MrPhil wrote: Hi all!

I have a question that I need a sure answer to, and would need reference to if possible.

I'm having a debate on the subject going from wav to mp3, where a person says that "going from 44.1kHz - 16bit wav to a 320kbit/s mp3 will still provide 44100 samples at 16 bit, you will only lose some accuracy and size, not quality".
This gets me really confused. :shock:
That person also makes an equivalent to bmp vs jpg, which to me IS a clear downstep in quality even if the eye can't see it.

PLEASE, give me the real and un-questionable facts on this! :)

Listen and you will have the answer.

Where we are talking about compression in any form nomatter what there is a deduction in quality.

Best Regards

Ammitsboel wrote:

Listen and you will have the answer.

Where we are talking about compression in any form nomatter what there is a deduction in quality.

Best Regards

Except lossless compression, right? The untouched version and the compressed/uncompressed version are supposed to null when one is inverted.

I don't know about that, haven't tested it.

Let's not confuse data compression with data reduction. Data compression recuces the size of files by exploiting redundancies in the data, while data reduction removes 'unnecessary' data. Data compression of course causes no degradation.

The difference is not big enough if you ask me ,
To my ears it's very different , of course , i'm an engineer , but for the 18 years old kids who has never seen a record shop in their life , there is no difference !!! and guys , that is our fault .we , the audio engineers should come up with something better than a 16Bit 44.1Khz audio CD a very long time ago ! of course there is the SACD , but it's too expensive product for the avarage customer. i mean look at the films industry , they came out with a 5.1 7.1 DVD unit for 30$ (!) so people are renting DVD's and the films industry has the money to produce movies like lord of the rings for example , the avarage customer feels he get a much better value for money when he is renting a DVD than buying a CD , if we want the music buiss to start earning money again and big studios to exist, we should find a technical solution for that , so the audio "unaducated" 18 years old , will be able to hear the differences for his self .

Let's first make some good quality 16/44.1
IMO the biggest problem lies in another place than the format.

I have to find an hex editor to see if there is bit differences in the files where i hear a difference when it actually nulls in Sequoia(I don't trust the null test).

hey, the boomer generation used to listen to their music in am radio with cheap car speakers, the kids now listen to mp3s- both suck as far as audio quality goes- which goes to show you that it was, it is and it will be always about the music and the song- not about audio quality

maintiger wrote: hey, the boomer generation used to listen to their music in am radio with cheap car speakers, the kids now listen to mp3s- both suck as far as audio quality goes- which goes to show you that it was, it is and it will be always about the music and the song- not about audio quality

What a cool post! That sure helps a lot.
What a deductive mind of yours!...

To me it's always about everything, not specific things layed down by people that haven't been enlighted yet about how wrong they could actually be.

maintiger wrote: hey, the boomer generation used to listen to their music in am radio with cheap car speakers, the kids now listen to mp3s- both suck as far as audio quality goes- which goes to show you that it was, it is and it will be always about the music and the song- not about audio quality

People who've been listening to mp3s have until recently (mpeg4 brings semi-decent quality) been complaining about the sound quality. And for good reason.

Higher fidelity 5.1 systems are becomming more and more popular.

Even cheap sound cards offer higher bit depths and sample rates and alot of people are listening to music, not just mp3s on their computers.

So we should ignore all that and just say "well as long as the song is riiiiips!! who cares how its recorded, mastered,or reproduced."

maintiger wrote: it was, it is and it will be always about the music and the song- not about audio quality

OKI, I'll just throw out my equipment and get rid of those expensive microphones, monitors and amps.
I can use an old cassette recorder and one $49 home mic to capture my customer's music. :P

Alright! This is really going to save me a bunch of money! 8-)

But seriously, I know it is cool to dis mp3's; but IMO a poorly encoded mp3 of a mediocre-quality recording is going to sound crap. A good encoding of a professional recording is going to sound good. The mp3 encoding process doesn't destroy all efforts put in to your quality recording unless you are using something like the Windows Media Player to encode your mp3's (talk about high-hat jingle! :shock: ).
Of course there are those who are going to say: "But I am losing all the high-end clarity I had from recording at 384kHz!" But come on, most normal people don't care about resolution as long as it doesn't affect their listening enjoyment. And I believe THAT is what it is all about.
(but I'm all for a higher-res standard at some point :wink: )

I listen to mp3's and a good quality job translates. you can tell if something is good or if it's bad. MP3 sounds better than radio and better than cassette IMO so i'm not complaining if people want to listen to it. I think it's getting better every year. If it's recorded well, mixed well and mastered well, It's going to translate no matter what format it's released on.