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

[soundinmotiondj]

Well the end result of your sound is only as good as your speakers. Its been said a few times about doing the blind test. The reason I say its in the mind is because you know its technically inferior therefore you think you hear a difference.

+1

"Confirmation bias", "verification bias", "experimenters bias" by any other name are real. A "double blind" test is the *only* way to get a valid result. There is a reason that the "double blind" test is the standard in ALL of science.

[mostapha]

Seriously?? I have worked with television engineers, broadcast technicians, professionals in this field that live and breathe this stuff and not ever has anyone ever said that HD sucks and looks like shit. Your opinion is your opinion but reallly, it doesn't take a genius to see its better.

Yes. It's better than SD or normal, old TV. It's not better than what was technologically possible a decade ago. Better. But not good enough to get the least bit excited about.

Those who say they can see a difference [between HD versions] are the same ones that say they can tell the difference between a 320 mp3 and a wav. Its all in the mind.

I can tell the difference b/t 320 mp3 and wav in blind tests. The fact that you can't just means you don't know what to listen for.

[SirReal]

FYI my test were double blind MP3 vs wav. Also 23.98 fps is not film speed, it's video speed. Film is 24 fps and is equivalent 30ndftc. 23.976=29.97ndftc. A difference of .01%. Let's not even get into PAL.

[sarasin]

Seriously?? I have worked with television engineers, broadcast technicians, professionals in this field that live and breathe this stuff and not ever has anyone ever said that HD sucks and looks like shit. Your opinion is your opinion but reallly, it doesn't take a genius to see its better. You sound like the old guys who refused to get a color tv because the black and white one is the same thing. I never worked at best buy, I worked in broadcast television. The only thing I see that is shoved down consumers throats and is nonsense is that 1080p HD is pure HD top quality when you can't tell the difference between 1080p, 1080i, or 720p. Those who say they can see a difference are the same ones that say they can tell the difference between a 320 mp3 and a wav. Its all in the mind.

Ooooh BURN!

That last remark is gonna open the can!

LOL!

[JonathanBlake]

Ooooh BURN!
That last remark is gonna open the can!
LOL!

Here we go again..........

[mostapha]

I thought that's what this thread was supposed to be about………………oh………i see what you did there.

[MaxOne]

Any way we can do a poll? Like maybe with a few downloadable sources... All WAV but some converted from 320mp3...

Would that work?

Then people could commit to which is which on the forum before releasing the results.

[Pagaille21]

Theoretically there should be no differnce as 320bit mp3s 'keep' all the fundamental frequencies we could possibly hear. This being said, i notice an audible difference on big speakers.
also i gotta admit, mp3 is hella convenient

In saying that if you are playing to a crowd, you should be using wav files, you need any extra edge as a dj and slightly better sound quality could be the reason you get another gig.

[photojojo]

Any way we can do a poll? Like maybe with a few downloadable sources... All WAV but some converted from 320mp3...

Would that work?

Then people could commit to which is which on the forum before releasing the results.

To many variables on what people are listening to the samples on.

Can you please take the sound cloud player out of your sig pagaille21.

[mostapha]

Theoretically there should be no differnce as 320bit mp3s 'keep' all the fundamental frequencies we could possibly hear.

There is nothing about that statement that's correct. I'm guessing you got it off some marketing site?