20 Reasons Why WAV Is Better Than MP3 ( By Silent Code )

[Audio Animals]

Read Full article here......... http://www.audioanimals.co.uk/news/why- ... r-than-mp3

20 Reasons Why WAV Is Better Than MP3

I’ve always had a bit of a bee in my bonnet about people who don’t play music at the highest quality possible. I guess this has only come about since I started audio engineering, and learnt and discovered a lot about sound from listening. You can’t learn anything about music if you don’t listen.

The sound quality debate is however subjective. How you listen to your music, and how you enjoy it is up to you. If you like how something sounds, that is all that matters, and I would ask you to always sit back first and foremost and enjoy the music you listen to.

I just have a personal quest to make sure that music quality improves over all.

I thought I would back up my argument that 320 MP3s are awful horrible things, with facts. I could go to your studio and prove the point that I can hear the difference between a 320 MP3 and a WAV. I can hear this on high end studio monitors. The argument has even been had in our studio, where my studio partner initially didn’t believe me. I took it upon myself to help train his ears, and now, he can also hear the difference and has become just as passionate about the subject as I have. I have to thank him for letting me use that as a primary example. We have gone on to train our ears to hear a lot more things.

In order to hear the differences, you need to know what a MP3 sound is, to distingush between an MP3 and the lossless file formats.

So anyway lets look at the facts about a full uncompressed WAV VS a compressed MP3 320 file.

Fact 1. A 44,100 KHz 16 bit WAV has a full frequency response up to 22KHz where as a MP3 cuts off around the 18KHz mark. Some humans can hear up to 22Khz.

Fact 2. Storage is so affordable these days, there is no longer an argument for saving a lower quality file.

Fact 3. An MP3 320 is lossy and compressed. A WAV is lossless and uncompressed.

Fact 4. MP3 and other lossy formats exploit general human hearing to reduce file size. That was the only reason for it to be used, thus causing quality loss. Perceptable hearing depends on the user and the amount of compression used.

Fact 5. A WAV file can contain LPCM encoded data, ADPCM encoded data and even MP3 encoded data.

Fact 6. An MP3 will never sound better than a Wav, no matter what kbps it’s at as it is all still lossy.

Fact 7. John Rofrano has quoted that WAVs will always sound better than MP3 so stick to the Wavs.

Fact 8. MP3 quantize differnently. Evidence here.

Fact 9. Using mid side processing on a MP3 is pointless when working with sides because the information in the sides has been degraded to reduce file size, taking out crucial frequencies, which is replaced by digital noise. WAV lossless will benefit from mid sides processing espicially when being mastered.

Fact 10. If a MP3 is played out in a club, the stereo information is brought into the dual mono signal, and the digital noise is still there. If a WAV is played, the stereo information is brought into the mix as lossless quality.

Fact 11. If a DJ set is full of MP3s, and then recorded, and then compressed again for people at home to listen to, you get even worse information loss and degraded music because it’s been compressed numerous times.

Fact 12. If a DJ set is full of WAVs, and then recorded, and then compressed to a MP3 320 format, the audio for the listener is better than fact 11.

Fact 13. MP3s have a higher distortion, with a flat 2 dimensional sound and WAVs have a higher quality coding.

Fact 14. Higher resolution, uncompressed sounds is what you get on a CD. Evidence here. Uncompressed audio is better. Every CD has the full information, so there is no point in putting an MP3 on a CD when you’re playing audio not data. When you buy albums on CD, you are buying the highest quality mastered music.

Fact 16. When you process audio during the recording process, higher quality files sound better. We don’t make music in MP3 so why play it in MP3?

Fact 17. Play a WAV and then play a MP3 when the Master Tempo is applied on a CDJ. MP3s sound utterly awful compared to WAVs under those circumstances. That is a quick, easy test for anyone to hear.

Fact 18. Even though you can’t hear above 20KHz, missing high frequencies perceive how you hear lower frequencies. Evidence here.

Fact 19. When audio is digitally compressed as MP3, some high frequencies become exaggerated giving a false perception of fidelity.

Fact 20. MP3 can not code 5.1 stereo surround sound. Evidence here.

So who am I to quote and judge? If you can’t hear the difference, nor do you care about the facts above, that’s cool with me. What I will state clearly about that is, if you do not care, why don’t you care? I ask producers - Do you not EQ and remove out the vicious ear damaging unwanted frequencies when you produce your music? Do you understand the impact you have on your fans ears on a long term basis by not going that extra mile and caring?

