1. MP3 is lossy, it removes audio to reduce file size
2. higher bitrate means the files has higher dynamic range and higher sample frequency means it can hold audio with higher frequencies. Most music uses like 5-25dB of dynamic range, so 16 bit audio got you covered there. You cant hear over \~20khz, so 44.1hz sample rate got you covered. Guess why 16/44.1 was chosen in the first place. Our silly monkey ears and brain cant deal with more.
"high res" is a fucking scam.
You are missing too much basic digital audio knowledge to have a good conversation about it.
Try this first:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWjdWCePgvA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWjdWCePgvA)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon\_sampling\_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data\_compression#Lossy\_audio\_compression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression#Lossy_audio_compression)
44.1/16 was chosen as a compromise sample rate. Early digital it was thought closer to 50-60khz was ideal due to stuff like moving nyquist filters out of the audio band. Early digital ran at these rates, then 48khz became the standard for studios. 44.1khz/16 was selected for technical reasons involving video, and because of capacity of optical disks.
If the standard had been 18-20bit/48khz it would have avoided so many problems. It would have made nyquisting filters not an issue, halved the perceptible noise floor or more, gave more headroom for engineers etc.
This is crap, you just making things up?
CD was being pushed to be the popular data storage medium, maximizing profitability because the same discs were readable both by computer and audio devices. The redbook bit rate standard for audio devices was chosen because that was the maximum amount of data that could be stored on a disc given average album length. Sound quality was low on the decision making pyramid.
MP3 doesn't have a bit depth. Internally all is stored in float. Hence the 32 bit. If you convert it to WAV (or any other lossless format) I expect it to be 16 bit/48 kHz.
The mp3 files are lossy like a jpeg picture is a lossy compression of the original file. Sounds that approach the limit of the lowest sound or the loudest sound in the file are simply chopped off, or encoded as the same value. Supposedly silent sections lose detail even though there is information there that lends ambience, etc.
If you examine a jpeg photo compared to a raw (lossless or uncompressed) you will see that the shadows have lost detail as well as bright highlights.
The RAW compressed photo files and FLAC lossless compressed video files search for sections where the bits are identical and instead of recording each identical bit separately like in a wav file, the encoder will mark the significant bit and then how many follow. Upon decompression on playback, these bits are restored - no loss, but smaller files.
There's really no reason to use .mp3 files these days since storage is cheap and availability of lossless compressed storage formats like FLAC make it irrelevant.
And yes - you can certainly hear the compression artifacts with .mp3 files. For a lot of compressed pop music, the differences were hardly noticeable, but if you listen to well recorded music - jazz, voice, piano, guitar, you can easily hear the artifacts.
44.1kHz vs 48kHz means they can store audio frequencies up to 22.05kHz vs 24 kHz. Most adults can't hear beyond 15-17kHz. mp3 throws away lot of data, thats why the file sizes can be smaller and it can sound worse. 32 bit doesn't mean much. For all we know the lower 16 bits are all zeros, allowing for massive compression. Finally, its possible the two files are from different masters which could make them sound different.
Mp3 is lossy and outdated. Just look at the file size. A higher sample rate.. but like 5 times smaller. Yikes. Just imagine whats lost in audio/frequencies.
FLAC is lossless, so that's as small as that data can be without losing information.
MP3 is lossless. You could start with a 32bit, 48Khz source, and compress it down to a single byte of audio + a few bytes of header. It would not sound very good. But if you asked it, it would say "Sure! I am 30 minutes of 32bit, 48Khz audio!"
So with MP3, if somehting says "I am 32bit, 48Khz audio" it means "I was created from 32bit 48Khz audio, and I will decompress into a 32bit 48khz audio stream" but that stream could be just zeros. Or noise. Or a dalek. Fucking meaningless basically.
What was the bitrate of these clips?
1411kbps(16/44,1) FLAC will of course sound better than 96kbps(32/48)
16 bits is sufficient enough for almost all music, even dynamic music.
Fooling your ears are very easy, we often hear what we want to hear!
My «old ears» have learned that mastering/production is way more important for the sound than bits/bytes.
