MP3 vs WAV: formal study?

[Manning]

Now I hold the reasonable and quite well-informed opinion that MP3s are the spawn of Satan and people who listen to them will get eaten by zombies when the Apocalypse comes.

So I get into a discussion with an Apple Fanboi, and he says "oh yeah, formal tests have proved that hi bitrate MP3s are indistinguishable from WAV".

I don't tolerate such nonsense so I went a-googling... and frankly couldn't find any evidence to support my position.

So has anyone ever seen a formal, double blind test which settles the matter? There's anecdotal evidence everywhere, but that doesn't settle arguments.

[jkhuri44]

You could if you were so inclined set up a simple test, get a whole bunch of tunes lined up in tools, or whatever, same song. either mp3 or wav, get ur misses or friend to shuffle them....

have a listen, and write whether u think its mp3, or wav....

guarantee you'll have a seriously hard time working out which is which.

And, imo, if its a BAD RIP, it's gonna sound bad, make sure the 320's are good rips.

Listener bias is massive when it comes to stufff like this, when we KNOW something is a WAV, we are more inclined to thikn it sounds better. I've done some excellent rips (320s) of many a cd using good encoders, outside of my critical listening environ,ent, and even in it... you'd have a hard time imo.

The LAME encoder (stupid name i know) is a great algorythm, which gives good result btw.

[jkhuri44]

Some articles, people discussing this here maybe you've seen already:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/631978/320-kbp ... quality/15
http://arstechnica.com/features/2007/10 ... mpression/

[jkhuri44]

I should ad, a pure 3 minute sine wave, which is compressed, using windows folder compression, goes from being 40mb or something, into a 102KB file...

Keep in mind that mp3 is a "compression algorythm" and its quality depends on the algoryhthm used, and also the material being compressed. thats as far as my tech knowledge of it goes

[Alastair Reynolds]

MP3 audio, gives good results at high bit rates for a single encode and decode cycle.
Degradation occurs when the decoded audio is further processed and re-encoded. Artifacts become more pronounced particularly when re-encoded by a different codec/algorithm e.g. aac+.
For this reason ,the commercial radio industry now insists on minimum 48k 16 bit wav files.
Try re-encoding a few times and experiment with concatenation. After about 4 cycles you will start to hear a difference. After 10 or 15 ....well you know where this is going

[Drumstruck]

no formal study here ... just listening to "Warrior On The Edge Of Time" on youtube - talk about crushed !!! meters are pegged at -5 and ocassionally drop a couple of db - how sad

I'm with Mr Manning - mp3s will send you to hell until the end of eternity ...........................

[jkhuri44]

lol, youtube is not an mp3?? it's a different algorithm...and it was probably loaded compressed to start with,

[Sammas]

I think if testing was done with a wide enough demographic (not just audio types... but music lovers of all walks of life), there would probably be an astounding shrug and an "its all the same, innit?".

As far as music distribution formats go, i don't think decently encoded MP3's are all that bad. Anyone remember cassette tapes? Mini disk?

[Drumstruck]

lol, youtube is not an mp3?? it's a different algorithm...and it was probably loaded compressed to start with,

Well there you go - that's what you get for making assumptions - what file suffix is youtube?

You're certainly right that it was compressed.

[Chinagraf]

There's a good video on Youtube of Mr Massenberg discussing the difference. It sounds crap though, because it has been compressed by youtube.

[jkhuri44]

Im not sure what exactly happens, but similar to myspace or whatever, in Australia and other countries with shitful internet, we get highly compressed playback....same with soundcloud, etc. In america, its pretty close to WAV or at least a great 320kbps mp3 for playback.

Even setting 720 or whatever quality setting on youtube, usually still sounds pretty crappy, and still worse than an mp3

[Thirteen]

I can pretty much always tell an MP-3, I get fatigued quickly and find myself wanting to get up and do something else. I find it very difficult to engage in relaxed, focused listening to an MP-3. I theorise that as radio stations use them more and more people will station surf more without realising why they are doing it.

[jkhuri44]

^ when you know it's an mp3, right?? I'm still wagering, majority of people cant tell the diff when asked to be tested!

[Thirteen]

^ when you know it's an mp3, right?? I'm still wagering, majority of people cant tell the diff when asked to be tested!

I don't have to be told that it's an MP-3, I figure it out pretty quickly.

[Sammas]

That is pretty impressive given the number of variables possible within the encoding process.

[Alastair Reynolds]

Why Neil Young hates mp3
[ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/02/ ... -about-it/ ]



Another opinion...
Interestingly in radio land most of us have transitioned back to linear pcm as storage has become cheaper.We used to run 256k mp2 or aptx at 32k sample rate with hardware decoders when a 100 G raid5 array cost $20,000 but now we need to have the audio as clean as possible prior to DAB transmission in aac+. Anything that has been mp3 encoded at any rate stands out like dogs balls when transmitted in dab+.. Internally most of our audio is sent around at 48k,24 bit on fibre.

[Kurt]

Why 48/24 when pretty much all commercially released music is at 44.1/16? That makes no sense at all, there is no benefit.