I am a DJ. I am also a qualified Audio Engineer and I am also a human being with a passion. I have had my music placed on multi million pound games, and released on pioneering labels. I’ve had vinyl releases, digital releases and i’m a paid remixer. I’m also paid to mix and master A list DJs work.

If that doesn’t stand me in good ground to have an opinion, what does?

The argument that the average Joe Bloggs can’t hear the difference between a 320 MP3 and an uncompressed WAV saddens me. So, the average Joe Bloggs may not care, but to disrespect thousands of people who do care about sound quality, and who can hear the difference is a massive issue.

I’ve read further things on the internet in the past few days, that some producers think their fans are so mashed up, that they can’t tell the difference anyway. Well some people aren’t full time wreck heads, and some of us have high end sound systems and enjoy high end production, including high definition sound and visuals.

If you haven’t ever heard your favourite music, at a high quality level, on a high end system, I would encourage you to do so. You can hear so much more. I will stand by the fact that if the music has been made poorly, with degraded samples anyway, and it is not produced well, you wouldn’t hear much difference anway.

Granted, if you are in the gym, listening to your Ipod, you probably aren’t interested in this topic, but some of us want to push this because we understand the fundamentals about losing those crutial frequencies, can lose an overall sound.

Analog sound quality is measured by a frequency response. Sound is a vibration, and if you take those vibrations away, you may not be able to physically hear it, but on a loud sound system, you can certainly feel it. Music kicks out frequencies that changes your mood. These things can affect your emotions. Just because you can’t hear something, doesn’t mean the vibrations are not there, and vibrations are key.

It’s also worth pointing out that some encoders handle joint stereo in a bad way, as it is lossy. If you use a lame encoder, then joint stereo is preferable, but some encoders in itunes or on a basic mp3 encoder it’s then safer to use normal stereo.

The time and effort that artists put in, to make great quality sounding music is admirable, so don’t trash it all instantly by degrading it to MP3.

If you degrade music, and advocate something at a lesser quality than what it deserves, you will only degrade your soul.

[Brothulhu]

Fact 2. Storage is so affordable these days, there is no longer an argument for saving a lower quality file.

Internet speeds are still shite in most places (in the UK at least)

Fact 18. Even though you can’t hear above 20KHz, missing high frequencies perceive how you hear lower frequencies.

I normally low pass my mixes around 17-18KHz anyway

[Audio Animals]

Fact 2. Storage is so affordable these days, there is no longer an argument for saving a lower quality file.

Internet speeds are still shite in most places (in the UK at least)

Really? I'm in the Uk in London and have 100mb

[Simulant]

Fact 18 is a lie! You can't "perceive" higher than 20khz anymore than you can "perceive" gamma rays.

[Brothulhu]

Fact 2. Storage is so affordable these days, there is no longer an argument for saving a lower quality file.

Internet speeds are still shite in most places (in the UK at least)

Really? I'm in the Uk in London and have 100mb

Yes you are in London, the capital, a huge city. I have 100mb in my flat in Edinburgh too (again a city) if I go home I have 8mb. A lot of my friends live in small villages where they can't even get 2mb.

Have a look at this map if you don't believe me - http://maps.ofcom.org.uk/broadband/ Use the map options

Also 100mb is expensive. I pay £35 a month for it here, seeing how you can get 8mb for less than a fiver a month many people obviously don't want it as they have no need for it

[Audio Animals]

Fact 18 is a lie! You can't "perceive" higher than 20khz anymore than you can "perceive" gamma rays.

Read fact 18 again I think your reading it the wrong way round. I'll put the key word in bold for you


Fact 18. Even though you can’t hear above 20KHz, missing high frequencies perceive how you hear lower frequencies.

[Brothulhu]

The global average broadband speed is 2.6Mbps.
1Mb = 0.125MB
So 2.6Mbps = 0.325MBps

I rendered a WAV and a MP3 of the same file (see images for settings and length) WAV - http://i.imgur.com/JnWpyEA.png MP3 - http://i.imgur.com/Hs99pDu.png

WAV - 92.490234375 MB
MP3 - 10.4873046875 MB

Therefore with average internet speed it would take 284.5853365384615 seconds to download the WAV (around 4 minutes 45 seconds) and 32.26862980769231 seconds to download as an MP3 (so 30 seconds)

It doesn't seem much on it's own but lets take an album with 14 tracks (pretending they are all the same size) - WAV - 66 mins 30 seconds MP3 - 7 minutes

So yeah I think that is Fact 2 dealt with

[Audio Animals]

The global average broadband speed is 2.6Mbps.
1Mb = 0.125MB
So 2.6Mbps = 0.325MBps

