.wav vs .mp3 question

[tomvelsor]

simple question..using my portable digital recorder, if i record as a wav then convert it to MP3 afterwards, will it be the same quality as recording as an MP3 in the first place?

[JimmyM]

Usually it will, because it's an internal conversion that you don't see when you record as an MP3.

[Thangfish]

Originally Posted by tomvelsor

simple question..using my portable digital recorder, if i record as a wav then convert it to MP3 afterwards, will it be the same quality as recording as an MP3 in the first place?

Maybe, maybe not.

It won't be the same, but whether it's better or worse just depends.

Normally you'll have very little control over how your digital recorder makes an mp3 file.

MP3 is a lossy compression scheme.
This means that the file is made smaller by selectively throwing away parts of it... hopefully little noticed parts.

Using something like LAME to make MP3 files from wav files, after the fact, gives you much more control over the resulting file size vs sound quality trade off.

Whether you can tell the difference or not depends on your intended use of the file, and the system that is used to reproduce the audio and of course, your ear.

Edit:
Just remember that converting back to wav (or cd audio) from mp3 does NOT get you back the lost quality.
Even though the file size gets real big, the quality lost through mp3 compression is gone forever.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by Thangfish

Maybe, maybe not.

It won't be the same, but whether it's better or worse just depends.

Normally you'll have very little control over how your digital recorder makes an mp3 file.

MP3 is a lossy compression scheme.
This means that the file is made smaller by selectively throwing away parts of it... hopefully little noticed parts.

Using something like LAME to make MP3 files from wav files, after the fact, gives you much more control over the resulting file size vs sound quality trade off.

I thought he was talking about using the recorder itself to encode the WAV files as MP3's, which I wouldn't think would make a difference. But yeah, if you record WAV's, copy them to the computer, then use LAME, absolutely it will make a better MP3.

[Thangfish]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

I thought he was talking about using the recorder itself to encode the WAV files as MP3's, [snip]

Hmmm...
After reading his question again, you might be right.
If that's the case:

"What he said"

[AlphaMale]

The Answer is simply, truly it won't.
But it would still have a high quality sound. A 320 Kbs Or about a 200 Vbs kbs will still sound pretty great. Mp3 Mostly gets rid of sounds you can't hear. You might not tell much of a difference honestly.

[thetawaves]

Originally Posted by AlphaMale

The Answer is simply, truly it won't.
But it would still have a high quality sound. A 320 Kbs Or about a 200 Vbs kbs will still sound pretty great. Mp3 Mostly gets rid of sounds you can't hear. You might not tell much of a difference honestly.

+1

technically .wav is better because it isn't compressed. But you'd have to be putting it through some decent speakers to tell

[AlphaMale]

Originally Posted by thetawaves

+1

technically .wav is better because it isn't compressed. But you'd have to be putting it through some decent speakers to tell

Agreed. As far as the best sound quality, I'd go for wav, but I still use mp3's; a really high quality mp3 won't really sound much different unless your hearing range is really that good. Wav's also capture inaudible sound which only gives subtle differences. As far as what file format to use period? Mp3 for certain cases would usually win. It sends faster, takes up less space, downloads quicker, is requested more, and is playable on every main player, works on most portable audio devices. Mp3 is very convenient. I would Consider using AAC or OGG vorbis. Mp3 is still more asked for though. But if you want something that is lossless and compression, try using FLAC.


If you got a bit confused. Just used Mp3. You really might not be able to tell, and definitely not on just regular headphones.

[DocBop]

Originally Posted by AlphaMale

Mp3 Mostly gets rid of sounds you can't hear. You might not tell much of a difference honestly.

The sounds you don't hear affect the sounds that you do hear. That is why recording never sounds like the real thing. That's why instruments sound different in different rooms. What we hear changes based on what all the frequencies bounce off of. Why even low volume sounds different than high. That's why mastering engineers master for the target audience. people in a theater, at home, or in a car, walking with a iPod or the best compromise they can.

[Floridabwoy]

.mp3 compression is as follows 320kbs, 246kbs, 192kbs, 64kbs.


You will not be able to tell the difference between a .wav and a 320kbs mp3.

I would not record in anything less than that. You might try .flac as well.

[thetawaves]

Originally Posted by Floridabwoy

You might try .flac as well.

I would agree, but the only boggle there is the insane amount of space they use and the general lack of compatability without lucrative 3rd party plugins... can you actually get flac recorders then?

[lemur821]

Originally Posted by tomvelsor

simple question..using my portable digital recorder, if i record as a wav then convert it to MP3 afterwards, will it be the same quality as recording as an MP3 in the first place?

Yees... assuming the portable recorder encodes with quality similar to that of whatever encoder you plan to use later. But even so, I would record to .wav whem possible, in case I want a high quality "master" copy to save or mess with before encoding.

[tomvelsor]

sorry if you misunderstood me..

what i mean is-

if i record live shows in my portable recorder (to be specific, yamaha pocketrak) as a MP3 in the first place, will is not sound as good as recording as a wav, putting it into my computer, then converting it?

im pretty sure you already answered that compressing it to .mp3 afterwards is a better way to go, but im just making sure you all understood..

i could just always go with wav then convert it..but after a long gig i dont want to spend an hour converting 45 differnt tracks to mp3s, for something thats questionable as is.

[thetawaves]

Originally Posted by tomvelsor

if i record live shows in my portable recorder (to be specific, yamaha pocketrak) as a MP3 in the first place, will is not sound as good as recording as a wav, putting it into my computer, then converting it?

precisely! May as well keep it as MP3 matey

[lemur821]

Originally Posted by tomvelsor

if i record live shows in my portable recorder (to be specific, yamaha pocketrak) as a MP3 in the first place, will is not sound as good as recording as a wav, putting it into my computer, then converting it?

That really depends on the encoder in your recorder. If it's lame and/or doesn't offer the options you want, you're better off using a more powerful program on the computer.

Originally Posted by tomvelsor

i could just always go with wav then convert it..but after a long gig i dont want to spend an hour converting 45 differnt tracks to mp3s, for something thats questionable as is.

Your encoder doesn't have any kind of batch mode, so you can start it going and forget about it?

[Charling]

I think that recording a live gig or rehearsal or even in-the-field interviews etc going straight to mp3 in the recorder will be the best option. You may get a better conversion once in the computer but not one which would significantly increase the enjoyment of a gig recorded from the crowd on a single or stereo mic.

that said, with a batch converter like cd ex all you would have to do is select all the tracks, press convert and go ad have a cup of tea, so if you think you can hear an audible difference in quality (which again considering the source material you may not) then go for that, it takes no time at all!

'CD ex' is good, small, simple and free for ripping and wav mp3 conversion.