G
Groove1670
Guest
Anyone using 256K MP3 or higher for broadcast Vs WAV. What are your thoughts on quality. Other than wasting space, I Can't Tell the difference.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
I am way down the list of people who should try to answer that question as I do not have "golden ears".
My philosophy: Save your master studio recording as a .wav file if it is ever going to need editing in the future or you will need another .mp3 or other compressed file at a different bit rate that the first one you make.
If you are creating files for automation on an AM station I conclude the 256K MP3 will exceed the audio chain that begins with your automation playback and ends up at the average listeners receiver. Except for those few stations that program to audiophile perfectionists, I have a feeling that 256K MP3 will also exceed what an FM station can deliver.... by the time to factor in what the listener is using for a receiver.
Conventional wisdom proclaims that if a sponsor calls and wants a commercial modified, you don't want to pull an mp3 back into the DAW/Editor, do the changes, and then export to MP3. But I bet you will hear from people who have done it and lived to tell about it! ;D
My philosophy: Save your master studio recording as a .wav file if it is ever going to need editing in the future or you will need another .mp3 or other compressed file at a different bit rate that the first one you make.
If you are creating files for automation on an AM station I conclude the 256K MP3 will exceed the audio chain that begins with your automation playback and ends up at the average listeners receiver. Except for those few stations that program to audiophile perfectionists, I have a feeling that 256K MP3 will also exceed what an FM station can deliver.... by the time to factor in what the listener is using for a receiver.
Conventional wisdom proclaims that if a sponsor calls and wants a commercial modified, you don't want to pull an mp3 back into the DAW/Editor, do the changes, and then export to MP3. But I bet you will hear from people who have done it and lived to tell about it! ;D
Depends a lot on the ultimate use of the file, IMO. Music files for broadcast on FM: I would 100% of the time go with WAV. Commercials are good in MP3 format...I usually save mine with a bitrate as low as 128kbps. This is all related to FM and not AM. I would think that, unless you are using very aggressive processing, you could get away with playing MP3 files of any type on an AM station.
G
Groove1670
Guest
Sorry gang, I should of said for a music library. I have heard some poor audio quality spots on many major market stations (it seems what you hear is what you get) when it comes to agency spots. So for this discussion.. I mean the music library. I have looked at waveforms for 256k and WAV and have not seen much of a difference (Can't hear a difference). However when it comes to 128k Vs 256K I can hear the difference.
Beware of cascading codecs. That 256K MP3 may sound just fine in the studio, but if it goes through a compressed digital STL somewhere along the way, or gets compressed for streaming, or goes through the HD Radio codec, who knows what it might sound like when it gets to the listener.
Hard drive space is cheap. Go for the WAV.
Hard drive space is cheap. Go for the WAV.
Scott Fybush said:
When I worked at KFWR in Ft. Worth the clueless GM ordered the engineer to put in mp3's. When it was done the clueless GM said the processing was awful. Finally the clueless GM brought in super duper engineer Jim Loupas. First thing Jim Loupas did was change all music to WAV. After Jim Loupas went through everything to make it sound GREAT and after clueless GM paid THOUSANDS to Loupas clueless GM hires another engineer and blames the original egineer for everything. Now I know why Jim Loupas got into CONSULTING
musiconradio.com said:
Definitely want to go with WAV in that case. Also, a lot of the final sound depends on what brand of processor your station is being processed with. If you're using an Orban Optimod or any kind of processor that adds a compressor into the chain, MP3 files of any bitrate will have your signal sounding like a washed-out mess. Omnia processors don't do as bad with MP3 files, but keep in mind that the station's processing is going to accentuate--not mask--any errors in the original file.
There's a really easy way to decide what format to use. If it's possible and practical in any way to use wav, do it. If it's a situation where it's not possible or practical, such as delivering a finished product, use mp3. Wave will always sound better. Even if you can't hear the difference, someone can.
If archiving, you can use WMA lossless, FLAC or ape to save space.
Mp3 is an amazingly useful tool, but it's also heavily abused by people with tin ears. Remember what I said, if it's possible and practical to use wav, do it.
Emmett
If archiving, you can use WMA lossless, FLAC or ape to save space.
Mp3 is an amazingly useful tool, but it's also heavily abused by people with tin ears. Remember what I said, if it's possible and practical to use wav, do it.
Emmett
You should use WAV, especially now that HD is at 1TB for around $100 or a little more. mp3 and mp2 should be used only if you need to send audio and compression is required (email, FTP, etc). While you may not hear the difference, mp3 at lower bitrates is not as "full" as WAV and has artifacts (especially at 128kbps), which may lead to listener fatigue. In addition, mp3 at high compression will not cascade well.
About mp2 and mp3:
Actually, mp2 is an overlooked but great codec when used at high bitrates, such as 384kbps (the first layer of compression). And it cascades very well. mp2 is an great choice when you're using lower levels of compression, such as 5:1 or less. If you want higher compression ratios up to around 10:1, then mp3 would be a better choice. I *believe* that mp2 is best for lower ratios and mp3 is better for higher ratios.
Regardless of which one you choose, always go for the highest bitrate that you can: 320kbps for mp3 and 384kbps for mp2 if possible.
Here are a few equations from another board
mp2: 16*44,100*2/384kbps = 3.7:1 compression ratio..... very good results
mp3: 16*44,100*2/320kbps = 4.4:1 compression ratio.... good results
mp3: 16*44,100*2/128kbps = 11:1 compresssion ratio.... not great, noticeable artifacts
Good luck....
About mp2 and mp3:
Actually, mp2 is an overlooked but great codec when used at high bitrates, such as 384kbps (the first layer of compression). And it cascades very well. mp2 is an great choice when you're using lower levels of compression, such as 5:1 or less. If you want higher compression ratios up to around 10:1, then mp3 would be a better choice. I *believe* that mp2 is best for lower ratios and mp3 is better for higher ratios.
Regardless of which one you choose, always go for the highest bitrate that you can: 320kbps for mp3 and 384kbps for mp2 if possible.
Here are a few equations from another board
mp2: 16*44,100*2/384kbps = 3.7:1 compression ratio..... very good results
mp3: 16*44,100*2/320kbps = 4.4:1 compression ratio.... good results
mp3: 16*44,100*2/128kbps = 11:1 compresssion ratio.... not great, noticeable artifacts
Good luck....
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Someone should note that .wav is not a format per-se, but a container. I'm sure what's meant by ".wav" is uncompressed .wav, but nobody has said that, so I thought I'd toss it out. A file can have a .wav file extension, and still have mp3 (mp2, adpcm, whatever) compression.
As for 128kbps mp3 being "good enough" for commercials, why is it ok for the spots, WHICH PAY YOUR BILLS, to be of lower quality? Obviously, they shouldn't be. In fact, if there are noticable artifacts in your spots, it makes it more likely that listeners will tune away from your station during a stopset. While mp3 is very commonly used for distribution (by me, and nearly every other studio owner), I would never, NEVER, EVER send MY work out at 128kbps! Just as hard drive space is cheap these days, SO IS BANDWIDTH!
As for 128kbps mp3 being "good enough" for commercials, why is it ok for the spots, WHICH PAY YOUR BILLS, to be of lower quality? Obviously, they shouldn't be. In fact, if there are noticable artifacts in your spots, it makes it more likely that listeners will tune away from your station during a stopset. While mp3 is very commonly used for distribution (by me, and nearly every other studio owner), I would never, NEVER, EVER send MY work out at 128kbps! Just as hard drive space is cheap these days, SO IS BANDWIDTH!
I've had my share of "there ain't no difference between dem wave files and mp3's." arguments. In one case when it was decided mp3's were the way to go. Then they blamed me for processing issues because they didn't sound as good as the other stations. After I told them to get....(cough)...excuse me this a family board......and suggested it was the mp3's. I was told it was still my fault because I messed with the processing. In the end, the problem was the freeware CD ripper program that created 56kbps mp3's. By the way that and other issues of stupidity are why I'm no longer their engineer.
However, there is an advantage if your competitor believes, "there ain't no difference between dem wave files and mp3's". In those cases they do get an mp3, sometimes as low as 96kbps. Also, I've been known to sum the audio to mono and return to two track eliminating stereo separation. They have no idea and they put it on the air. On my station you hear a once compressed to mp2 spot in stereo. On their station is a shredded mess in mono. Bonus, they spent the 100k for the HD transmitter so their mp3 collection sound really good in "digital".
However, there is an advantage if your competitor believes, "there ain't no difference between dem wave files and mp3's". In those cases they do get an mp3, sometimes as low as 96kbps. Also, I've been known to sum the audio to mono and return to two track eliminating stereo separation. They have no idea and they put it on the air. On my station you hear a once compressed to mp2 spot in stereo. On their station is a shredded mess in mono. Bonus, they spent the 100k for the HD transmitter so their mp3 collection sound really good in "digital".
National agencies, big ones from NYC, Chicago, L.A., etc all send mp3's (44.1 16bit 320kbps).
I send all my work 320 or if requested will send as AIFF or wav - posted to a ftp for easy download as wav and aif are large files, depending on the content.
If just dry voice... for radio stations... 128 is fine. Many of your "major" talent send @ 128 dry. Most TV stations I work with want AIF since they're using Avid and it's easier to load.
I send all my work 320 or if requested will send as AIFF or wav - posted to a ftp for easy download as wav and aif are large files, depending on the content.
If just dry voice... for radio stations... 128 is fine. Many of your "major" talent send @ 128 dry. Most TV stations I work with want AIF since they're using Avid and it's easier to load.
As for music... I agree, use wav if possible.
With that said, ALL Clear Channel stations broadcast mp2s. Sounds fine, depending on how that particular station is processed.
I'm no snobby audiophile...so I'm not listening critically. IMHO. mp3's and mp2's are fine for on air (music) as long as the bitrate is the best possible.
With that said, ALL Clear Channel stations broadcast mp2s. Sounds fine, depending on how that particular station is processed.
I'm no snobby audiophile...so I'm not listening critically. IMHO. mp3's and mp2's are fine for on air (music) as long as the bitrate is the best possible.
I don't work in radio today, but two chief engineers have told me they prefer WAV files, even for AM radio. One of the CEs said he can tell the difference, and the other CE said storage is not an issue at his station.
- Status