Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Which is better? WAV or MP3 (Read 39701 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which is better? WAV or MP3

I am recording my old albums and was wondering whether to save the recordings as MP3 or WAV files.
Is it correct that WAV files have better sound quality but the files are larger?  If so, and I used MP3 files how much would sound quality be sacrificed?

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #1 –
Assuming you're not doing a vast amount of post-processing, I would:
  • Record @ 16 bit, 44,100 Hz Wav
  • Encode that to lossless (FLAC, TAK or WavPack)
  • Tag the files.
  • Transcode to LAME 3.98 MP3 at -V 3 to - V 0 , whatever you fancy [using something like foobar2000 that will carry the tags over in the process]
  • Backup the lossless versions

The reason being that if you decide later to clean the WAV files up or run them through a DSP then you're fine, but if the only version you've got is the lossy MP3 then you're going to run into trouble.

As to sound quality. IMO that's not really the issue. You're unlikely to hear a difference between LAME MP3 -V 2 and WAV, the issue is, as I mentioned, that if you encode to lossy only, then you've thrown away data which you can't get back, so a) if you want to do any further work you'd be working with a lossy source, and b) if you want to change format later down the line, you hit lossy transcoding problems.

C.
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #2 –
While the spirit of what Carpman said is right-on, one thing should be pointed out. By "Wav" I think both folks above meant UNcompressed .wav files. But I would point out that .wav is a container, not a format, and that .wav files can be either uncompressed, or compressed. For instance, one file ending with .wav may be uncompressed, while another one ending with .wav may have mp3 (or another) form of compression. Now .mp3...that's, of course, alway compressed.

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #3 –
Well, wav and mp3 are apples to oranges comparisons...they're not even close to the same thing--one is lossless and uncompressed, one is lossy and compressed to a smaller file.  If you plan to encode old albums off of vinyl or cassette, you have to take a bit of carpman's advice--do you plan to do any processing or cleaning up of the files once they're on the computer?  If you plan to, make sure when using .wav its set at 16-bit, 44khz, stereo. 

If you don't plan on cleaning up any of the files and only are interested in listening to them on the computer (or ipod or something) then you could go straight to mp3 and tag the files and skip a step.  If you'd rather a lossless copy to hold onto, you want to use .wav or flac or some lossless format and no quality will be lost from the source.  You'll have to make a decision what is most important to you.

Good luck.
foobar 0.9.6.8
FLAC -5
LAME 3.98 -V3

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #4 –
Do you feel that using wav/lossless may take up too much space? Did you consider buying a larger harddrive? You know the prices of these are minimal compared to the price of the recordings you are going to store on them.
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #5 –
Quote from: RadioGiant on
While the spirit of what Carpman said is right-on, one thing should be pointed out. By "Wav" I think both folks above meant UNcompressed .wav files. But I would point out that .wav is a container, not a format, and that .wav files can be either uncompressed, or compressed. For instance, one file ending with .wav may be uncompressed, while another one ending with .wav may have mp3 (or another) form of compression. Now .mp3...that's, of course, alway compressed.


How does one tell if the .wav is compressed or not?
 

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #6 –
RadioGiant refers to 2 scenarios:

1) A compressed WAV (e.g. 8 bit rather than 16 bit PCM)
2) A 16 bit PCM WAV that is a decoded MP3 (i.e. the source of the WAV was lossy)

In scenario 1 the 8 bit file would be half the size of its 16 bit counterpart, and if you open it in an editor it will tell you what it is.

In scenario 2 the main indication that the source was MP3 would be that it's lowpassed below x Hz, and its frequency spectrum might look a bit blocky -- but neither of these things will tell you for certain that the source was (lossily) compressed.

C.

EDIT: Grammar
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #7 –
Quote from: RadioGiant on
While the spirit of what Carpman said is right-on, one thing should be pointed out. By "Wav" I think both folks above meant UNcompressed .wav files.

While technically you are right, 99.99% of the programs rip to uncompressed WAV.

