what do u guys usually use, i go for the 320 mp3?

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

I compress (I feel horrible doing so) all my mixes -- fresh from pristine WAV -- down to 320 kbps, always.

Uncompressed Wave is 1411 kbps, in all its glory.

Microsoft WAV files are huuuugee bro.... stick with 320 for all purposes other than rendering sets.

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

For Dj'ing. Since I get most of my files in 320. I have to encode them to wavs for the cd's. But they are really still 320's. It's quite expensive to always be buying wav files.

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

yeah, thats true size wise wav is just too much handle, and i never really thought it made much of a difference to the normal ear when listening to both

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

it does feel different if you play it on a good quality sound system. To an unexperienced listener (98% of ppl) it sounds the same, so dont even bother heh

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

I just wish they didn't stop at 320k for mp3's. they should come out with an even higher bitrate for these times. Maybe 448Kbps.

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

^^ Totally agree and the file size wouldn't be that bigger.

I usually convert 320 to Wav for the giggs due to the fact that Cdj 1000 reads wav faster than mp3.

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

You can't hear the difference between wav and 320 imho, well you can but not with this stuff, the difference is when you are playing proper music, you may hear the acoustics of the venue with a Jazz recording going wav over 320, but with dance most of it is compressed to start with.

I use a Meridian DSP processor and speakers as my main system and I have only ever heard a difference on a handful of tunes comparing the 320 mp3 and the WAV version, so I just buy wav now. You can still get that 'passed the speaker' soundfield with 320 MP3 and that is what really matters imho.

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

In all reality WAV tracks are not that expensive. Keep in mind what you used to pay for 12" records. One EP or a single would go for $8 to $12. Given that I guess I don't have a problem paying $2.50 to $3.50 per track on Beatport. Sure it would be great if they removed the lossless format fee, but remember how tough it is for producers to make any $$$ on releases these days.

As for format preference...if you really care about sound quality and fighting the compression war please consider only buying lossless formats i.e. AIFF or WAV.

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

i always buy WAV, makes it easier if i want to sample a track and use it during a mix.

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

I only purchase AIFF files, and never use MP3 for DJing. I don't mind MP3 for posting a mix recording, but for playing music in a live club environment MP3 is totally unacceptable to me. For one thing, I can hear the difference. But more importantly it is an issue of reliability. Poor quality MP3 files can actually cause crashes to the Pioneer CDJ-2000 players. As an active member of the Pioneer forums, I have personally assisted other users in testing their problem-causing tracks. The one and only time my CDJ-2000 ever crashed was while testing an MP3 file for another member. Obviously, the member downloaded his MP3 from a pirate site and it was of questionable quality.

I'm not saying all MP3 files cause crashes, but there is definitely more potential for problems than with uncompressed files. That's a risk I prefer not to take.

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

^^ agreed. However, properly encoded 320K MP3s are meant not to cause problems or such a signifficant quality loss to the common ear.

On the other hand, with prices of the HDDs and flashdrives dropping down and with the capacities of them growing day by day, anybody can carry lots of audio files in just a single drive (or 2), so yes it doesn;t worth the risk anymore especially if this has to do with gigs.

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

:RockOn:

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

[QUOTE=gizze;896985]You can't hear the difference between wav and 320 imho, well you can but not with this stuff, the difference is when you are playing proper music, you may hear the acoustics of the venue with a Jazz recording going wav over 320, but with dance most of it is compressed to start with.

I use a Meridian DSP processor and speakers as my main system and I have only ever heard a difference on a handful of tunes comparing the 320 mp3 and the WAV version, so I just buy wav now. You can still get that 'passed the speaker' soundfield with 320 MP3 and that is what really matters imho.[/QUOTE]

I do hear the difference between wav and mp3 320K, in any music style. As you say, for compressed music it's not a big difference, but pay attention to low frequencies -> poor deepness, and hi frequencies -> noise. Of course, after a couple of drinks and 20 minutes exposed to 105dB at the club, everything sounds fine :)

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

I have all my music in mp3, i cant see the diference with the wav format, except that the Wav is heavy as the shit. May be Im a little deaf :D to hear a real differente between them.

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

^^^ With amount of music that you know and listened to , I wouldn't be surprised. :)

I buy only wav/aiff and I load my CDs onto my ipod classic in that format. There is a difference but it's hard to say why sometimes, it's sort of means the difference between "this is ok" to WOW !! :lol: You have to take into account that the original has to be good anyway, and sometimes they aren't. I get quite a variation from beatport. Most annoying is the different volumes.

I wish more Djs would put up their mixes at least in 320. I won't even bother downloading in 128, you lose so much !!

I also wish club sounds were better. :(

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

^ 128 - wouldn't go near it :shock:

There is a huge difference between 192 and 320. It's all about the depth of the sound, especially when it comes to ambient music - you want it to take you somewhere

I just love WAV ;)

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

Yeah, I can identify the diference between 128 or 192 and 320, (most of the time) but, the wav and 320 sounds very similar to me. and I do not know if there is any difference besides the size.

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

I can tell the difference between WAV and 320 MP3 easily. It's not hard at all to distinguish if you know what you're listening for. It's kind of like how you notice the poor beatmatching of other DJs more once you learn to DJ yourself... hehe. It really does come down to the presence of low-end frequencies for me. Of course, I will admit that it's a lot easier to tell the difference when you are listening on a good quality, powerfully amplified system. If you're just using the Apple earbuds, then I can understand the argument that it's hard to tell the difference.

My car stereo (full Audison system) is so clear sounding that I can actually hear the difference between a CD played directly in the CD player, and a WAV ripped from that same CD played from an iPod. (The difference is actually felt more than heard)

But, my primary reason for using WAV/AIFF has to do with reliability of the format on the Pioneer CDJ-2000 players. It's a simple fact that MP3 files cause those players to crash. It's just not worth the risk to me. Plus, I just don't see much logic to the file size argument for MP3. Hard drive space is cheap and plentiful, and my home internet connection is like 60 Mbps. It takes less than 10 seconds to download a WAV file.

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

^^^ Good post. !! :D Especially this.

[QUOTE]My car stereo (full Audison system) is so clear sounding that I can actually hear the difference between a CD played directly in the CD player, and a WAV ripped from that same CD played from an iPod. (The difference is actually felt more than heard)

[/QUOTE]

I can hear the difference on my home system. But if you think about it logically an iPod source is never going to be as good as a quality cd player /amplifer. This is going a bit further, but I have always felt an iPod with a hard drive is better than a flash drive iPod.

Wow that is a fast download. Will be great when our National Broadband is rolled out and we get similar speeds. !! :D

@ Micko, another WAV lover here :)

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

[QUOTE=DIDI;1079174]^^^ Good post. !! :D Especially this.

I can hear the difference on my home system. But if you think about it logically an iPod source is never going to be as good as a quality cd player /amplifer. This is going a bit further, but I have always felt an iPod with a hard drive is better than a flash drive iPod.

Wow that is a fast download. Will be great when our National Broadband is rolled out and we get similar speeds. !! :D

@ Micko, another WAV lover here :)[/QUOTE]

I think you might be correct, because the D/A converter in the iPod is certainly not high-end. That said, I still use iPods/iPhone in the car for my music collection because of the convenience factor. But the difference in bass response when using CDs directly in the dash is definitely felt.

Audison is developing a new in-car hard drive media player that will output Full DA 24/96 digital, without doing any D/A or A/D conversions. You can then route that digital signal directly into the BitOne processor, and then go digital from there to the Voce and Thesis series amplifiers via ethernet cable. That means it's running 24 bit Digital from source all the all the way to the amps. Pretty cool.