I rendered a WAV and a MP3 of the same file (see images for settings and length) WAV - http://i.imgur.com/JnWpyEA.png MP3 - http://i.imgur.com/Hs99pDu.png

WAV - 92.490234375 MB
MP3 - 10.4873046875 MB

Therefore with average internet speed it would take 284.5853365384615 seconds to download the WAV (around 4 minutes 45 seconds) and 32.26862980769231 seconds to download as an MP3 (so 30 seconds)

It doesn't seem much on it's own but lets take an album with 14 tracks (pretending they are all the same size) - WAV - 66 mins 30 seconds MP3 - 7 minutes

So yeah I think that is Fact 2 dealt with

So your saying your happy to compromise audio quality for time WoW

[Crimsonghost]

To most people that "loss of audio quality" is neglegable. Unless your sitting in a treated room, with above average audio equipment, odd are you won't be able to notice.

Most people who listen to music won't give a rats ass. And I'm sure most of the people around here won't be able to notice ether.

Even in 'merica ill take an mp3. I don't need .wavs slowing down my porn streaming.

[Brothulhu]

Completely depends on your listening system I'm pretty sure a very high percentage of people couldn't tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and a WAV on their normal listening system. Seeing how it would take me 9 times longer to get the WAV than the MP3 I don't feel that a WAV sounds 9 times better than a 320 MP3 on any of my headphones or speakers

[Simulant]

Fact 18 is a lie! You can't "perceive" higher than 20khz anymore than you can "perceive" gamma rays.

Read fact 18 again I think your reading it the wrong way round. I'll put the key word in bold for you


Fact 18. Even though you can’t hear above 20KHz, missing high frequencies perceive how you hear lower frequencies.

Ok, I read it a bit wrong. But how can something you can't hear affect something that you can hear?

[YeahItsMe]

So your saying your happy to compromise audio quality for time WoW

I would never with my music, but we do with MP3 regardless. I've always bounced to Wav because my proefessor kept going on about crappy MP3s, then again he grew up with record players! Lol I doubt that distortion type sound over every record was beautiful! Lmao like Crimsonghost said is true though, odds are you can't tell the differnece, vut I'd say unless you heard the original It's the only true way to know how it's quality should be. So we are already use to MP3s and they sound good to us, so why bother changing it.

I feel like this article might've been more for us to say "Let me make sure my songs and bounced files are Wavs and highest quality possible before it gets to Mastering or Final Cut for iTunes or it's compressed MP3 equivalent. As least that's how I took it.

But yeah, this was a good read. I love reading articles that tell me I've doing something right

[Mr_Frost]

truth! i've been converting all my youtube rips to 24bit wavs and the difference in sound quality is huge.

[Simulant]

truth! i've been converting all my youtube rips to 24bit wavs and the difference in sound quality is huge.

What, so if you record an mp3 from youtube then convert to 24bit wave, it improves the quality? Wow, I didn't know that.

[Mr_Frost]

truth! i've been converting all my youtube rips to 24bit wavs and the difference in sound quality is huge.

What, so if you record an mp3 from youtube then convert to 24bit wave, it improves the quality? Wow, I didn't know that.

u need to compress too m8

[Simulant]

truth! i've been converting all my youtube rips to 24bit wavs and the difference in sound quality is huge.

What, so if you record an mp3 from youtube then convert to 24bit wave, it improves the quality? Wow, I didn't know that.

u need to compress too m8

Are you a bit backwards?

[YeahItsMe]

truth! i've been converting all my youtube rips to 24bit wavs and the difference in sound quality is huge.

What, so if you record an mp3 from youtube then convert to 24bit wave, it improves the quality? Wow, I didn't know that.

Really?? Wouldn't the quality worsen since you are trying to enhace what you don't have a full image of? Like zooming in on a crappy picture is what I would think.

Not to sound like this guy, but are ripping your favorite artists tracks or just remixes you can't buy? If you're serious about you music and what people to buy yours, you should do the same. Just saying... the industry is bad enough as it is with big labels, cut and paste pop artists who get a lot of $$ behind them, and 2 million radio stations rhat play the same 50 songs every year at the same time.

Support Music & Support Your Favorite Artists My Friends

[snoopexx]

truth! i've been converting all my youtube rips to 24bit wavs and the difference in sound quality is huge.

[Icetickle]

In Serbia ALOT of people don't even know what is .wav

[Audio Animals]

truth! i've been converting all my youtube rips to 24bit wavs and the difference in sound quality is huge.

What, so if you record an mp3 from youtube then convert to 24bit wave, it improves the quality? Wow, I didn't know that.

u need to compress too m8

Are you a bit backwards?

WOW I'm speachless