Can you tell a difference between an MP3 and a WAV?

[C.Thep]

I was a bit disappointed of my ears for not being able to tell any difference in quality after reading so many people saying that WAV files were the way to listen to music.

I was using a Lexicon sound card, AKG headphones, and a WAV file that I copied and converted to MP3.

You think I'd be able to tell a difference if I did something differently?

[MarkE]

It depends on the quality of the WAV file to begin with. They're uncompressed by default but a WAV file can also be a wrapper for a compressed file, so there may have been no quality lost by converting to mp3 in this case.

I'm sure if you started with an uncompressed WAV and converted to a 96kbps mp3 you would notice the difference.

[tom1325]

mp3 varies in quality, so when you converted the wav file depending on which program you used you can select the bit rate/sample rate something like that, which then varies the quality of the mp3

[Blue Lizard]

Yes - when you know what you're listening for, it becomes easier to tell the difference. IME the lower quality of mp3's is often easy to pick out when otherwise crisp and clear cymbal crashes turn into smeared, 'shushy' sounds.

Personally, for digitising my own listening music collection, I don't use anything less than Apple's Lossless on Mac, but there are plenty of other lossless options for PC (FLAC etc.)

[jemsite]

Originally Posted by C.Thep

I was a bit disappointed of my ears for not being able to tell any difference in quality after reading so many people saying that WAV files were the way to listen to music.

I was using a Lexicon sound card, AKG headphones, and a WAV file that I copied and converted to MP3.

You think I'd be able to tell a difference if I did something differently?

By WAV we're talking ripping a CD directly to WAV (no data re-encoding the WAV is the actual file format so WAV = CD AUDIO). So the better test is rip a CD to 196kpbs MP3 (lor lower or higher) and compare MP3 to the CD source.

as posted above the sample method & data rate of WAV vs MP3 is more important than WAV vs MP3.

My music library is ripped to WMA Windows Media Lossless which is mathematically lossless (NO DATA/SOUND LOSS) vs the original WAV files on CD. FLAC and other similar lossless methods are similar but imho just not compliant enough with many media or mobile players.

I can tell you with certainty you can immediately notice the difference of the WAV/Lossless full resolution file vs ANY encoded MP3. Properly encoded to MP3 above 384kbps is close and will fool some (vs CD original) but not when you listen with a good system (speakers/headphones & sound card) and know what to listen for.

Remember some are less sensitive to high pitched noise (ie. might have some hearing damage as well) masking MP3 downsampling/re-encoding errors... glen

[S-man]

I've noticed that the itunes player seems to have some kinda stereo imaging or something going on with it..... It seems more trebly. This is with the eq, etc. disabled. Just my experience.

But yeah, generally I can tell the difference between a mp3 and wav.

[C.Thep]

oh, thanks for the info everyone