AM I CRAZY?!? MP3s Sound GREAT | MP3 vs WAV vs AAC

Can you hear a difference between WAV vs MP3 vs AAC audio files? Is lossy audio compression really as bad as everyone says it is?

This video dives deep into what those differences ACTUALLY are and what they sound like so you know what to listen for when working with and preparing uncompressed and compressed audio files for final release!

💥PLUGINS💥

💥COURSES💥
👨‍🔬 Complete Home Studio Mastering Course (Rock & Metal) 💰10% OFF Link:

💥LET'S WORK TOGETHER💥
Get a customized mixing and mastering package for your music!

💥ARTIST💥

💥MY GEAR💥

💥SOCIAL💥

💥CONNECT💥

Please help support this channel! Some of the links are affiliate links which doesn't cost you anything extra. At the same time, I also receive a small tip from each sale (basically like buying me a cup of coffee ☕ for helping you out with these high-quality videos).

It's a win win, and I very much appreciate it 😀

HASHTAGS
#MP3 #Mixing #Mastering

⌚TIMESTAMPS⌚
00:00 What Does Loss Audio Compression Sound Like?
01:23 Download My Favorite Free Plugins Guide 🎁
01:53 In the Session
02:08 Artifacts caused by MP3 and AAC Transcoding
04:04 Uncompressed WAV vs MP3
07:20 Comparing Quality Loss of Wav to 320, 192, and 128 kbps MP3 Files
08:42 What sounds better? MP3 vs AAC codecs
10:59 Battle of the WORST! AAC vs MP3 at 128 kbps
12:21 Don't Forget Your FREE Gift!

[MichaelSheaAudio]

I've had people asking me for FLAC files of a project I recently did, and I didn't really know why. I've had no problems with MP3's for many years. So I exported a full FLAC file, like no compression, the file is 200mb, it's insane, and A/B tested it against the normal 8mb 192kbps MP3 file in Studio One. I could not tell a difference on my monitoring headphones, whether knowing which was which or not. I'll still do the FLAC files for other people if they really want it, but compressed files sound perfectly fine, to an extent. I know how terrible low quality MP3's are, I used to have many of them, and some of them are still kicking around in my library since they're very rare songs. Bumping up to 320kbps doesn't really change the file size for MP3, so I've moved up to that, but I'm still going to listen to MP3's and be content.

[audeption]

Thank you for the video. Because the encoders are very good these days, it is generally really difficult to hear, especially in higher bitrates. But keep in mind, the audio codec here on YouTube is already lossy, so we can't never hear the real uncompressed WAV audio in this video.

[__mareK]

I asked my producer friend (he produces electronic music, and I mostly listen to this kind of music so i know what it's supposed to sound like) to export the same track directly from the DAW in a couple different formats (@ 44100 Hz, since higher sample rate =/= higher quality), and we listened to them in parallel firstly blind, and afterwards with knowing which are which, and here are our impressions:

Lossless formats (WAV, FLAC & AIFF, 24-bit and 16-bit each) - We could pick out the lossless formats in the blind test, and we agreed on linking the sound quality of these files the most, but we couldn't tell them apart from one another, even after multiple listens... 16-bit FLAC-s have the smallest file size, and plenty of tagging capabilities, so this would be my pick for Hi-Fi listening, while sound engineers, producers and DJ-s should go for WAV for compatibility and editing reasons.

Lossy formats (MP3 & AAC) - We could tell the lower quality of these files, but here I could also place the lossy files into 3 tiers of quality between themselves, while my friend just said "these all sound terrible", and stopped listening 😅.
-1st tier is 320kbps MP3-s with CBR and "Highest quality" MP3-s with VBR: I couldn't tell the difference with these 2, but the latter has slightly smaller file sizes. These 2 are perfectly fine for entry level Hi-Fi (eg. $20-$50 IEM-s or speakers), and is what I use for my library since the file size diffrences between this and lossless are about 60%, with the quality staying really close.
-2nd tier are 320kbps AAC & 192kbps CBR: Louder parts sound identical to the first tier, but quieter parts of songs is where you can tell there is information loss. These are a hefty 80% smaller than lossless and are also fine for average listeners, but I prefer HQ MP3-s.
-3rd tier are everything else (128 CBR, 192 & 128 AAC and MQ & LQ VBR): All of these don't sound good to my ears, although the difference is harder to notice once I tried some lower quality earbuds. I'd stay away from these, unless you're desperate for storage space.

While this tier list might suggest otherwise, the diffrences between all of these weren't THAT great, and to someone who didn't take this kind of critical approach to listening, they might have been indistinguishable (except the 3rd tier, where I think everybody would be able to tell). Also keep in mind that this test is done on electronic music where audio is pushed to it's limits compared to other genres, and I imagine the diffrences would be even harder to tell for pop or classical music.

PS English isn't my first language so forgive if I have some spelling or grammar errors.

[Chunksville]

The digital equivalent of analogue sources 30+ years ago : good quality = cassette / excellent quality = Vinyl LP / Studio quality = Reel tape (at least 15ips), but most consumers then listened to cassette through headphones so enjoyed the worst version of the master, so the majority of music consumers taking streaming now via spotify etc is getting a pretty decent sound if you compare it to the mass consumption of the cassette back then.

[davidasher]

I did these blind tests a few years ago and I honestly couldn't tell the difference between 320 kbps and the wav file. and when I was just choosing based on what I thought sounded better I was predominantly choosing the MP3. That was very humbling and nudged me down a rabbit hole of digital audio and audio science in general. and its been a great ride! if only more engineers and audiophiles would try these test themselves. its only made me smarter, not to mention has save me some money! great stuff!

[RoamFM]

I only notice a difference when the mp3 is a low quality conversion, and/Or has artifacts.

[hinesification]

Well done. I've always been able to hear the artifacts, and this demonstration really brings it home. I agree that most people listening to streaming in their car, or on cheap audio gear will likely never really notice, especially without the A/B comparison.

When working on a mix, or listening on my high end stereo equipment, the MPS really bugs me. I have a client who sent me his tracks recorded with MP3, and I just could not make them sound right. I made him render to WAV. After he did, I had him A/B and he could definitely tell.

Lastly, i heard some pumping in the left channel cymbals. It's there is the WAV, but it got exaggerated when compressed.

Anyway, great video. Thanks!

[richh]

YouTube down samples audio to at best.... 160kbs (Opus 251). That is what this video's highest audio quality is at its maximum. YT is veryy sad when it comes to throwing away the large majority of all the original data the video maker wanted.

[marklee]

The AAC codec should work better than MP3. Both codecs were invented by the Fraunhofer Institute. MP3 came first and AAC was created to overcome deficiencies in the MP3 codec. Given your examples, I believe they succeeded.

[garycard]

Great video. Very interesting. I have done some listening tests between AAC and Apples's new Lossless formats. Only the Max 24 bit 48 KHz lossless stream through the Apple donegal D/A to my Sennheiser and RODE headphones. I can't tell the difference even though I can still hear up to 12KHz (I could hear up to 17 KHz in my 20's).The AAC compression noise (on your video demonstration) sounds higher in frequency than the MP3 noise. Defiantly better I think especially for my 70 year old ears.

[krihanek]

There is an ABX plugin for Foobar2000. You can encode files at different rates, then test yourself. In Archimagio's 320K MP3 test people could not tell the difference.

[togitom]

I used to collect or create my cd albums as FLAC files, but now I have a free disk space thanks to you 😉. Since listening to all of those different LOSSY formats didn't make so much difference why keep FLAC files, right? Cheers

[FrontCoverBand]

I could hear a slight difference. The punch and/or depth seem to be noticeable when using the mp3 or aac. But, I'd love to get the Fraunhofer and do maybe more comparison with different types of music as well. I think some codecs maybe better for certain styles or genres of music. With me getting into doing more mixes/mastering, I'm wondering if I can find a way to mix/master for the betterment of these codecs and etc. All in all, it may not even be worth the time to invest, as different sites offer different lossy audio anyways, it is what it is, lol. I think I was just disappointed noticing a Video mix I did to an AAC format, I could hear my own difference, and was concerned. So, it brought me around to this video, lolol! Thanks for the video!

[AboveEmAllProduction]

Are you sure that's the noise that's being added? I would assume what you hear is the delta and not what is added. Meaning what you hear is what is missing, not what is added. But I don't have this plugin so I don't know if it's actually what is added but seems a bit strange.

[Pako]

Watched most of tutorials and few full mixing mastering videos in 4 days :D Thank you Sir!

[lundsweden]

Apple did not invent AAC, they simply used it along with other manufacturer.

[MrCool]

I like listening to early 2000s music like Staind in mp3 because that’s how I used to listen to it when I was growing up. Either that or Flac (CD quality.) but for 2010s music I use YouTube and use the original videos that I listened to lol. Because that’s why I did in highschool. The artifacts add to the nostalgia for sure. Its like tape distortion on an old record or crackle. When I listen to 30s music I use vinyl rips. Always use wired headphones or earbuds. Cuz that’s what I used to do. Lol maybe I’m crazy but it helps with my anxiety and producers even use this technique in their samples to create certain a certain timbre. I think people need to realize Bluetooth is ruining their music way more than these lossy compressions because it is also lossy compression but in real time. Which is much harder and causes audible artifacts that don’t sound good really. Unless Ofcourse you grew up listening to that 😂

[Sebastianandthedeepbluemusic]

I dont think it is adding noise, the noise is the sound of the difference. you can still kinda hear the vocal in there even on the high quality. I think it is total cancelation, like a null test, except where lossy format has removed some information.

[chrismarkland]

You have your information backwards. The program you're using is doing a null between the two audio codecs, so the noise you are hearing during the null is the audio being removed during the compression NOT added. The difference between the two tracks.

[aspirativemusicproduction]

Someone actually showed what the real difference is. At least now I know what it is.