Should I get over my prejudice/ignorance/snobbery for WAV and change to mp3?

Wavs do sound different/better, at least on studio monitors. I'd assume they sound different on huge systems as well. Do they sound different enough to be worth the hassle? Not for me. I don't use Wav, and as far as I'm aware none of the DJs I've talked to in my area do either (it's the type of thing I'd expect to get brought up too). I'm sure I'll get flamed for this next sentence, but here it goes. Honestly, in my experience the sound quality difference between an S4 and a proper external mixer/decent soundcard (Mackie d.4 pro, then my DJM900) is more substantial than the difference between Wav and MP3. You might be getting better results with your S4 than I did, but I found it really killed the dynamics in my tracks in comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keeb

Wavs do sound different/better, at least on studio monitors. I'd assume they sound different on huge systems as well. Do they sound different enough to be worth the hassle? Not for me. I don't use Wav, and as far as I'm aware none of the DJs I've talked to in my area do either (it's the type of thing I'd expect to get brought up too). I'm sure I'll get flamed for this next sentence, but here it goes. Honestly, in my experience the sound quality difference between an S4 and a proper external mixer/decent soundcard (Mackie d.4 pro, then my DJM900) is more substantial than the difference between Wav and MP3. You might be getting better results with your S4 than I did, but I found it really killed the dynamics in my tracks in comparison.

---

Just out of interest, you're saying s4 soundcard is worse than djm900 soundcard? Or you talking about the mixer with another external soundcard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirReal

If you can't hear the difference then I'm sorry you've ruined your hearing. Anytime you want to test me on my home system I'm down.

---

Confirmation Bias (by any other name) IS a real thing...and makes "self testing" suspect in all cases. I have to "randomize" my own testing so that I can rely on the results.

Have you tried to test yourself in a "double blind" setting? Or using the method I described...of creating a "random" arrangement of source material, and then finding a "random" starting point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nubz69

- There is a difference - There are many people on both sides of the "I can hear a difference". "Nobody can hear a difference" debate. The fact there is a debate means it isn't definitive and most likely depends on the person and the system being listened too.

---

Mostly this speaks to the fact that human ears TOTALLY SUCK as measuring devices. Watch the video link I posted earlier for more. ALL things "audiophile" rely on the fact that human ears are HORRIBLE measuring devices.

Confirmation Bias runs rampant in the WAV/mp3 issue. Until you have done a "double blind" test....you will not know if you can tell a difference or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mostapha

Also, 10/10 isn't the least bit necessary if you understand statistics.

---

I do understand statistics. I set the bar at 10/10 because far too many people maintain that the difference is "obvious"...and because most people are not willing to sit through enough test samples to reach a statistically stable result.

Could you identify a shape as a "circle" or an "octagon" 10 out of 10 times?
Could you identify the color as "yellow" or "purple" 10 out of 10 times?
Could you identify a song as "The Beatles" or "The Rolling Stones" 10 out of 10 times?

Now...suppose I was a TOTAL bastard on the test...and I prepared nine samples. One at a "reference level", one at -0.5dB, and one at -1dB:

1) WAV (0dB, -0.5dB, -1dB)
2) mp3 @ 320 (0db, -0.5dB, -1dB)
3) mp3 @ 192 (0dB, -0.5dB, -1dB)

Most people should know that "louder is better" is a real thing. To get a "fair" comparison, sources should be normalized within 0.1dB. Difference as small as 0.2dB (which is not consciously audible) produce a statistically significant preference for the louder sample.

How confident are you that you could correctly identify the bitrate of the source....if the samples were NOT all as the same sound level?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mostapha

Honeslty, it's not that huge of a difference.

---

Correct.

And given the peculiarities of the Equal Loudness Curves, the differences in sound systems, differences in room modes and room acoustical treatment, differences in listening position, the acclimatization of people to listening on ear buds, the rise of streaming media as a "reference" for media content, and so on....it is *very* unlikely that anyone can definitively tell the difference between WAV and mp3 @ 320...or even 192.