Neil Young is in his 70s and has been playing amplified music for longer than I've been alive. I doubt he can hear telephone conversation very well, let alone the difference in sound reproduction formats. Our hearing breaks down pretty savagely over a life time without playing in a rock band, much more so when that is how you spend your time.

Why Neil Young hates mp3
[ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/02/ ... -about-it/ ]

Another opinion...
Interestingly in radio land most of us have transitioned back to linear pcm as storage has become cheaper.We used to run 256k mp2 or aptx at 32k sample rate with hardware decoders when a 100 G raid5 array cost $20,000 but now we need to have the audio as clean as possible prior to DAB transmission in aac+. Anything that has been mp3 encoded at any rate stands out like dogs balls when transmitted in dab+.. Internally most of our audio is sent around at 48k,24 bit on fibre.

[ChrisW]

Why 48/24 when pretty much all commercially released music is at 44.1/16? That makes no sense at all, there is no benefit.

It's all about future proofing for me.
In the early 80's I had no idea CD's were around the corner. In the 90's I had no idea mp3's would become such an important format.
In five to ten years 96/24 could well be the dominant consumer format. Who knows?
I can't tell the difference between WAV and mp3 in the average listening environment. I can tell listening to bought mp3's against my Apple Lossless audio on the same iPod. The Lossless audio sounds fuller, less harsh/brittle.
The problem with the debate for me is the vast array of different quality levels offered by each retailer. Does iTunes even offer the highest quality mp3 audio?
The price of a Wav is double that of an mp3 at Beatport _ which just seems like a ridiculous rip off to me.

[Kurt]

I doubt we'll move away from cd format in a hurry, there are still emerging markets and all attempts to push people to move to a new physical format have failed. Maybe FLAC or ALAC will be the way of the future but nobody is rushing to pick it up.

I assume the lossless formats are more expensive because bandwidth costs, an mp3 might be 15% of the size of a wav.

Why 48/24 when pretty much all commercially released music is at 44.1/16? That makes no sense at all, there is no benefit.

It's all about future proofing for me.
In the early 80's I had no idea CD's were around the corner. In the 90's I had no idea mp3's would become such an important format.
In five to ten years 96/24 could well be the dominant consumer format. Who knows?
I can't tell the difference between WAV and mp3 in the average listening environment. I can tell listening to bought mp3's against my Apple Lossless audio on the same iPod. The Lossless audio sounds fuller, less harsh/brittle.
The problem with the debate for me is the vast array of different quality levels offered by each retailer. Does iTunes even offer the highest quality mp3 audio?
The price of a Wav is double that of an mp3 at Beatport _ which just seems like a ridiculous rip off to me.

[obutcher]

The higher quality videos on Youtube are MP4. At the lower resolutions it's FLV. Not sure when it crosses from one to the other though, but I have a suspicion it's from 360p to 480p.

I guess what really matters is the quality of the sound before it gets uploaded. You'd get the same effect that Alastair was talking about if it's already a compressed file before it's even on the web.

[ChrisW]

I doubt we'll move away from cd format in a hurry, there are still emerging markets and all attempts to push people to move to a new physical format have failed.

I meant any new format, not just a 'physical' format. I think CD is already dead in the water. Brick and mortar music retailers have closed all over the globe, leaving places like Amazon. I think the emerging markets are dominated by illegal copies (pirate, bootleg).
I buy about two CD's a year. Legal downloading is both instant and convenient. Illegal downloading is even more convenient, and no cost (I do not illegally download btw)

The next format will no doubt be determined by a new player.
Cassette really took off after the Walkman. mp3's really took off after iPods, and smart phone/iPhone players.

[Alastair Reynolds]

Most broadcast systems use 48K sample rate.we use 24 bit to provide maximum resolution for the DSPs for gain blocks,eq,mix-minus feeds etc. Also most of our audio is internally produced and distributed .Music is resampled up to 48K when loaded into the system. All systems are tied to master clock generators for sync. AES sync in our case.some newsroom systems use 16k or 32k sample rates and as all are multiples that divide nicely into 48k Sample rate conversion is easier and puts less load on DSPs. For resampling 44.1k up to 48k some of the best sounding SRCs go back to analogue via HQ DACs then re-encode with HQ ADCs rather than interpolating digitally.
44.1K is generally only found in CD based audio.
For an interesting experiment, take a piece of audio and mp3 encode it.then in a mix window in your favorite DAW subtract it from the original wave file.what you are left with is what the encoder takes out which is , in the case of mp3, based on the Huffman tables in that encoder.MP3,MP2,AAC etc are all perceptual codecs and base their compression/bit reduction on what they think you won't notice missing.A fun thing to do on a wet Friday arvo.

[Ben M]

I'm pretty keen to see what happens with Neil Young's Pono player.

[Drumstruck]

I doubt we'll move away from cd format in a hurry, there are still emerging markets and all attempts to push people to move to a new physical format have failed.

I meant any new format, not just a 'physical' format. I think CD is already dead in the water. Brick and mortar music retailers have closed all over the globe, leaving places like Amazon. I think the emerging markets are dominated by illegal copies (pirate, bootleg).
I buy about two CD's a year. Legal downloading is both instant and convenient. Illegal downloading is even more convenient, and no cost (I do not illegally download btw)

The next format will no doubt be determined by a new player.
Cassette really took off after the Walkman. mp3's really took off after iPods, and smart phone/iPhone players.

