44.1kHz wav vs mp3

Discussion in 'Mastering' started by MrPhil, Mar 29, 2005.

  1. MrPhil

    MrPhil Guest

    I recently posted this at what I now see was the wrong place. It should have been better put here: (Dead Link Removed)
  2. Ammitsboel

    Ammitsboel Member

    Aug 12, 2003
    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
  3. lucidwaves

    lucidwaves Guest

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

    Ammitsboel Member

    Aug 12, 2003
    I don't know about that, haven't tested it.
  5. David French

    David French Well-Known Member

    Jun 19, 2002
    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.
  6. TanTan

    TanTan Distinguished Member

    Nov 30, 2003
    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 .
  7. Ammitsboel

    Ammitsboel Member

    Aug 12, 2003
    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).
  8. maintiger

    maintiger Well-Known Member

    Dec 3, 2003
    Whittier, California, USA
    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
  9. Ammitsboel

    Ammitsboel Member

    Aug 12, 2003
    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.
  10. lucidwaves

    lucidwaves Guest

    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."
  11. MrPhil

    MrPhil Guest

    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
  12. Reggie

    Reggie Well-Known Member

    Dec 20, 2004
    Alright! This is really going to save me a bunch of money! :cool:

    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: )
  13. Michael Fossenkemper

    Michael Fossenkemper Distinguished past mastering moderator Well-Known Member

    Sep 12, 2002
    NYC New York
    Home Page:
    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.

Share This Page