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #8 –
Quote from: carpman on
RadioGiant refers to 2 scenarios:

1) A compressed WAV (e.g. 8 bit rather than 16 bit PCM)
2) A 16 bit PCM WAV that is a decoded MP3 (i.e. the source of the WAV was lossy)


And also WAV can contain MP3 itself.
(WAV file can contain LPCM encoded data, ADPCM encoded data and even MP3 encoded data. Just add RIFF header to MP3 file)

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #9 –
The details about WAV files containing MP3 will likely further confuse a user who doesn't know much about audio formats. Such files are used so rarely that it was probably unnecessary to even mention the possibility.

The simple answer is yes: Converting CDs to WAV--or, better, a lossless format that will preserve the audio exactly but reduce file size-will create larger files with "better sound quality" (read: identical to the CD, assuming accurate extraction).

MP3 and other lossy formats exploit limitations in human hearing to reduce file sizes, and thus cause quality loss, though whether this is perceptible depends on the compression level used and the listener's hearing.

Transparency is the term for a level of lossy compression indistinguishable from the source audio to a given user, and is what you should aim for when encoding files for a portable player, etc.

Lossless formats are suited to archival/backup, 'audiophile'/reference listening, etc. Given lossy formats' quality loss and chance of becoming outdated, many users recommend keeping a lossless backup of your music and transcoding to a lossy format. You don't want to be stuck with MP3s you find aren't transparent, or to have to convert them to another format and lower quality further in the process.

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #10 –
I think all you nitpickers should pick on each other in a separate forum, instead of confusing an already confused user even more unnecessarily.

Quote from: bateau ivre on
I am recording my old albums and was wondering whether to save the recordings as MP3 or WAV files.
Is it correct that WAV files have better sound quality but the files are larger?  If so, and I used MP3 files how much would sound quality be sacrificed?


Just to help you a bit, forget all the useless posts here from people talking about mp3-embedded wav-files, and different pcm-properties. Carpman gave you a perfect recommendation that I think most HA users would prefer. I think you should record to WAV as well and afterwards you can compress it - lossless - using FLAC or any other lossless encoder. That will preserve the entire original recording bit for bit, but still reduce the filesize severely! As I mentioned earlier, the cost of large harddrives today are so small that there not much sense to use a limited lossy format, as mp3.

Mods: I think it would be a good idea to split posts 3, 7, 8, 9 to a separate topic.
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #11 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
And also WAV can contain MP3 itself.
(WAV file can contain LPCM encoded data, ADPCM encoded data and even MP3 encoded data. Just add RIFF header to MP3 file)

Learn something new every day. 

@ odyssey, I think the thread is pretty clear as to what information is relevant to the OP, and what info is technical stuff related to RadioGiant's nuanced input. Though on re-reading perhaps you're right ... leave it to the wisdom of the mods.

C.
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #12 –
I recall Dick Pierce (now at CartChunk) writing about the different WAV formats/applications in the old newsgroups years ago.

Dick Pierce  CartChunk
http://cartchunk.org:8080/
Kevin Graf :: aka Speedskater

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #13 –
i thought it would depend on how many kbs or whatever it is ripped to. if its like 320 kbpss mp3 then it should be better than wav i think, i always do it to mps because i will have to convert wav to acc for my ipod and that takes up more space on my hdd, wich i dont like because my computer is screwed and i cant have another hdd.

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #14 –
Forget about mp3 for your albums.  Convert it to 24 bit/48khz FLAC.
There are a number of programs to do this for you, like dbPowerAmp.
REAPER is a free full-fledged DAW so you could record your album in one take for each side, and then separate the tracks, and then convert to FLAC (or other formats).

If you're serious about keeping quality/fidelity to your albums, then FLAC is the way to go.
It's lossless, just like wav, but it still compresses the file (usually around 30-60%)

Now, if you wanted to play these on an ipod or something else that won't natively support FLAC, then a 192kbps mp3 works well.  If you do convert to mp3, use the LAME codec; it's the best codec for mp3.

An mp3 will never sound better than wav, no matter what kbps it's at; it's still lossy.
There are two ways an mp3 can be compressed; VBR (Variable Bit Rate) and CBR (Constant Bit Rate)  VBR will compress different parts of the song more than others to save space, while CBR will compress the whole song consistently.  It's my opinion that CBR is better because of the consistency.  In many VBR mp3's I hear smeary artifacts, though that may not be so likely these days if the algorithms have improved.  Whichever VBR or CBR quality sounds better may come down to personal opinion, so I don't state that as a fact.