I can't see a move away from CD happening too soon - it's such a widespread media. They tried with Minidisks and failed..... so I don't think it's the physical size of the CD that's an issue....

Retailer's failure has more to do with limited choice/availability and higher cost - how many times have you gone into a record shop looking for that Desperate Staights CD to find it's not there...... The convenience of shopping onlne with delivery to your door - esp. for the more remote people is hard to ignore.

For me downloading is far from no cost - e.g. broadband is $70 a month and I use the full allocation of download/upload - I could buy quite a few CDs each month for that.

However, and despite the lower quality, there are a lot of things (songs / vids) online now that are either out of print or ridiculously rare and expensive - so (for me) this is a very good thing even in crushed mp3/4 format.

all imo and worth it's weight in ether

[Sammas]

The future is no "format". You just play it straight from the source. Spotify for example. I can already listen to Triple J anywhere... on the internet, on my mobile phone, etc. Australia must be one of the last refuges for CDs in the western world. Probably because our internet bandwidth sucks.


Household of 4 people. $80 a month internet with unlimited downloads. 4 people x 24 hours x 30 days a month = 2880 hours worth of music at about 2.7 cents an hour... and its all completely legal.

[jkhuri44]

^ i wholeheartedly agree, the cd is a dead media. completely dead. Only because in Australia, our internet is fairly crap, do CD still prevail.

I got a friend of mine to record some stuff off soundcloud, youtube for me....the streaming quality in other countries is proportionate to how widely available hi speed internet is.

Sites like soundcloud, and youtube are where it's at for music. Certainly for music enjoyed by the younger population, and people like myself as well.

To underline this, most music i like, i cant really find on a shelf...online online online.

[Drumstruck]

......Probably because our internet bandwidth sucks.

Household of 4 people. $80 a month internet with unlimited downloads. 4 people x 24 hours x 30 days a month = 2880 hours worth of music at about 2.7 cents an hour... and its all completely legal.

bandwidth??? what's that?
- the laughable excuse for broadband we have only 2.5 hours from Sydney exemplifies what crap we put up with in Oz. I get 512/2MB as rated speed but the bandwidth tests show it down to 80KB sometimes!!!!! And that (according to the service provider) is ACCEPTABLE speed!!!!!!

No such thing as unlimited downloads - you'd need unlimited lifetime to use that. NBN - what a load of bologna. rant rant rant - what a bunch of crap they spin us. It's faster to drive 60KM (return) to a shop than it is to download.

and now the working week is over and I shall go and drink wine, mellow out and be nice again next week (ha!)

[Sammas]

......Probably because our internet bandwidth sucks.

Household of 4 people. $80 a month internet with unlimited downloads. 4 people x 24 hours x 30 days a month = 2880 hours worth of music at about 2.7 cents an hour... and its all completely legal.

bandwidth??? what's that?
- the laughable excuse for broadband we have only 2.5 hours from Sydney exemplifies what crap we put up with in Oz. I get 512/2MB as rated speed but the bandwidth tests show it down to 80KB sometimes!!!!! And that (according to the service provider) is ACCEPTABLE speed!!!!!!

No such thing as unlimited downloads - you'd need unlimited lifetime to use that. NBN - what a load of bologna. rant rant rant - what a bunch of crap they spin us. It's faster to drive 60KM (return) to a shop than it is to download.

and now the working week is over and I shall go and drink wine, mellow out and be nice again next week (ha!)

It is one of the curses of living in a large, practically empty country. Compare it to the UK... where 3 times the population are jammed into an area half the size of NSW, the cost of implementing, upgrading, mantaining and expanding any infrastructure across this country becomes outrageously expensive on a per capita basis.

It is one of the reasons I think someone should just bite the bullet and implement a green zone around Sydney. Its already insanely big with a comparatively sparse population. Releasing new land is just stupid. How many trains do you reckon run to the ends of the line with a handful of passengers paying a few bucks a ticket? Screw the big backyards. Increase the density of inner Sydney so things like lower capacity, high frequency metro systems are financially viable. I would love to kiss my car goodbye... but it isn't going to happen with the state of NSW public transport!

[Alastair Reynolds]

Seems we've gone a bit off topic here, So let me get this right...
everyone "Bars Up like a Prison Window" at the idea of recording something using a vintage U47 through a Telefunken V72 and a Pultec EQ , a Fairchild 670 or Altec 436, a Prism Sound A/D into a Protools HD system at 192K 24 bit then crunching it down to a 256K mp3 because you can't hear the difference between a "good mp3" and Linear PCM. What are you Monitoring on ?

[Text_Edifice]

Dunno if this is just going to further muddy the water, but:

http://graphics.ethz.ch/teaching/mmcom1 ... enburg.pdf

http://www.ingelec.uns.edu.ar/pds2803/m ... coding.pdf

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16289

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14292

http://hafer.net/help/mp3_vs_aac_vs_flac.pdf