Audio Conversion
  • x4ax4a
    Was wondering what folks opinion is on this one. I usually buy CD's straight out because I like having the real thing (artwork, insert, actual deal). But due to finances I have moved to buying more digitally (iTunes, EMusic). I personally don't notice much lack of quality when I convert from .mp3 to full audio (.wav). Does anyone see a quality difference with the converted CD's vs. just the actual CD? Maybe my ears are too worn out these days. Or maybe my stereo is not good enough. Never been a true "audiophile" but...
    Would like to hear what you all think...
  • squashedsquashed
    Why would you want to convert mp3 to wav? It doesn't make sense. Most CD player can read mp3 file these days. Of course there won't be any noticeable difference. the wav file just translate whatever the mp3 information has as is.

    And yes, people will notice if it's wav coming from mp3 instead of original .wav. Specially for complex , high quality recording with a lot of volume contrast. It doesn't sound "crisp". It's muffled a little. eg.techno layered with real voice (female voice specially), highly accoustic songs + singing, orchestra works. Don't bother with Jazz, specially with some electronica component in it. Everything will be gone. ... most obvious are when there are loud bass and soft high frequency instrument on the background. Everybody can hear that, but because of compression assumption, the soft high frequency sounds are deleted.

    If it's just crappy lo-fi rock/demo...who cares. nobody gonna notice anything.
  • x4ax4a
    it doesn't make sense that the converted .wav is different than original .wav. If the file starts as .wav and then is converted to mp3 then reconverted back to .wav, wouldn't it be the same? Assuming that the conversion encoding algorithm is the same....

    And I guess I am behind the times cause I still have electronics that won't handle the mp3 format....
  • squashedsquashed
    mp3 is a lossy compression. The way it reduces the size of original sound file is by tossing out a lot of original information. (read the spec)

    the mp3 algorithm is like meat grinder. you can't expect getting a whole beef from ground meat by running the meat grinder backward.

    buy CD player that can play mp3, It's $30 bucks at walmart.
  • x4ax4a
    yeah, makes sense and just checked out the spec., - like that meat grinder analogy - but isn't ground beef still "whole" beef? you don't lose any in the grinder.. :-)
  • itsatrapitsatrap
    I get a headache when I listen to mp3s on headphones for any extended period of time
  • bondbond
    to extend the analogy, you don't lose any 'meat' per se when you turn steak into ground beef (the song still lasts as long, has the same basic content).. but what you do lose is texture, taste, etc.. qualities that you can't exactly measure, can't get back, and that some people miss.
  • TimTim
    I only notice when I play the music out of my studio monitors, which isn't often to be honest as I don't have them at uni with me.

    You would notice a difference if you bought an iTunes song, recorded it as WAV and re-encoded it as mp3. Lossy compression + lossy compression = awful sound quality (sounds like a 96 kbit mp3).

    Tim
  • A Robot ComethA Robot Cometh
    i play my mp3s at 192 kbps. it is a nice ballance of quality and space saving.

    128 kbps bugs me quite a bit. not sure if i am being picky or not but 192 is the way i roll.

    do i hear a difference between this and original cd? yes if i sit there and think about it enough.

    but i normally end up using mp3 for convenience and such.
  • TheAirStrangeTheAirStrange
    I think keeping them as MP3s is preferrable... as mentioned already. Whenever I convert from MP3 to .WAV, I end up with a few files that sound horrible. Doesn't happen all of the time, but...
  • Dave RawkblogDave Rawkblog
    Why would you ever need to manually convert to wav? Burning a CD typically handles that automatically.
  • x4ax4a
    I didn't mean I was manually converting to wav. I burn the disc from mp3 format, like you said.
  • Dave RawkblogDave Rawkblog
    ok right.

    yeah converting it to wav doesn't do anything. it's just when you rip a burned CD back onto your computer, then you lose quality.
  • x4ax4a
    so, if I do everything from the same computer and burning software and take a store bought audio CD, rip it to mp3 and then take those mp3 files and burn it back to audio, I will not lose anything.? but as squashed was saying going to mp3 throws out a lot of information so that may not be the case.
  • ukchillukchill
    try this experiment and then make your own conclusions...

    (I used Wavelab, but any audio convertor should do)

    Rip a track from CD - save it as .wav (16bit, 44.1Khz) - name it source
    convert it to .mp3 , save it
    reload it, convert it to .wav, save it
    reload it, convert it to .mp3, save it

    (repeat this step a few times - it depends on the source material and the rate of the mp3 conversion)

    The track will become unlistenable after a few generations, just like tape! (well, actually not just like tape - you will end up with some horrible digital noise at the end)

    each conversion to mp3 loses information, it's just like continuially loading and saving jpg images.
  • Dave RawkblogDave Rawkblog
    Merz, you're better off just copying your CD and keeping the mp3s seperate for your iPod/computer.
  • Mike MineoMike Mineo
    I find dBPowerAMP to be the easiest, but whatever suits you best.
Add a Comment

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories