MP3 better than WAV..?

[House de Kris]

tmtomh gives a very nice rundown of some of the digital formats in common use. I just wanted to add a couple points to his otherwise excellent comments:

"CD audio" is a specific audio specification: CD/redbook resolution (16 bit, 44.1kHz sample rate), no file compression, and the file format, as noted above, is LPCM, linear pulse code modulation. CD audio only shows up on CDs.

Only thing I would add it that CD Audio is 2-channel, 16 bit, 44.1ksps.

WAV is a file format: It can be CD resolution, but it also can be higher resolution (24 or 32 bit, and/or 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4 or 192kHz sample rate). It uses no file compression, and the file container is WAV.

WAV is a container that can hold uncompressed audio with any number of channels, at any sample rate (below, in addition to above, the CD's 44.1k), and any word width (less, in addition to more, than CD's 16 bit). It can also support a large number of compression schemes. All of the compression schemes it supports, that I know of, are lossy.

For sound, though, WAV is superior because it's lossless while mp3 is lossy.

I don't know of any WAVs that are lossless. From my experience, it is either uncompressed, or lossy - but not lossless.

I'll add a comment about tagging in WAVs. The WAV container was designed with the ability to support tagging. The very first bytes in a WAV file are the offset address of where the waveform data begins. Untagged WAV files all have the exact same sized header, thus the audio starts at the exact same place. Coders of early WAV file players noticed that they all started at the same place, so they ignored reading the offset address and just jumped to the default beginning of the waveform data. Then, when WAV files did take advantage of the possibility of a variable length header due to tagging, the players that blindly started at where they thought the waveform began (as opposed to where the pointers pointed to), a loud burst of noise is heard at the start of playing (since it is trying to 'play' the tag data). That was terrible, so people just learned that WAV doesn't support tagging. Sad really, that WAV was crippled by lazy programmers.

 

[markshan]

Show him this...

Look at how much information is missing from the MP3.

 

[markshan]

I don't know of any WAVs that are lossless. From my experience, it is either uncompressed, or lossy - but not lossless.

Do you know what the terms "lossless" and "uncompressed" even mean in this context?

 

[House de Kris]

Do you know what the terms "lossless" and "uncompressed" even mean in this context?

Yes I do. Both lossless and lossy are descriptive terms to describe what sort of compression is used. If something is not compressed, using a term like lossless is competely meaningless, since it isn't compressed.

To answer more directly, lossless describes a type of compression. Uncompressed expresses that no compression is used. Two completely different animals.

 

[whoaru99]

WAV is just an envelope format for audio and contains digital audio. It can contain as bad or as good a sound quality you care. It can contain "CD-Audio" level audio - you can rip a CD into wav files and I dare anyone identify the "wav" from the CD. It can contain higher bitrates than CD quality (like 24/192) in which case you have high definition audio. Or it can contain 8bit at 8kHz sampling rate, in which case it will sound as good as a telephone line does.

In the interests of discussion, would you consider something originally captured at CD-quality to be high definition if later upsampled/upscale to, say, 24/192?

 

[Tiggerlator]

This is a make or break the deal feature for me when I consider any type of mobile music device, phone or player.

Try COWON for music players, they play FLAC and muuuch more.

 

[JoeESP9]

Try COWON for music players, they play FLAC and muuuch more.

My Sansa ClipZip plays FLAC files and has a slot for a micro SD card. They are currently available for $49.99 (4GB) at Amazon.

All my files are from either my CD collection or my LP collection. They are all FLAC files.

 

[jdwk]

Agreed, though the word I thought wasn't "beans."

ZING! yeah nothings worse than mp3's 8 tracks are better than mp3's

 

[tmtomh]

Yes I do. Both lossless and lossy are descriptive terms to describe what sort of compression is used. If something is not compressed, using a term like lossless is competely meaningless, since it isn't compressed.

To answer more directly, lossless describes a type of compression. Uncompressed expresses that no compression is used. Two completely different animals.

