and playing purposes.

The Sansa Fuze (original, not the new Fuze+), is an inexpensive player with a very good sound chip on board, and plays many formats. Also includes FM radio, voice recorder, expandable microSD slot and other features. 8 Gb for under $70! The Sansa Clip offers same sound decoding chip but smaller and less-friendly GUI for a few bucks less than the Fuze. I have ended up with a fairly large CD collection which I use on the home stereo. And ripped all my favorite stuff to mp3 at 256 or 320 kbps. Most of this sounds very good on my player.

I’m sure that the original pristine vinyl, with a $300 cartridge and $1000 speakers would sound significantly better. I don’t have that kind of home equipment and even if I could, I cannot take it in the car or walking around. So I can accept some loss of quality as a concession to budget and practicality. What I lose in sound quality I really make up for in portability and flexibility. For me that’s a good tradeoff. Imagine in 1978 if someone had told you that the entire wall-shelf of vinyl recordings in your room could be converted to “computer files” and easily fit onto a player the size of a book of matches!

For under $100! For those recordings that I dearly love, I do rip or otherwise obtain the files in FLAC format, and listen on my player.

Brad Mehldau Trio, for instance, “Art of the Trio-Volume 3-Songs” is one where the recording is so good and the sense of space and how the piano drums are mic’ed presents such a beautiful “soundstage” that I really feel it’s worth carrying FLAC files 10X the size of good mp3s. (After all, you can now get 32 gigs (!!) of storage on a tiny microSD for under $20!!!) We’re all on different paths- and isn’t it great to have all these options so economically?! Anyone claiming to hear anything more than subtle, subtle (and i mean subtle) differences, in one instrument at time, is a wannabe elitist [removed] trying to justify his obsession with unnoticeably high fidelity expensive equipment he bought against the recommendation of everyone he knew in real life, who also can’t hear the difference.

The difference between them, is very real and very noticeable when editing/manipulating them, and only then. That is the whole purpose of high bitrates and uncompressed fat files. They have more underneath you can mess with in a DAW if you are so inclined, on the surface though, they are sonically identical for all intents and purposes. Wav is to mp3 what cr2 is to jpg (a filetype designed for the sole use of heavy post production manipulation).

WAV files have tags too, you just need to right tools. Dbpoweramp is the easiest tool.

You install it & click right on a wav file then you select “edit tag” & edit your tags ( there is many that you can add ): artist, song name, album, year, genre & cetera. Those tags are called RIFF INFO tag in wav file, winamp can read artist+song name(not sure about last version). Windows media player can read all tags on wav files.

Btw ripping with wmp it can auto tag wav files 🙂 still didn’t tested wav tag in my android phone 🙂 my favourite artist, all albums are in WAV, sound is truly awesome, you can feel it. Here is url of all tags that you can add in a wav files, there is so many 🙂. Nice test Matt. I only had to listen to the first few seconds of file 2, the audio quality is clearly degraded. 40mb to 4mb (Wav to MP3) – 36mb difference in mathematical reality, but if I was asked to estimate the loss audibly I would say it ‘sounds’ more like 8-10mb, to be fair to MP3.

But I am listening through DT 770s plugged into my laptop. I would expect if I transferred the files to a HQ sound system, I would most likely audibly estimate the loss to be ‘much’ higher, if not the full 36mb. Can the MP3/iPod generation hear the difference? I’m not sure whether hearing the difference matters to them, but ‘knowing’ there is a difference should.

A definitive and educational example of the lossy quality of MP3, thanks Matt. I’m happy to listen to mp3 files at 320kbps, anything lower just feels less snappy. I’ve never thought there would be much difference between codecs but I guess what you guys are really talking about is bitrate anyway. What are.wav files usually anyway?

If it’s lossless as I understand it, it’s probably 900+ kbps right? With all that extra data, it’s insane to think there wouldn’t be a measurable difference, it’s whether or not it’s a noticeable difference. With me, I couldn’t tell the difference when I shuffled the two songs. But after reading about the snare, I was able to pick the wav out.

To answer your question. CD audio (16 bit 44,100hz) has the equivilant of 1440kbps of streamed data. I do a listening exercise with my students on a mid-scale full range PA system in our theatre. We follow it up with a spectrographic show-case of a vinyl source encoded at 24bit 48khz, cd audio, an mp3 from iTunes, and an mp3 generated from youtube. The high end artefacts are noticeable to a small number of the students between cd and iTunes mp3, but everyone can tell a youtube rip. Ruff Ryders Ryde Or Die Vol 3 Rar.

