Author Topic: 320kbps versus WAV  (Read 560 times)

Offline kinosfronimos

  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • AVForums Veteran
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
  • Total likes: 27
  • I've found music to be the therapy of choice
320kbps versus WAV
« on: January 08, 2021, 01:47:32 PM »
Try this at home ^_^

http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2010/04/sound-test-difference-between-wav-vs-mp3/





Sent from my MI CC 9 using Tapatalk

Monitor Audio Speakers: BR6's, BX-FX's, RX-C; ASW100 Cambridge Audio: Asure 540R V3 & 540D V2; Samsung LED: 46EH5300; Xonar U3 DAC; Bose SoundTrue Around-Ear I & Sony WH-1000M3 Headphones; Denon DM41 mini-Hi-Fi

Offline Katji

Re: 320kbps versus WAV
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2021, 06:48:49 PM »
?  Apparently people generally/mostly can't accurately determine which is which?

It doesn't concern me, per se, because when I have a choice I will choose...the original.  Most of the time, I don't have a choice.
The hi-fi principle.

Offline naughty

Re: 320kbps versus WAV
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2021, 10:27:05 PM »
if the main differences are above 16khz it wont make much of a diff for me - i cant hear anythng above 14khz and between 12khz and 14khz i need those frequencies to be aroudn 12db louder to make much of a discernible difference last i checked - so at a give3n volume i can only effectively hear up to 12khz anyway (which is not hugely bad because its only that last octave where i seem to be missing any information

apparently most music has very little if anything above 16khz though to be fair you do want to be able to hear absolutely everything that you should be capable of hearing - so you want to be capable of hearing everything between 20hz and 20khz ..... though most of us older folk will struggle to get every frequency in that range

so is 320k mp3 that vastly different from WAV or FLAC - well it can be in the bass regions of not so much in the treble regions even though that seems to be where they mainly differ - somehow i find the WAV and FLAC files to be mildly warmer than the mp3 stuff and depending on the system that i'm listening to i could sometimes live with the mp3 stuff though i am greedy with music and equipment ie i want the highest quality i can have therefore when i do my own rips i will rather rip to the highest quality i can ie normal redbook CD to 16/44.1 WAV or uncompressed FLAC (storage space is cheap nowadays so no need to compress to save space) and IMHO the same storage argument can be used as far as mp3 is concerned - so whether i can or cannot hear the difference i still want the highest POTENTIAL quality that i can get so i don't leave it to chance and i'm trying to consume my music in the utter best manner that i can get it even if i don't have a multi million rand system to play it with

Offline blizzard

  • Trader
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,470
  • Total likes: 87
  • Science is a Living thing! It is never Concluded.
Re: 320kbps versus WAV
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2021, 11:30:13 PM »
Got the most to do with how good your system is. My system has big floor standers that extend down to 25 Hz. My son challenged me and I got 10 out 10 right , wav / flac vs 320 .
Now in my cars, different story, it becomes very difficult to choose between the two because of the raised background noise. Only in the ONE car with an extensive custom Hi end system  can I hear a difference. And only if it's parked motor off and even then only sometimes.

Honestly , after going through the whole Hi Res BS cycle my opinion lately is that it tops out at Redbook. In 95% of the cases 320 will suffice. And with Hi Res it's nearly always the modern recordings that sound better, rather than the actual Hi Res IMHO. ;)
   
 

Offline greatwhite

Re: 320kbps versus WAV
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2021, 10:44:17 AM »
Some tracks I can hears the difference, some I can't - In my experience, it depends on the the type of music, but to be sure, when you do, it isn't always a vast difference either.

In my car 320kbps MP3 is fine - I haven't tried side by side testing but when playing a CD vs mp3s I've not noticed the difference and this is despite choosing the 'top of the line' Harmon sound system when I bought the vehicle. Lets face it, a car is never likely to be an ideal listening environment - and sitting on the gear lever to be in the 'sweet spot' is not recommended   >:D

On exactly this issue to determine if Tidal was justified, a few days ago, I listened to number of tracks on Tidal and Spotify side by side, both accounts set to max quality. Some tracks on Tidal 'came alive'. I really was quite nice, but when I went back to Spotify, these track weren't so bad either. It wasn't a blind test but I tried to be unbiased, but who knows, there might have been an element of hearing what I wanted to hear. Also, to be fair, the listing was done on a R30k stereo system in my study - If it was on a higher end system in an better environment, the results may have been more apparent. On a system that most folks buy at a chain store, I doubt any difference would be heard. (as an aside, Tidal is not ideal for people with capped or slow accounts - on my PC, I was seeing data burst at 8-9Mbps when playing 'master' audio stuff)

Honestly , after going through the whole Hi Res BS cycle my opinion lately is that it tops out at Redbook. In 95% of the cases 320 will suffice. And with Hi Res it's nearly always the modern recordings that sound better, rather than the actual Hi Res IMHO. ;)

In short, I tend to agree with most that @blizzard said except perhaps the 95% (I'd err lower). One of the things Tidal highlighted to me, was how good some production/engineering was on some tracks and less so on others.

One thing with respect to the 192kHz 24bit sound - How much people can actually hear the difference between that and 44.1kHz 16bit is even less than 320kbps files in the topic at hand, but has a very real place in recording industry for rounding errors when time stretching, volume changes, effects application etc.

Offline 2wice

Re: 320kbps versus WAV
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2021, 01:25:04 PM »
It is inherently human, even if you cannot derive any benefit from it, to desire the best option given a choice.

My reference track is a WAV, I find it hard to discern any difference between the 2 and cannot hear it blind.

I still prefer it though.

Offline jvr

Re: 320kbps versus WAV
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2021, 02:14:28 PM »
I share blizzard's observation. Also, a better test is to compare Tidal's hi-fi and 320 kbps as you could then use more demanding genre's and songs. I normally pick up the difference quite easily, also new remasters vs original ones.
Lend me your ears

Offline Francois

Re: 320kbps versus WAV
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2021, 02:39:02 PM »
What crap.


Take the songs and play it via a reference system. Gosh it’s night and day !! Soundstage is crap. Depth and width like listening to square image between speakers.


I had some “kids” here with tidal and all playing their stuff. Liked the sound. After picking my jaw from the floor I played the “real@ lossless flac. Difference was stupid.


In a car. Yeah 320kbs is fine. Just do r get illusions of grandeur  :giggle: :giggle:
I was born analog, not digit by digit....

Offline Katji

Re: 320kbps versus WAV
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2021, 05:03:28 PM »
These tests only absolutely conclusive up to a point / to some extent.
The test material is limited - of course - so it is only valid - up to a point, in that context.
Some music will lose less perceivable detail/whatever, will be affected less.  Also affected by the production process...which is where 24-bit and so on is involved - that might also be a factor in how the product/release is affected by lossy compression.

Offline Katji

Re: 320kbps versus WAV
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2021, 12:54:45 AM »
space is cheap nowadays so no need to compress to save space) and IMHO the same storage argument can be used as far as mp3 is concerned - so whether i can or cannot hear the difference i still want the highest POTENTIAL quality that i can get so i don't leave it to chance and i'm trying to consume my music in the utter best manner that i can get it even if i don't have a multi million rand system to play it with

 :D  What mega-bucks systems do with lossy compression audio format...





 :P


[ @chrisc ... Lossy is as lossy does.   ;D ]
« Last Edit: January 11, 2021, 01:00:05 AM by Katji »

Offline jvr

Re: 320kbps versus WAV
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2021, 03:02:56 PM »
One of the things Tidal highlighted to me, was how good some production/engineering was on some tracks and less so on others.
Soundstage is crap. Depth and width like listening to square image between speakers.
..After picking my jaw from the floor I played the “real@ lossless flac. Difference was stupid.
So last night I fiddled with my speaker positioning and I got it to sound better; so much so that I ended up listening music right until 10 pm (with soft rain outside, gosh it was brilliant). In any event, it reminded me of this thread and these comments. I was listening to an old Apple Lossless playlist of live recordings and some tracks were really awesome, others less so. Songs from Diana Krall's Live In Paris (even though I had to take a lengthy break from it as it has been played to death) stood out in terms of it's superior acoustics and technical brilliance. I mean, the piano sounded as if it was pushed forward into the living room hanging somewhere between the ceiling and the floor, just off centre to the right (as it was positioned on stage) with the notes filling that entire 3D space and Diana's voice breathing (yes, I know, I know) into the mic centre stage, just behind the piano (again, as on stage).. I somehow don't think that would be possible with lossy stuff. But then, not all the lossless recordings were that good either, so.
Lend me your ears