is 320kbps mp3 as good as Wav in terms of sound quality?

[DJ Matt]

i have heard some people say that the difference is not noticable, and they are effectively the same


whats your opinion on that?

[Hanginon]

i have heard some people say that the difference is not noticable, and they are effectively the same

They are certainly not the same, but IMHO most people can not tell the difference between them when played through PA speakers in a DJ situation. Even under ideal conditions it's hard to tell - I'd suggest you try it yourself, wearing a really good set of headphones. I've got Sony MDR 7506's and I can't (but I'm certainly older than you). Some of that old Salsa was also recorded very poorly to start with. As good as El Gran Combo is, I think their recording engineer is deaf.

[KLH]

They are not the same. MP3 encoding is a lossy algorithm so some data is lost in the conversion. Will you hear that loss? Most say no. From a DJ's perspective, I say that there's no sound quality difference if you are playing on a PA system.

With that being said, the source of track matters more than the how it is captured. For example, if a source of a track is a cassette, then recording it at 192KHz at 24 bit depth will likely sound the same as a 320kbps MP3. The garbage in garbage out rule matters.

Still, I wish the music industry would push FLAC lossless (44.1KHz at 16bits for older material and 192KHz at 24bits for new), as IMHO, it's the best compromise on storage and quality... and you can tag it.

[Windows 95]

Is 320kbps mp3 as good as Wav in terms of sound quality?
No, of course it isn't.

There's people who can't tell the difference between 128 MP3 files & CDA files. So to each their own.

But there are people who can tell the difference between 320 MP3 & lossless. Especially when played through a professional sound system at high volumes.

So if you were selling cheese burgers would you use 70% lean beef just because there's people who can't tell the difference between that & extra lean beef?
Or would you use the extra lean beef for those who can tell the difference?

[pete]

Mp3 for most uses is fine. It uses psychoacoustic trickery to give the impression you are hearing all the music, while cutting out all but the essential bits.
If quality is essential for what you are doing with the music, then lossless is preferred.
CDs are, what, 35 years old now. Still the baseline for audio quality. Our ears have been tuned to listen to CDs.
While better quality has been around for years, it has never caught on yet.
We are moving towards better digital quality music, but it is taking a long time to progress.
While a lot of people have hardware capable of high bitrates and quality, there is hardly any mainstream media available that uses it. Plus the law of diminishing returns hits quite hard with audio quality; even if you get higher quality songs, you may not hear the difference from a well mastered Wav.

Bascially, in the car, in a poorly acousticly treated club, MP3 is unrecognisable than Wav. Sitting at home with your hifi or headphones and DAC, higher quality is preferred but not essential to enjoying good music.

[Windows 95]

it's the best compromise on storage and quality.

Storage is not an issue for music any more. 4TB hard drives the size of a cell phone are cheap now a days.

[Baller95]

Yeah it's not the same. But that chances of noticing the difference are very slim. So unless you have audiophile level speakers/headphones, don't waste your money and storage space on WAV.

[KLH]

Storage is not an issue for music any more. 4TB hard drives the size of a cell phone are cheap now a days.

I hear you - and even agree - but most DJs still collect tracks as MP3s. It's kinda crazy in this day and age. My pool, Promo Only, doesn't even offer tracks in FLAC. It's a shame, really.

[DJ Matt]

Is 320kbps mp3 as good as Wav in terms of sound quality?
No, of course it isn't.

There's people who can't tell the difference between 128 MP3 files & CDA files. So to each their own.

But there are people who can tell the difference between 320 MP3 & lossless. Especially when played through a professional sound system at high volumes.

So if you were selling cheese burgers would you use 70% lean beef just because there's people who can't tell the difference between that & extra lean beef?
Or would you use the extra lean beef for those who can tell the difference?

i think that would depend on availability and cost
if people would not notice the difference then 70% would certainly be an option if i could not get my hands on 100%
(but surely the difference is closer than that..70% sounds like something that would be quite audible)

likewise , id use WAV all the way wherever i have a choice in the matter. but lets say, if i could only get a 320kbps, and the only other option was to get onto ebay and buy the original CD or the vinyl, then i might be happy enough with the mp3 (unless i wanted a physical copy)

[Alex Murphy]

Nope. I notice the loss of warmth in bass, the sizzling in highs, and the dullness / harshness in between. It's something very obvious to me when listening to some heavy metal. The bass guitar does not have the same impact, the original guitar tone doesn't ring true, the drums lack of depth and everything mids feels shallow. To me it's like the difference between full fat milk and canned concentrate.

You can cut a sausage in slices and remove some of the ingredients, but you won't be able to glue it back together and make it taste like the original, even if it's still edible. My ears have been wishing the mp3 format's death long ago, and it won't come soon enough.