The only thing they notice between the vinyl and cd is there was a less hiss in the quiet sections on the vinyl. Hi, Very interesting example When I checked the audio with compression advisor it gave me: Sample rate 44100 and Bitrate 320kbps Then I ran a script that automatically compresses, decompresses and analyzes (de)compressed file quality using AQuA Wideband with a step of 16kbps it suggested me bitrate of 112kbps and AQuA says that if I encode with Lame at 112kbps then I get 94.38% of quality what corresponds to 4.95 MOS, which is perfect.

I wish I could attach the mp3 I got for your consideration! Regards, Valeri. Barry is very much correct here. A spectrograph is an approximation of frequency response based on an algorithm, which is in turn based on discrete frequency values.

True frequency response is an analog (as in continuous) set of values – all of which are changing through time. To my understanding, mp3 encoding does not alter the dynamic range of the sound – however, because it alters the frequency content, it can have a perceived effect on the dynamic range. But this is why the sound samples are posted. @spendormania – the beauty of mp3s is that the loss is broadband and psycho-acoustically intelligent. When a signal hits an eq – the energy change is in one specific area. The narrower the area, the more obvious the change.

With mp3s, it’s a little tougher to tell what the loss is, because everything is changing. However, it has been my honest experience that the source file going down to a 128kbps mp3 is a pretty distinct difference. 320kpbs is pretty subtle. However, there are still some non-consumer issues that make the quality loss relatively distinct. I often find myself mixing music where the source files involved are mp3s – and the original wavs are inaccessible. Don’t ask why.

In this case, the top end becomes very difficult to manipulate – as it is thinned out so much. It becomes very difficult to provide a sense of “air” to an mp3, as that super high content is distinctly distorted.

Mind you, this is the region over 16khz – where the average person isn’t hearing much (if anything) anyway. Hi folks, after beeing successful in the 128kB vs.

320 kB “test” I liked here the MP3 more than the wav sample. Bye the way: A few years ago, some guys made a double blind test to check out some 128 kB MP3 vs. The original track. Every MP3 track has been made with lame and was burned as a wave sample on cd, side by side with the original. Stereo Equipment was some Rotel, Burmester and Visaton stuff for over 10.000 EUR. The result was very clear: it was very, very hard to hear the differences. When I worked at SLM Electronics (manufacturer of Crate guitar amplifiers), they had a scope and spectrum analyzer set up to show customers how closely their solid state circuit designs resemble the sound of tubes.

But – as in almost all other technologies, theory does not always hold competely true in actual practice. Regardless of what the spectrum analysis looks like, my ears hear less dynamic range and some distortion in an MP3 as compared to a WAV, along with a slight change in the instrumental balance. Not at all surprising. When listening to a digital reproduction of a complex analog signel, my ears hear a slight graininess when a vocal note or cymbal crash fades out, and a few things suddenly jump out that were previously buried in the mix. To some extent, these phenomena also occur in the transition from WAV to MP3. To really capture the difference visually, you would need much more than the rudimentary spectrum analysis shown above, which appears to be taken from only a split second of the music.

In fact, you already see a small difference at the extreme high end – and that’s only one sample. @Jonny & Chromie – my reasoning for using a 24bit wav file was to have the sound quality completely unchanged from it’s original recording. I used the iTunes ripper because it is to my guess the most commonly used mp3 encoder, but I did 320 to do as little data compression as possible. So source file vs. High end mp3 encoder.

I have also heard that the iTunes encoder isn’t the best available. However, if you can hear the difference between two different mp3 encoders at work – you are truly a blessed ear. @Eric – this is “Memorabilia” by a band I produce called The Mechanical Minds. It is soon to be released and used with permission.

Yes, it is a waste of time. Converting an MP3 file to WAV is just like having a re-coded exact copy of an already-digitally-compressed audio recording. The direct video/audio file you download from YouTube is the purest you can get from that particular YouTube video. I actually did this a while ago, but copied the.flv (‘Flash video’ I think) file from the temporary files on my web browser while the webpage was open, and then separated the audio (I think I converted it to AIFF), but I’m pretty sure that must be the same as what those converter websites do (although to numerous different output formats).