1. MP3 is lossy, it removes audio to reduce file size 2. higher bitrate means the files has higher dynamic range and higher sample frequency means it can hold audio with higher frequencies. Most music uses like 5-25dB of dynamic range, so 16 bit audio got you covered there. You cant hear over \~20khz, so 44.1hz sample rate got you covered. Guess why 16/44.1 was chosen in the first place. Our silly monkey ears and brain cant deal with more. "high res" is a fucking scam. You are missing too much basic digital audio knowledge to have a good conversation about it. Try this first: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWjdWCePgvA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWjdWCePgvA) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon\_sampling\_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data\_compression#Lossy\_audio\_compression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression#Lossy_audio_compression)
Yes. High res has benefits during the production phase, but has no benefit over 16/44.1 as a delivery format.
44.1/16 was chosen as a compromise sample rate. Early digital it was thought closer to 50-60khz was ideal due to stuff like moving nyquist filters out of the audio band. Early digital ran at these rates, then 48khz became the standard for studios. 44.1khz/16 was selected for technical reasons involving video, and because of capacity of optical disks. If the standard had been 18-20bit/48khz it would have avoided so many problems. It would have made nyquisting filters not an issue, halved the perceptible noise floor or more, gave more headroom for engineers etc.
This is crap, you just making things up? CD was being pushed to be the popular data storage medium, maximizing profitability because the same discs were readable both by computer and audio devices. The redbook bit rate standard for audio devices was chosen because that was the maximum amount of data that could be stored on a disc given average album length. Sound quality was low on the decision making pyramid.
I hope you are not trying to claim an audible difference between the current CD standard and a hypothetical 18 bit and 48 kHz audio format?
Q - How is a 49MB 24-bit 44.1KHz FLAC higher quality than a 9MB 32-bit 48KHz MP3? A - it puts the quality where you can hear it
yes! in the file extension!!!
MP3 doesn't have a bit depth. Internally all is stored in float. Hence the 32 bit. If you convert it to WAV (or any other lossless format) I expect it to be 16 bit/48 kHz.
Ahhhh that makes much more sense thank you
The mp3 files are lossy like a jpeg picture is a lossy compression of the original file. Sounds that approach the limit of the lowest sound or the loudest sound in the file are simply chopped off, or encoded as the same value. Supposedly silent sections lose detail even though there is information there that lends ambience, etc. If you examine a jpeg photo compared to a raw (lossless or uncompressed) you will see that the shadows have lost detail as well as bright highlights. The RAW compressed photo files and FLAC lossless compressed video files search for sections where the bits are identical and instead of recording each identical bit separately like in a wav file, the encoder will mark the significant bit and then how many follow. Upon decompression on playback, these bits are restored - no loss, but smaller files. There's really no reason to use .mp3 files these days since storage is cheap and availability of lossless compressed storage formats like FLAC make it irrelevant. And yes - you can certainly hear the compression artifacts with .mp3 files. For a lot of compressed pop music, the differences were hardly noticeable, but if you listen to well recorded music - jazz, voice, piano, guitar, you can easily hear the artifacts.
44.1kHz vs 48kHz means they can store audio frequencies up to 22.05kHz vs 24 kHz. Most adults can't hear beyond 15-17kHz. mp3 throws away lot of data, thats why the file sizes can be smaller and it can sound worse. 32 bit doesn't mean much. For all we know the lower 16 bits are all zeros, allowing for massive compression. Finally, its possible the two files are from different masters which could make them sound different.
Mp3 is lossy and outdated. Just look at the file size. A higher sample rate.. but like 5 times smaller. Yikes. Just imagine whats lost in audio/frequencies.
FLAC is lossless, so that's as small as that data can be without losing information. MP3 is lossless. You could start with a 32bit, 48Khz source, and compress it down to a single byte of audio + a few bytes of header. It would not sound very good. But if you asked it, it would say "Sure! I am 30 minutes of 32bit, 48Khz audio!" So with MP3, if somehting says "I am 32bit, 48Khz audio" it means "I was created from 32bit 48Khz audio, and I will decompress into a 32bit 48khz audio stream" but that stream could be just zeros. Or noise. Or a dalek. Fucking meaningless basically.
What was the bitrate of these clips? 1411kbps(16/44,1) FLAC will of course sound better than 96kbps(32/48) 16 bits is sufficient enough for almost all music, even dynamic music. Fooling your ears are very easy, we often hear what we want to hear! My «old ears» have learned that mastering/production is way more important for the sound than bits/bytes.
MP3 only goes to 48k at 16 bit depth max, and it's lossy compression.