mp3 vs waw- can you hear the difference? (I can't)

Waw file? I'm assuming you meant .wav file?

yes.  I can hear a difference between wave files and 128k mp3's.  I can't hear a difference between 320k mp3's and wave files, tho and anywhere in between 128k and 320k depends.  some music I can, some I can't.

it will also depend on the genre of music you're listening to as well.  if all you're listening to is hard rock or death metal or something that's slammed to a brick then you might not hear any differences. 

You're not supposed to hear any difference. That's the whole idea behind perceptual encoding: you're only removing stuff you can't hear anyway.

There's a plugin out now that does MP3 encoding on the fly, so you can hear what your mix will sound like after encoding. It has a feature that allows you to hear just the stuff that's being removed. Many reviewers have noted how scary that is, to hear what's going to be missing, and it reinforces their belief that MP3s are horribly inadequate. But the truth is you weren't going to hear those things in uncompressed waves, either.

I am, of course, talking about higher bitrates, 192 kb/s and up. At 128, you can usually hear the degradation clearly, especially in an A/B audition. But at 256, it's very difficult to hear the loss, and even then only on high-pitched sounds such as triangles. The music you listen to on the radio was probably delivered electronically to the broadcaster as compressed data which (though not MP3) is equivalent to about 256 kilobits per second.

Far more relevant is the quality of the playback device. Sadly, the majority of portable MP3 players have dreadful DACs in them that are prone to aliasing. Even high bitrates can't save those abominations.  

For a start, it is very dependant on the music content. Of you have a lot of cymbals and high frequency stuff going on, it's going to be very audible. If you just have a simple track with a bass and deep mellow singing, things are getting more difficult. In my experience. The lower the mp3 bitrate, the lower the perceived frequency attacking (to my ears). Why do you think they use variable bit rate encoding? It's based on the fact that more complex material needs a higher bitrate to adequately 'trick' the human ear and simple stuff you can get away with a lower bitrate. I typically think a variable bitrate encoding of say 192-320 is more than adequate for everyday listening. It'll only go down to 192 if it needs to and stay at 320 if it needs to. So as long as the encoder reliably gets this, we are good!

128, I believe I can hear all the time if I listen. Some songs it stands right out at you and punches you in the ears. Other songs you don't really notice, till you listen, and then you can't listen to it anymore once you realised as you then hear it like daylight.

320, sometimes. I have done a direct A/B of some of my music before and I could hear a VERY subtle difference in the high frequency content. The .wav just seemed that teeny little bit clearer and sharper in the very top of the highs. But if you gave me a 10 minute break between listening to the two samples, I highly doubt I would be able to hear the difference. Thus my conclusion is 320 is perfectly adequate because I don't think I could pick it out in real world examples (ie direct A/B ing two versions is NOT real world - that's not how we listen to music).

And although I have never tested for or experienced it, there should be difference in different .mp3 encoders. The new encoders should be much better at 128 than the original ones at 128 when .mp3 first came out.

You betcha. The difference between an MP3 and raw wave (CD) is dramatic. But you require some decent equipment (and ears) to hear it. Most iPods and MP3 players, and low to mid range monitors do not have the resolution to hear the difference. But, compare them on a quality hi-fi and you will be stunned at how bad they sound. The losses are dramatic. FLAC and other lossless formats do a much better job, but nothing compares to a raw wave.

FLAC and other lossless formats do a much better job, but nothing compares to a raw wave.

Erm, except FLAC IS bit for bit the exact same WAV at playback time.

If you take into account any tool specific metadata in the file header and do a there and back conversion you'll end up with the exact same WAV data.  FLAC is just using a real-time de-compression codec to arrive at the same result, think of it as a playable 'zip' file if you like.

The clue is in the term 'lossless'...

It doesn't mean, fairly lossless, reasonably lossless or not lossless enough for Shad's golden ears, it means LOSSLESS.

A paradox, the OP loses no credibility at all for being honest enough, along with several others here to state the limitations of their own ears, yet Shad loses ALL credibility for claiming 'dramatic' differences even where they don't actually exist.  Go figure.

I guess it provides a good example why the OP was reluctant to mention it, because there's always someone around to claim super-human powers and thus some kind of imagined superiority it provides them with.  Lots of good stuff mentioned here aside from that though.

HTH

Seems to not make a difference to my ears...but then...working in a foundry for 13 years and being in a touring band just might have something to do with that.....

Always go to the highest bit rate you can with MP3.... (320kbs) and you should be fine.

Hearing the problems in MP3 will be more evident at teh lower end of the scale 128kbs.... for example. 

On a good playback system it will sound like crap. 

Never use mp3's even at the 320kbs rate in a final mix that will end up as a wave...... unless there is no other options.  Always get the waves. 

I work a lot across the internet and use mp3's because they are smaller and can be attached to emails. but for the final mix... it has to be 100% wave files. 

It's when you take the MP3 track mixed out to a wave.... as in exporting from Sonar, and then reconvert to MP3 again to post online that you are now reducing something that has already been reduced one time before.... not a good scenario. 

Bub


I've asked this before and never got an answer .... maybe someone here can chime in ...

I don't dither when I export my projects. For example, I'll take a 96kHz/24bit .wav and make a 320k MP3.

I've never seen an option when making an MP3 for dithering.

Does anyone know if MP3 codecs apply dithering when you convert .wav's higher than 44.1kHz/16bit or what exactly happens?

Thanks,

Bub

I always export and dither down to a 16 bit wav from the DAW if it is going to end up as an mp3.  I never do it any other way.

It will depend to some degree what front end to the decoder you are using that will dictate what happens during conversion which is why I do it myself at the exporting from the DAW phase.  Then it's just a case of giving the codec the instructions required to make the mp3 from that.

I usually use Audacity to trim any white space from the front and end and set up the encoder there to convert from the 16 bit wav to whatever bit rate mp3 I want.  I've just got into that routine but there are plenty of different ways you can go about it.

I'm not even too sure if dithering is even worthwhile when held up against what happens during the conversion process, but I guess it's good practice to dither when changing down from one bit depth to another.

Try a listening test between different dither algo's if you really want to give your ears a good workout between what you can and can't hear...

Bub


I've asked this before and never got an answer .... maybe someone here can chime in ...

I don't dither when I export my projects. For example, I'll take a 96kHz/24bit .wav and make a 320k MP3.

I've never seen an option when making an MP3 for dithering.

Does anyone know if MP3 codecs apply dithering when you convert .wav's higher than 44.1kHz/16bit or what exactly happens?

Thanks,

Bub

Internally MP3's don't really have "bit depth" in the sense of uncompressed audio. The MP3 codec will work using floating point, so there's nothing really to dither to.

"Exactly what happens" is a rather complicated and very technical process.

but sonar always creates a wave file (albeit temporary) THEN creates an mp3 from that, doesn't it?  at least it used to.  when I create an mp3 from sonar, I leave my dither settings on - for one thing I see no need to change them as it shouldn't make any difference one way or the other if it goes directly from project to mp3 and for the other, I thought sonar created a temporary wave first, then an mp3, so I thought the dither would be of some benefit.

"Bud"
I export out of Sonar to a .wav that's the same as my project ... Then I load the .wav in to Sound Forge 9.0 and use it's MP3 codec.

I do the same thing with the exception that, before I convert to an MP3 (and yes it's the Fraunhofer codec - highly rated codec btw), I pull down the "Process" menu --> "Bit-Depth" --> "iZotope MBIT +Dither" and choose from bit depth, dither mode, dither amount and noise shaping to name a few available options.

"AT"
... and no need to dither MP3s.

Up until you've mentioned this, I was under the belief that any time I was changing the bit-depth, dithering was necessary to avoid having "good audible bits" removed instead of the desirable "bad inaudible bits" (abbreviated for simplicity's sake). I work at the same bit rate all the time and don't use dithering until I'm ready to convert to a lower bit rate. I've been wrong about this? 

"AT"
Dither to 16 bit CD, and no need to dither MP3s.

"AT"
You should dither once, Alegria.

 Ah, ok. I misunderstood you then. That's what I've been doing. Thanks for the confirmation. 

I turned off dithering in SONAR as my workflow is now:

1. Export a 24/44.1 WAV mix.
2. Edit/clean up the WAV in Wavelab
3. Import edited WAV into a separate per song "mastering" project
4. Export dithered (set in my final stage mastering tool) 16/44.1 WAV or mp3. If I need a (rare) 24/44.1 master WAV I just deselect the dithering.

NOTE: I have the SONNOX tool bit was alluding to. I'm just now getting into learning it thanks to the groove3.com video.

mattplaysguitar


How can the differences be 'dramatic', but only with $10,000 monitors AND brilliant ears. I wouldn't call that 'dramatic'.... Maybe 'subtle' would be a more appropriate term?... I assume were are talking 320 kbps VS wav here.

I agree, dramatic is a bad choice of word here.
 
But thanks for the replies guys.
I never use mp3 in a "serious" session, always trying to use the best quality possible. I'm going to keep up my "ear training lessons" because I know there's a lot to learn.
But I believed that I should be able to hear the difference between 128kbps .mp3 and .waw files, but  in this little personal blind test, I failed.