But for recording albums I would definitely save them as FLAC.  Since vinyl is analog, you want to have a high bitrate.  CD is 16bits, but those are digital.  DVD uses 24bit.  Using graphics as an analogy, think of the original Nintendo with it's 8-bit graphics, now compare it to the Super Nintendo 16-bit, you can see how the graphics were drastically improved.  @4 bit is going to be smoother and allow for more headroom for dynamics, which you definitely want to preserve with analog recordings.  You can go to 32bit, but that might be overkill.

The sample rate deals with the audio frequency spectrum.  While 44.1 khz (CD) may be enough for your ears, 48khz (dvd) allows for a little more headroom, and again, since vinyl isn't digital, the frequencies' don't cap at 44.1 like a cd does.  Even if we can't hear at half the sample rate 22050 hz to 24khz, it's nice to have some headroom.

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #15 –
Quote from: mooter on
@4 bit is going to be smoother and allow for more headroom for dynamics, which you definitely want to preserve with analog recordings.

Headroom is largely irrelevant if the file is not going to be subjected to any post-processing. The noise level of the analog source is going to prohibit the theoretically-higher dynamic range 24-bit offers to be of any particular benefit.

Quote from: mooter on
While 44.1 khz (CD) may be enough for your ears, 48khz (dvd) allows for a little more headroom

Frequency 'headroom' is a non-factor. Either frequencies are audible to an individual or they aren't. Unless the OP is 12 to 24 months old, anything above 20.5-21 kHz is most certainly audibly irrelevant.

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Lorken on
i thought it would depend on how many kbs or whatever it is ripped to.

Higher bitrates increase the likelihood of transparency.

Quote
if its like 320 kbpss mp3 then it should be better than wav i think

It'll be "better" only in that, as you go on to say, MP3 files are smaller than WAV files of the same duration. It certainly won't sound "better"; at best, it'll sound the same; again, that's defined as transparency.

Quote from: mooter on
Forget about mp3 for your albums.  Convert it to 24 bit/48khz FLAC.

Are we to assume the OP was definitely talking about vinyl? Don't do any kind of conversion like this from CDs, in any case!

Quote
There are two ways an mp3 can be compressed; VBR (Variable Bit Rate) and CBR (Constant Bit Rate)  VBR will compress different parts of the song more than others to save space, while CBR will compress the whole song consistently.  It's my opinion that CBR is better because of the consistency.

It's most people's opinion that the opposite is true. CBR achieves a constant bitrate; VBR aims for a constant quality level. More complex passages of audio can be encoded at higher bitrates to increase the likelihood of transparency (and vice-versa; e.g. why waste 320 kbps on a section of silence?).

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #17 –
The bit rate is the most important thing to consider initially, then if you can afford it go up in sample rate but it also depends on the converters you are using, some sound fine using 44.1Khz at 16 bit but others need a higher bit rate in order to provide more dynamic range.

This is my experience.

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #18 –
Wouldn't increasing the samplerate be a better choice for postprocessing in terms of hiss removal/click pop restorations and similar? At least it would probably help to use a higher rate when it comes to resampling.

Otherwise, then I'd say stick with 44khz, for better CD-compatibility and avoid resamling.
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #19 –
Quote from: odyssey on
Wouldn't increasing the samplerate be a better choice for postprocessing in terms of hiss removal/click pop restorations and similar? At least it would probably help to use a higher rate when it comes to resampling.

Otherwise, then I'd say stick with 44khz, for better CD-compatibility and avoid resamling.


You can always dither down, but you cannot regain "lost" dynamic range.

Which is better? WAV or MP3

Reply #20 –
Quote from: compositor on
Quote from: odyssey on
Wouldn't increasing the samplerate be a better choice for postprocessing in terms of hiss removal/click pop restorations and similar? At least it would probably help to use a higher rate when it comes to resampling.

Otherwise, then I'd say stick with 44khz, for better CD-compatibility and avoid resamling.


You can always dither down, but you cannot regain "lost" dynamic range.

Read again - Samplerate has nothing to do with dynamics...
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P