TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- digital : wav. vs. MP3
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

IMO the only practical advantage of wav is 0 loss in quality when editing.

Well when your playing out on 1000+ Watt sound systems you might notice it then too

quote:

Originally posted by Kris G Well when your playing out on 1000+ Watt sound systems you might notice it then too

Depends on so many other things besides just the wav/mp3 difference that this point is pretty much moot.

The system has to be tuned to perfection and the mixer running in the green (which never happens) for it to make a noticeable difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis and the mixer running in the green (which never happens)

i was just wondering... why?

are all dj's idiots that don't know that shoving the volume too high will distort the music?

are all clubs equipped with poor amplifiers that need the mixer absolutely squeezed out to the max for it to be loud enough?

is this related to the dj's almost unconsciously increasing and increasing the volume of the music throughout the set in order to get extra power from each new track they play?

320k vs. 1411k... come on even listening at home through good headphones I can hear the difference

quote:

Originally posted by noikeee i was just wondering... why? are all dj's idiots that don't know that shoving the volume too high will distort the music?

Yes. Or they think there's some magic limiter thats keeping it from sounding too bad.


Kris G., so can I usually, but my point still stands. I'd argue that switching from Pioneer DJM-600 to Xone 92 would have more of an impact on sound clarity and depth.

quote:

Originally posted by Kris G 320k vs. 1411k... come on even listening at home through good headphones I can hear the difference

I'm sure you can.

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 Unless your a Pro-DJ playing at clubs on a regular basis and festivals, there is no need to spend the extra money on WAVs (it's a waste). 320 kbps MP3s are just as good as noted, especially if your just a bedroom/hobbyist DJ, play house-parties or just listen to the tracks at home or in your car.

+1

Even 192 kbps is good enough for home listening.

quote:

Originally posted by Kris G 320k vs. 1411k... come on even listening at home through good headphones I can hear the difference

don't let the numbers fool you. though the sound quality for human ear rises drastically when you jump from 96kbps to 128kbps (only 32k between them) the effect reduces when going higher.
it's actually easier to tell the difference between 256k mp3 and 320k mp3 than with 320 and wav.

Ok, what audible differences can you hear? Are the highs crisper, the bass clearer, what? I can't tell the difference between the two but I also don't know what to listen for.

quote:

Originally posted by epdarks Ok, what audible differences can you hear? Are the highs crisper, the bass clearer, what? I can't tell the difference between the two but I also don't know what to listen for.

Its more of a depth and clarity of reproduction issue.

Again, it depends not solely on the tracks/bitrates, but also on the quality of the audio system you're listening on.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Its more of a depth and clarity of reproduction issue. Again, it depends not solely on the tracks/bitrates, but also on the quality of the audio system you're listening on.

Well I'm sure not all of us are rich or spend all our money on audio equipment that is good enough to tell the difference...or even have that great of hearing (unless we are trained audio engineers, which I'm sure even some of them couldn't tell in a blind study).

quote:

Originally posted by Gauss +1 Even 192 kbps is good enough for home listening.

Yeah 192 kbps is good as well but 320kbps is more worth the money, even just for listening. I think you'll find more 320kbps options nowadays..maybe 192 kbps MP4s (which are almost the same as 320 kbps MP3s just even smaller files).

There was a study done @ some club in Europe (Fabric?). They did 192 v. 320 v. WAV. I forget the outcome. Anyone remember?

quote:

Originally posted by epdarks Ok, what audible differences can you hear? Are the highs crisper, the bass clearer, what? I can't tell the difference between the two but I also don't know what to listen for.

Generally, there will be a grainy blurriness to the sound, often arising in the form a high-pitched whine or tonal crackle. It's hard to say, specifically. I still hold to my assertion that an adult listening at a healthy listening volume wouldn't hear the difference between 320 and wav, even on a high quality system.

I don't understand "better for what?"

quote:

Originally posted by epdarks There was a study done @ some club in Europe (Fabric?). They did 192 v. 320 v. WAV. I forget the outcome. Anyone remember?

Is there a link for more info on this?

I'm now ripping all my CDs to the computer in .wav, also I'm buying all digital downloads as .wavs from now on. .wav seems to have more depth and a better overall bass sound than 320kb mp3s.

this is like asking which is better a hummer or a prius.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange this is like asking which is better a hummer or a prius.

I don't get it.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis I don't get it.

they have different benefits and trade-offs. i just don't think any comparisons are fair.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange they have different benefits and trade-offs. i just don't think any comparisons are fair.

Hummers are pointless. End of.

i appreciate the replies... even the negative ones. im trying to learn here... i want to buy my music online and i have been given a choice between a .wav or a mp3. its cheaper for the mp3. and since i play for small get togethers, i wanted to know what was better quality, better for what im doing or wherther it matters. and i got alot of feedback. thank you all.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorydeprived i appreciate the replies... even the negative ones. im trying to learn here... i want to buy my music online and i have been given a choice between a .wav or a mp3. its cheaper for the mp3. and since i play for small get togethers, i wanted to know what was better quality, better for what im doing or wherther it matters. and i got alot of feedback. thank you all.

you should have stated that from the begining.


wav.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorydeprived i appreciate the replies... even the negative ones. im trying to learn here... i want to buy my music online and i have been given a choice between a .wav or a mp3. its cheaper for the mp3. and since i play for small get togethers, i wanted to know what was better quality, better for what im doing or wherther it matters. and i got alot of feedback. thank you all.

I would say MP3. Your not playing to large crowds on an expensive sound system, so need need to pay the extra dollar per track for WAV. You can get a lot more tracks for your money with MP3 and still get good quality.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.