Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

mp3 vs wav

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • mp3 vs wav

    i always thought that wav was of a much higher quality than mp3 files however a freind of mine argued that an mp3 file sampled at 256kb from a studio would produce a higher quality recording than a wav file. could anybody tell me the quality difference between wav and mp3 in quantative terms if possible?
    is a flower best picked in it's prime or greater withered away by time?
    Talk about a dream, try to make it real.

  • #2
    Relocated to General Hardware/Software forum...
    Core2 Duo E7500 2.93, Asus P5Q Pro Turbo, 4gig 1066 DDR2, 1gig Asus ENGTS250, SB X-Fi Gamer ,WD Caviar Black 1tb, Plextor PX-880SA, Dual Samsung 2494s

    Comment


    • #3
      Wav files are uncompressed, mp3's are compressed. Given the same initial parameters (frequency range, sample rate, etc) a Wav file will never be beaten in quality by a compression-based standard.

      Your friend was either wrong or playing on a technicality. If the mp3 was created from a better source than the wave file then it has the <I>opportunity</I> to sound better than a Wav from a poorer source.

      Otherwise, I'd rather have the Wav as a better reproduction of the original.
      Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

      Comment


      • #4
        Actually, maybe Mp3's could actually sound better. Of course never mor accurate , but possibly better. Because the mp3 looses some audio fidelty, it might mask some less pleasant sounds. Maybe making it sound a bit brighter than it should or something.
        Primary system specs:
        Asus A7V266-E | AthlonXP 1700+ | Alpha Pal8045T | Radeon 8500 | 256mb Crucial DDR | Maxtor D740X 40gb | Ricoh 8/8/32 | Toshiba 16X DVD | 3Com 905C TX NIC | Hercules Fortissimo II | Antec SX635 | Win2k Pro

        Comment


        • #5
          given 2 files one mp3 and one a wav file of the same size... an mp3 will sound much better.

          80mbyte wav file kind of equivalent to a 5mbyte mp3

          could possible have a kind of similar quality, but it is really a apples and oranges comparison

          if you want to burn a sound file onto a cd (playable by a normal cd player) use wav files. if you are going to store and play them from your harddrive then mp3 is the way to go.

          wav files are the exact waveform of the sound. (sample rate and sound accuracy permitting)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Marshmallowman
            given 2 files one mp3 and one a wav file of the same size... an mp3 will sound much better.

            80mbyte wav file kind of equivalent to a 5mbyte mp3

            could possible have a kind of similar quality, but it is really a apples and oranges comparison

            if you want to burn a sound file onto a cd (playable by a normal cd player) use wav files. if you are going to store and play them from your harddrive then mp3 is the way to go.

            wav files are the exact waveform of the sound. (sample rate and sound accuracy permitting)
            You are confusing the question. He said sampled at 256kb/s rate. NOT a 256 file size. With a fixed filesize, the wav will always be larger and will ALWAYS sound better all else being equal.

            Rags

            Comment


            • #7
              thanks a lot for your knowledge.
              i always thought that generally wav was better quality
              is a flower best picked in it's prime or greater withered away by time?
              Talk about a dream, try to make it real.

              Comment

              Working...
              X