I know the answer, but- If I take an mp3 or mp4 of a wav file and convert it back to a wav file or better....does it bring it back to the better first quality again?
I know the answer, but- If I take an mp3 or mp4 of a wav file and convert it back to a wav file or better....does it bring it back to the better first quality again?
One word: No
You can't get back the audio data which has been removed. You'll just end up with mp3 quality track in a wave file.
As sonic says, no.
If you haven't already, keep your wav file and create a new mp3 file, assuming that you need to mp3 to play on an mp3 player/phone-type of thing. Data storage - external hard drives, etc. - are so cheap these days, there's no need to get rid of the better file.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
It would be instructive for you to try this out. Make a MP3 from a WAV, make a couple of them at different resolutions. Listen carefully. Convert them back to WAV and listen carefully again. See if you can tell any difference between the formats and the resolutions.
The ears don't lie. Audiophile rumors sometimes do.
Not an embarrassing question at all.
But as others have said, once the data has been removed, there's no getting it back.
If you make a wav of an mp3 or mp4, you will just have a lossless copy of a lossy file.
And if there were a god, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell
Originally Posted by rcarlberg
What is this supposed to mean? It's science, not audiophilia.
Bad ears lie more than good ones.
It means that you could compare to audio waves, find the one that is more "technically pure," but if your ears don't like it (or can't tell the difference), what's the point?
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
I work with audio files a lot in my job, and while there is a difference between wav and mp3 or other lossy files, most listeners don't seem to be bothered by it. Most times, I'm not either. But if you've got a high-quality system you're playing them through, or on all but the crappiest headphones, you're probably going to hear the differences on a listening test more than in other settings.
Progtopia is a podcast devoted to interviewing progressive rock, metal, and electronic artists from the past and present, featuring their songs and exclusive interviews. Artists interviewed on the show have included Steve Hackett, Sound of Contact, Larry Fast, Circus Maximus, Anubis Gate, Spock's Beard, and many more. http://progtopia.podomatic.com See you in a land called Progtopia!
This describes my situation.
I am an active music listener. I other words, when I listen to music, it is my only activity. I don't listen to music in the background while doing something else.
That being said, I am able to instantly identify MP3's. And to me, they are unlistenable.
And if there were a god, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell
In related news: an upconverting DVD player does not make your DVDs look as good as a Blu-Ray disk(I know when they came out many were convinced of this...)
Preparation H
some people I know can't tell the difference between mp3's and wav files. I unfortunately or fornuately for me can tell the difference even on an ipod through earplugs.
My imagination came with a built in upconverter. It even works with VHS tapes.In related news: an upconverting DVD player does not make your DVDs look as good as a Blu-Ray disk
I've saved a song (wav file) from a CD to my hard drive, converted it to MP3 @320 and to MP3 @192. My son & I listened to the wav version and each mp3 version. All 3 versions sounded the same to us. this was on speakers, not on headphone.
How does one listen to WAV files on an iPod?
Last edited by rcarlberg; 01-24-2013 at 05:18 PM.
That... is handy
Yep. That's most people's experience.
Cloth-eared nincompoops claim there's major differences -- and there might be on an oscilloscope or something -- but most of us can't hear it.
==========================
One other point:
With digital copying there is no additional loss, unlike analog copying. You could go MP3-->WAV-->MP3-->Wav-->MP3 and the final MP3 should be exactly the same as the original MP3. True, you lose some bits going WAV-->MP3 but only the first time you do it.
Last edited by rcarlberg; 01-24-2013 at 05:14 PM.
I thought it was going to be, "why does it hurt when I pee"?
Given really good source material I can sometimes hear a deterioration in a 320Kbs MP3 but generally not. At 192 I can usually tell, but it's not horrible. Anything lower than that gets to be bad. But the point of the thread is, is the process of converting to an MP3 reversible (in the sense that quality that was lost will be restored) and the answer is a definite NO.
I guess I'm a 'cloth-eared nincompoop' then. Because, not only can I tell the difference, even in blind tests. But I've been able to show several people what to listen for, where now they can tell the difference with no problems.
Cymbals that sound like a steam valves opening. No audible sign of a stick hitting the cymbal. Just a swirling, rushing sound with none of the energy that an actual cymbal has.
Everyone complains about the 'loudness wars' and the lack of dynamic range on modern recordings. Well, MP3 compress dynamic range by default. Yes, you too can make all your dynamic recordings sound as compressed as the latest pop release! Hmmm....why is that delicate piano I remember being in the background, gone?
Attack and decay of instruments ruined by smeared transients. Particularity noticeable on acoustic instruments. Piano especially.
Loss of ambient information. Stereo image becomes very flat. No depth. Like musicians are painted on a screen across the soundstage, instead of within it. Percussionists from the back of an orchestra sound like they are sitting in the violinists lap.
Then there's 'pre-echo', flanging, spitty sounding sibilants, all easily noticeable to me.
I hear these even at 320, but obviously not to the same extent.
Believe me, there are many times I wish I wasn't able to hear these problems. I would have saved $$$$$ over the years on audio equipment.
And if there were a god, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell
I don't think all MP3 conversion software is created equal, either. Bad software is going to give very bad results. Something like Sound Forge seems to do a generally better job.
I knew the answer when I posed the question, but wondered after hearing 'my cd" on my stereo and noticed the separation and frequency difference from my Ipod . Basically I want to make sure I send the best sounding quality to those who should hear it as it was recorded (sonic faults and all).
You'll lose bits each time. How much depends on the encoder and level of compression but if you go through the process as you've described the MP3 at the end will not match the original MP3.
Or if you need to squeeze on disc, convert the WAV file to FLAC (lossless audio compression).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks