4 ms·
For those of us that sample from songs that we buy, WAVs are a bit easier to work with because the DAW doesn't have to spend time converting it. That said, sinc
by tomphoolery 11y ago
For those of us that sample from songs that we buy, WAVs are a bit easier to work with because the DAW doesn't have to spend time converting it. That said, since most of my tracks these days are using either the 48k or 96k sample rate, it still needs to be converted from 44.1 :)
- danieltillett 11y agoBut can you tell the difference between a variable encoded 320 Kbps MP3 using a modern encoder and a wav file? I have some reasonable equipment and I most definantly can't.
- krisdol 11y agoWhen I DJed I used a mix of FLAC files and 320 Kbps CBR and high level VBR. On performance equipment I could tell VBR was not holding up. There is also some quality loss that you encounter when slowing down MP3s that is not present for FLAC or WAV, especially when kept in key, but for the most part that is only audible beyond the 8-15% range, and it was not common to alter the tempo that much for me. I ended up settling mostly on FLAC when I can get it and 320 CBR otherwise. I don't think I ever heard the difference.
- danieltillett 11y agoCan you hear the difference between 320 Kbps CBR and VBR? I have to say I have never tried slowing down the music to try and hear the difference so it is possible under these conditions that it might make a difference.
- krisdol 11y agoI would say yes, but again, playing music at very amplified volumes and tweaking its tempo is not a common use-case.
- stcredzero 11y agoThe degree of difference depends on the kind of music you listen to. Live recordings of acoustic ensembles in airy cathedrals -- in that case you can tell the difference. On tracks that have a highly produced studio sound, where everything is an electronic instrument -- not going to be much of a difference.
- danieltillett 11y agoI tried doing tests like this and I could not find any recordings where I could tell the difference at 160 kbps VBR. I not saying that it is impossible, but the conditions must be pretty rare and the difference very minor - compared to the massive degradation that come from room effects it amounts to nothing.
- stcredzero 11y agocompared to the massive degradation that come from room effects it amounts to nothing. Truth. Chamber music in an echo-y cathedral. With bad encoding, you can hear a noticeable difference in the length of time the reverberations are audible and and the timbre of those reverberations cab be quite different. With lots of acoustic music, the "accidental beauty" produced by such effects can be quite important. Finding this convinced me to re-encode my music collection in 320kbps MP3 for anything high quality, and algorithmically chosen variable bitrates for lower quality recordings -- usually around 160 kbps. That was quite a number of years ago, though. I'd probably use another format today.
- michaelcampbell 11y agomost people can't. They say they can, but under scrutiny it generally falls apart. At some point, you're listening to sound and not music anyway.