I think this is a semantic distinction. You certainly are correct - lossless refers to a type of compression, and so since WAV isn't compressed, the lossless vs. lossy distinction is irrelevant.

I was using lossless there as a shorthand, to try to help communicate to the OP that because WAVs are not lossy, they have better fidelity than mp3s.

 

[sKiZo]

By that definition, even an original live performance isn't lossless ... <G>

 

[markshan]

Yes I do. Both lossless and lossy are descriptive terms to describe what sort of compression is used. If something is not compressed, using a term like lossless is competely meaningless, since it isn't compressed.

To answer more directly, lossless describes a type of compression. Uncompressed expresses that no compression is used. Two completely different animals.

Sorry, I misunderstood your quote. It seemed that you were stating thay WAV is lossy.

 

[House de Kris]

I think this is a semantic distinction. You certainly are correct - lossless refers to a type of compression, and so since WAV isn't compressed, the lossless vs. lossy distinction is irrelevant.

I was using lossless there as a shorthand, to try to help communicate to the OP that because WAVs are not lossy, they have better fidelity than mp3s.

Yes, it probably is semantics. I acknowledge that many here at AK proudly proclaim themselves as anti-semantic, which is fine. I, myself, strive for clear and concise statements, and I hope that is fine, too. And, I do understand the shorthand you used.

BUT, WAVs can be encoded with lossy compression (many flavors, in fact), but I've never seen one encoded with lossless compression. So, I may differ with your claim that WAVs are not compressed. They may or may not be compressed, depends.

 

[House de Kris]

Sorry, I misunderstood your quote. It seemed that you were stating thay WAV is lossy.

No, I hope I didn't make it seem like I was saying WAVs are lossy. WAVs CAN be lossy, but they are not necessarily lossy. Hope that is clear.

 

[whoaru99]

By that definition, even an original live performance isn't lossless ... <G>

A different type of compression. The file size of a live performance isn't reduced unless they play faster or cut the show short.

 

[sKiZo]

LOSSLESS

LOSSY

 

[markshan]

No, I hope I didn't make it seem like I was saying WAVs are lossy. WAVs CAN be lossy, but they are not necessarily lossy. Hope that is clear.

It's not.

 

[91r100gs]

Have read this thread completely and my head hurts. But all I know is my MP3 of Dire Straits "On Every Street" burned to CD sounds very good. As good as the new vinyl version?. Not quite. Mostly what is missing is the real fine detail and a bit of depth in the soundstage. But I bought the MP3 for $5.99 off Amazon about a year ago. Burned it and was floored by the SQ. Now you think I am sold on burning MP3's? Not quite I recently purchased the Dire Straits vinyl box set, and it is worth the cash, if your original LP's are beginning to show their age.

 

[House de Kris]

It's not.

What is not (clear, I assume)?

 

[markshan]

WAVs can not be lossy. What goes in is what comes out. WAVs can be a recording of a lossy source, but the WAV encoding didn't do anything to make the file lossy. What comes out of the WAV is what went in. I really think that tmtomh was correct in calling this all semantics, but I think your statements could lead a novice to believe that WAV files sometimes drop information as part of their function.

 

[House de Kris]

WAVs can not be lossy. What goes in is what comes out. WAVs can be a recording of a lossy source, but the WAV encoding didn't do anything to make the file lossy. What comes out of the WAV is what went in. I really think that tmtomh was correct in calling this all semantics, but I think your statements could lead a novice to believe that WAV files sometimes drop information as part of their function.

When you state your opinion, you really write it as if it were fact. I thought you might possibly even type "WAV file" into a Wikipedia search, and do some investigation on your own, but perhaps not. There are several compression types available.

Perhaps you don't remember, but WAV was created when the concept of a universal container was good. Thus, it supported lots of compression schemes to make really small files, if desired. And the idea was that all audio files would have the .WAV extension.

But, you don't have to believe me, just look it up.