WAV vs. MP3

brianc · Post by **brianc** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:35 am

lil' jerk wrote:bitrate is bitrate.... take 160 kbps compressed with the worst codec and 160 kbps compressed with the best codec, there is the same amount of data missing.

sure, they're missing the same amount of data, but which data they're missing is what's really important. a good encoder will do a better job of deciding what to keep. i'm not saying that the encoder makes a HUGE difference, but it definitely is important.

lil' jerk · Post by **lil' jerk** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:54 am

yeah, but why not just encode at a high bitrate....? :\

brianc · Post by **brianc** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:42 pm

lil' jerk wrote:yeah, but why not just encode at a high bitrate....? :\

it's a combination of everything--encoding at a high bitrate with a high-quality encoder will do a better job than encoding at a high bitrate with a bad one.

Robot Criminal · Post by **Robot Criminal** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:06 pm

lil' jerk wrote:and its not even worth stating that low quality source files are a factor... otherwise we could all re-encode 128kbps files at 320 and be happy!

what?

low quality source files ARE a factor.
Or you did say they are and I didn't get it?

lil' jerk · Post by **lil' jerk** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:19 pm

Robot Criminal wrote:
lil' jerk wrote:and its not even worth stating that low quality source files are a factor... otherwise we could all re-encode 128kbps files at 320 and be happy!
what?
low quality source files ARE a factor.
Or you did say they are and I didn't get it?

are you serious???

encoding something doesn't strengthen the quality of something that sounds terrible... if that were the case, all we'd have to id reencode bad quality mp3s.......

theclockstrucktwelve · Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:58 pm

brianc was right about some things..

IE a 192kbps MP3 encoded with one encoder will sound different than a 192kbps MP3 made with another. And in the case of a really terrible encoder, there is sometimes such a difference that a 192kbps encoded ona better encoder will sound better than a higher encoded mp3 on a poor encoder.

lil' jerk · Post by **lil' jerk** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:14 pm

pizzamon · Post by **pizzamon** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:07 am

I like the guy who posted this. Very down to earth post. For most people sample rate is the difference. If there is major diff's in the bitrate/samplerate it will make a diff, but if it is mnml diff, most can't tell. Wave is better than mp3, and aiff is better than wave. but it really is a difference that only professionals can decipher on real audio systems. It is "touchy" on average/overly produced systems, because 95% can't tell the diff. Some records are recorded/pressed badly too, which can make a diff. trust your instincts. If it sounds great, then go with it, because some sh!t does sound better lofi.