I have been experimenting with some different file types of the same music track to see if there is any appreciable difference in my system. I have done this once before some time ago and found a little difference, but with one thing and another never gone any further with this.
However, I have today converted a couple of downloaded tracks from MP3 format to WAV, again to test the difference. Since the last time I tried this, I have made a couple of changes to my system for the better and the system generally is performing at a higher level than when I previously undertook the test (have gone from no power supply on 282 to supercap DR, system now on fraimlite instead of 'Ash rack's Cosmic' stand, DC1 instead of cheaper alternative (quite a surprising change!) and Hi-line instead of standard Lavender interconnect).
The idea to convert files started again whilst listening to a playlist which went from one track which was a full WAV CD rip performed by the HDX, to a downloaded 256k MP3 track. The sound went from a wonderfully rich bodied holographic sound to a flat sound sinking back into the speakers.
So I decided to try and convert the MP3 file to WAV, to see if this would improve things any........
Well the short answer to the experiment is yes, is did improve things and quite considerably too I found.
When comparing the original MP3 file to the new WAV conversion, the MP3 was about 7mb in size, compared to the WAV which was about 43mb.
So, not being too technically savvy, I was wondering how this has managed to make a much better quality file from a heavily compressed one. Is it the case that when a file is compressed to MP3, it still retains all the quality data to restore it again to other file types? Or is it the case that there is a magic process during the WAV conversion that expands and polishes it back to its near original state?
I'm not really clear on how we've managed to extract 43mb of data out of 7mb and make it sound considerably better. Is there the equivalent of a zip file in the MP3 file? If anyone is able to explain how this works in layman's terms, I would be most appreciative!!
Posted on: 04 September 2014 by hafler3o
Depending on the method used to convert mp3 to wav, the conversion method can 'guess' the missing data (a bit like an autocorrecting spellchecker) but the file will not be as accurate as an original wav. Lossy files really are lossy because they literally 'lose' data, most of which hopefully will be redundant padding and stuff that is peripheral or low-level. Lost data is precisely that, lost, not hidden, not stored elsewhere, not playing backwards in the mix devilishly!
Posted on: 04 September 2014 by Jason
Thank you both for clarifying this for me. I do remember in previous presentations at Naim streaming events that Naim favour WAV files, which is why Naim servers rip to WAV and why I tried WAV for the conversion.
What it is about WAV that works so well with my equipment I don't know, but there is an appreciable difference when back to back tested. I guess it must be down to the file type having some sort of sound of its own? In any case, I shall be converting more downloaded MP3's to gain the benefit that I am finding with WAV!
As for the MP3 trivia question Jan, it's a complete guess but I'm going to go with something recorded by The Beatles?
Posted on: 04 September 2014 by garyi
I cannot fathom why it would sound better, a lossy file is a lossy file, when you converted to wav all you did was take some ingredients and put it into a pot to large for the ingredients. Nothing changed.
At most, and I am being generous here, it might have sounded different, and even if it does indeed sound better that does not make it the original file.
Personally I avoid WAV, to these ears lossless is lossless and FLAC sounds just as good, and is far less hassle than WAV.
Posted on: 04 September 2014 by Jason
Errr....where's Jan post disappeared to? It was only there for a few minutes!!
Gary, I don't know why it sounds better, I was trying to get my head round it myself, but there is a difference in my system. It is enough to make me want to convert my other MP3's to see if the theme continues!
Posted on: 04 September 2014 by Ikoun
Well, i remember some words like "source first"... it is maybe the time to talk about the original file to be played. Based on MP3, you will never give the right food your boxes deserve.
Anyway, if the artist is good for you, it should bring emotions, the most important.
Posted on: 04 September 2014 by Jan-Erik Nordoen
Sorry, hafler's reply that conversion to WAV involves some guessing and interpolation to recreate data just threw me for a loop. I had to delete my reply and have a lie down.
I feel better now, but is it true that some of the missing information is recreated or approximated ? I'm all tapped out on the issue, so Hu all go ahead and debate it if you wish.
But if it is so, then that could go some way to explaining why the WAV version might sound better. Or, perhaps it's due to the extra computer processing required during decompression of the MP3, which doesn't occur when playing the repackaged WAV version. I always feel terrible during decompression, and I can imagine a music file might suffer too.
And the trivia question was : What was the first song converted to MP3 ?
Posted on: 04 September 2014 by Bart
Originally Posted by Jan-Erik Nordoen:
And the trivia question was : What was the first song converted to MP3 ?
"I want my, I want my, I want my emm pee threeeeeeeeeee."
Posted on: 05 September 2014 by hafler3o
Originally Posted by Jan-Erik Nordoen:
Sorry, hafler's reply that conversion to WAV involves some guessing and interpolation to recreate data just threw me for a loop. I had to delete my reply and have a lie down.
Conversion to wav 'can' involve interpolation (dependent upon the chosen algorithm etc.) Software programs written to 'do' something can use wildly differing schema to get their end results, which are not obligated to be the same, only compliant with the standard (in this case wav!)
How many Bibles have there been published in English over the years? English is the format in this analogy. The method of interpretation and translation is the implementation of the conversion code.
To be confident of a programs ability to convert faithfully from one format to another the process should yield the same identical files at either end no matter how many times the process of conversion is performed ie mp3 to wav to mp3 ( iteration 1 ), compare both mp3 before and after conversion, result [identity=true]. This process is essential to be true for Zip programs that compress generic data and then decompress. However there is no 'essential requirement' for a mp3 to wav converter program to have any prior knowledge of what format the mp3 was before it was asked to do it's job.
If a wav file sounds better to the OP after conversion from mp3 then I'd say use it! I'd also archive the original mp3 as the OP might find a different conversion program that makes 'better' sounding better wavs from mp3, but only from the original mp3s!
As with all things in life it is not understanding the answer to questions in life, it is understanding how to ask the right questions. I do not convert files myself, I'd get into a big pickle trying to archive all the versions I'd end up creating!