There are dozens of elements within the signal chain and room acoustics that all matter more than the difference between WAV and mp3 @ 320. For instance, I find that using unbalanced signal cables (as opposed to balanced) to connect the DJ mixer to the top of my post-processing effects rack is MUCH more noticeable than the difference between WAV/mp3 sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keeb

in my experience the sound quality difference between an S4 and a proper external mixer/decent soundcard (Mackie d.4 pro, then my DJM900) is more substantial than the difference between Wav and MP3. You might be getting better results with your S4 than I did, but I found it really killed the dynamics in my tracks in comparison.

---

I'd bet you were smashing into the limiter.

It's not your fault. Between not having a good level meter on anything they make and default settings that are loud as hell and will clip anything, NI seems to be on a crusade to make all their customers sound like crap.

I'm convinced they only have customers because they're really good at the loudness war……and by really good at it, I mean they decided a long time ago that loud distortion sounded better than appropriate volume dynamics.

@ SOundinmotiondj, no self testing at all. Test has been and always is with numerous test subjects in a very controlled environment. I've done many different types of these tests both as the tester and the "testes":) One of the first tests I put together was was the exact same song in four formats. 44.1 16 bit wav (CD quality) ATRAC, AAC, and 320kbps mp3 (This test was done quite a while ago so FLAC & Ogg Vorbis were still not on my radar). First the subjects were allowed to just listen to each of the four tracks in whatever order they wanted and for as long as they wanted, switching as mauch as they wanted. I then had them rate each in order from what sounded best to what sounded worst to them. 95% picked the wav as sounding the best and 100% had the mp3 as the worst. The AAC & Atrac were very close with AAC narrowly winning out 2nd and ATRAC 3rd. The second test was to play the same segment of the song of each encoded type in random order totaling 100 and have the test subjects pick which they thought each one was. This became even more muddled with .wav, ATRAC & AAC BUT the MP3 was still correctly identified 90% of the time. It was stated earlier, you can totally hear it in the reverb tails and dynamics of the track both in the highs and lows.

@SirReal: Interesting results. I have done similar tests...and found the results to be slightly worse than "random guessing" would produce (but not in a statistically interesting amount)...or when I add a "Can not tell" option...that option gets picked about 2/3 of the time.

Either way...there is no substitute for controlled testing and measurement. :)

It was said earlier, you have to "know how to listen" and what to listen for. My tests may be biased as subjects are almost always in an audio career, ie mixers, audio editors, sound engineers. I'm guessing my results wouldn't be quite so definitive if I took just random people off the street. The point is, though, with people who actually "listen for a living" the data shows there is a very discernible difference between 44.1k 16 bit wav and 320 MP3. I bet it'd be even more so with 48K 24 bit wav. That being said, if some DJ played an all 320mp3 set most people would never realize it but if they intermixed MP3 and wav I'm sure some people would notice a difference, I know I would and have and I have far from "Golden Ears"
Nice topic and some great points.

Nice video here about our hearing capabilities here:

http://vimeo.com/31191130

To my surprise this video reveals that Funktion One tested on the NI audio interfaces....

Yeah! I seen that video...and I must say, he is a WHACK character!

:)

He obviously knows a shitload about building sound....but his 'theory' on sound quality is a bit whack...

Maybe I just don't understand, but saying that a thin little cable can run a bigass system?!

Just a bit odd.

On another note, the guy who owns Beartrap Productions, whom I play for, has met and discussed sound with Tony himself.
He now owns the biggest TurboSound Rig in Cape Town (maybe the whole of South Africa) and only has good things to say about Tony.

Funktion One is defintely one of the top sound systems in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirReal

It was said earlier, you have to "know how to listen" and what to listen for. My tests may be biased as subjects are almost always in an audio career, ie mixers, audio editors, sound engineers. I'm guessing my results wouldn't be quite so definitive if I took just random people off the street. The point is, though, with people who actually "listen for a living" the data shows there is a very discernible difference between 44.1k 16 bit wav and 320 MP3. I bet it'd be even more so with 48K 24 bit wav. That being said, if some DJ played an all 320mp3 set most people would never realize it but if they intermixed MP3 and wav I'm sure some people would notice a difference, I know I would and have and I have far from "Golden Ears"
Nice topic and some great points.

---

Agreed!

Play one or the other. Mixing them is where the trouble starts.