Converted wavs don't sound the same
Converted wavs don't sound the same
I've converted some of my burned mixes and "reference songs" to wavs using MP3 Maker. They do not sound the same as the CDA files. Is this just due to a lousy converter program, or is there some inherent degredation in doing this? The converted wavs are much brighter and thinner sounding. I could do mixes on my recorder as wavs and export them, but what I'm concerned about is when I convert reference songs from professionally mastered CD's - is this affecting/changing the harmonic display?
MP3 is a lossy compression format which means that it throws away information that it thinks you won't hear. For the most part it works pretty well but it depends on the content of the material. Some things just don't hold up well under MP3 compression. It also depends a lot on the degreee of compression you opt for (or your software allows for)and the quality of the perceptual encoding model in the converter itself.
I've consistently noted that wav files converted to MP3 with the converters that come with Adobe Audition do not have the same average spectrum as the original source. The top end ends up peaking at around 16kHz and looks quite different from the orignal. I've also noted the same thing with other peoples MP3 files sent to me.
Although I see the merits in MP3 for things like digital radio and portable players and the like, I've always fealt uncomfortable about the idea of throwing stuff out cos you can't hear it. Whether you can or can't hear it is subject to so many other factors that I'm really concerned how these formats hold up in the great variety of acoustic environments we listen to music in. For music I really care about I'd much prefer the full source despite the much larger storage format.
Regards,
Paavo.
I've consistently noted that wav files converted to MP3 with the converters that come with Adobe Audition do not have the same average spectrum as the original source. The top end ends up peaking at around 16kHz and looks quite different from the orignal. I've also noted the same thing with other peoples MP3 files sent to me.
Although I see the merits in MP3 for things like digital radio and portable players and the like, I've always fealt uncomfortable about the idea of throwing stuff out cos you can't hear it. Whether you can or can't hear it is subject to so many other factors that I'm really concerned how these formats hold up in the great variety of acoustic environments we listen to music in. For music I really care about I'd much prefer the full source despite the much larger storage format.
Regards,
Paavo.
Hi Paavo,
I think you misunderstand my post. I'm not converting to MP3. MP3 Maker is the software package I'm using to convert CDA to wav.
I'm concerned that these converted wavs don't sound identical to the originals. So when I load them up in Har-Bal as a reference file, I don't know if it's of value. I guess I'm answering my own question here.
What do others use to convert CDA to wav? And shouldn't they sound pretty much identical - the CDA and converted wav?
Thanks,
Larry
I think you misunderstand my post. I'm not converting to MP3. MP3 Maker is the software package I'm using to convert CDA to wav.
I'm concerned that these converted wavs don't sound identical to the originals. So when I load them up in Har-Bal as a reference file, I don't know if it's of value. I guess I'm answering my own question here.
What do others use to convert CDA to wav? And shouldn't they sound pretty much identical - the CDA and converted wav?
Thanks,
Larry
Converting to .wav
Larry
There are only two applications I use and it really doesn't convert CDA to wav, it actually extracts it as a wave file.
I use Wavelab and Sound Forge. Both are excellent programs and there is no difference in tonal quality or spectral content.
Cheers
Earle
There are only two applications I use and it really doesn't convert CDA to wav, it actually extracts it as a wave file.
I use Wavelab and Sound Forge. Both are excellent programs and there is no difference in tonal quality or spectral content.
Cheers
Earle
Larry,
Sorry I missed the point. I vaguely recall (but don't know cos I haven't seen the "red book" standard) that CD's can be encoded with HF pre-emphasis to give improved SNR. If the software you are using didn't take that into account it might explain your observations. An extraction program that complies to the "red book" standard should suffer no signal degradation at all.
By the way, did you check the spectral content of your extracted file versus the same recorded to see if there is any significant difference? It might be worth trying. I've used a number of CD burner software packages and Adobe Audition to extract wav files and haven't noticed any degradation.
Regards,
Paavo.
Sorry I missed the point. I vaguely recall (but don't know cos I haven't seen the "red book" standard) that CD's can be encoded with HF pre-emphasis to give improved SNR. If the software you are using didn't take that into account it might explain your observations. An extraction program that complies to the "red book" standard should suffer no signal degradation at all.
By the way, did you check the spectral content of your extracted file versus the same recorded to see if there is any significant difference? It might be worth trying. I've used a number of CD burner software packages and Adobe Audition to extract wav files and haven't noticed any degradation.
Regards,
Paavo.
sorry...
Sorry to have wasted your time with this. Turns out I'm just an idiot. I had been routing my PC through my mixer section of the DPS24 not realizing I had left some minor EQ changes on the channels I routed to. The converted wavs are fine. 