TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- 320 mp3 vs wav
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
320 mp3 vs wav
hey peeps.....i have started doing wav downloads from beatport...my question is are the 320 converted to audio cd just as good??
these will be played in clubs.....i figure its best to pay the extra buck and get the wav but then i read a 320 k mp3 is perfect quality.....any feedback would be great
strictly speaking a .wav is better than a 320kbit mp3. however telling the difference is like trying to guess is a girl sucking your dick or a guy when you're blindfolded. (believe me its hard)
320 mp3 < wav In a good sound system you can here the diff btwn both.
wav is theoretically exact to cd quality
great metaphor!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by don_q wav is theoretically exact to cd quality |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Mr.Mystery Technically it's actually better. 16 bit wav - 1411kbps CD - 1408kbps |
There really isn't that much noticable difference. I'd say 320mp3, wav and CD format are all the same bunch. Personally I prefer mp3s to wavs for practical reasons.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Basstard strictly speaking a .wav is better than a 320kbit mp3. however telling the difference is like trying to guess is a girl sucking your dick or a guy when you're blindfolded. (believe me its hard) |
I think we are going to have to take your word for it. lol.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Orbital32 I think we are going to have to take your word for it. lol. |
it was a girl!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Basstard it was a girl! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Basstard strictly speaking a .wav is better than a 320kbit mp3. however telling the difference is like trying to guess is a girl sucking your dick or a guy when you're blindfolded. (believe me its hard) |
Yeah not a big difference. I just download 320 kbps and save myself money, esp if I wind up not liking the tune. I will only buy WAVs if I were playing out, had more $$ to spend, and if it was a track I really really like. I really don't think it's worth the extra dollar or two, unless you had super precise hearing and or a really expensive sound system, or you play out, but even then, you will probably get away with just using 320s, I don't think anyone will know the difference besides those audio-philes.
320kbps is fine! Clubs rarely have good enough sound systems for you to be able hear any difference anyways.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Basstard strictly speaking a .wav is better than a 320kbit mp3. however telling the difference is like trying to guess is a girl sucking your dick or a guy when you're blindfolded. (believe me its hard) |
If you listen to a 192kbps vbr quality mp3 or a 320 kbps. It sounds not that different at all.
Re: 320 mp3 vs wav
| quote: |
| Originally posted by djtrinity hey peeps.....i have started doing wav downloads from beatport...my question is are the 320 converted to audio cd just as good?? these will be played in clubs.....i figure its best to pay the extra buck and get the wav but then i read a 320 k mp3 is perfect quality.....any feedback would be great |
well, .wav is the format that they use on CDs so it is cd quality. 320kbps Mp3 will never have the same quality b/c its still compressed. The way mp3 encoding works is it takes the sound that we cant here out of the music, yeah in theroy it wont make a differnce but it still does, albeit not very noticeable at 320kbps. Also VBR mp3's are much better than the CBR b/c it allows the bitrate to change with the audio, there are times in a song that dont require the full bitrate, and there are times that require more(ex the parts that sound fake).
I say go with whatever is easier although i would convert the mp3 to .wav before i put it on a cd. so you dont get srewed if you go to a club that has cdjs that dont support mp3.
you dont need to manualy convert mp3 > wav before you burn a CD-R. stuff like Nero Xpress does that by drag-n-drop 
(just in case)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by limin_li If you listen to a 192kbps vbr quality mp3 or a 320 kbps. It sounds not that different at all. |
It really depends on what you're hearing these mp3s through.
I have some cheap speakers on my computer, that offers the
same quality comparing 128kbs to 320kbs.
Now, if I listen to my system, 320kbs mp3 can't hold a
candle to 1411kbs of .wav
So, I it really depends on what you are listening these
files through.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Mr.Mystery 16 bit wav - 1411kbps CD - 1408kbps |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Tegu interesting. didn't know that. |
There's so many of these threads about 320 Kbps vs. WAV. I mean there's only a few stores that even sell WAVs, and AudioJelly is one of the more popular ones with one of the better catalogues and all they sell is 192 and 320 Kbps MP3s.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by OMNIFEX Now, if I listen to my system, 320kbs mp3 can't hold a candle to 1411kbs of .wav |
A "Format Wars" test by DJMag indicates that even experts who work in the music industry cannot really tell the difference between uncompressed recordings and good quality compressed recordings:
http://www.djmag.com/djtech018.php
Here is an interesting post on another forum by PixelTrance, a psytrance DJ who has played at many big events:
"There have been many and long discussions about the quality of mp3's. Some people claim that they suck while others say that they can't hear the difference. I fall in the latter category but then all my mp's are 320 kbs LAME encoded plus the fact that I have been doing the DJ thing for quite a few years now so I bet that my ears are shot to some degree. Sure, there is no question at all that mp3's suck if you just look at the tech specs but is that the whole truth?
This summer I played at a festival in Hungary. The system was a 140 KW line array from Meyer Sound. (Yes...140 KW...BWAHAHAHAHA!!! ;-) For those of you who don't know Meyer Sound, it's considered to be one of the absolutely top systems in the world. This of course means super expensive and rather exclusive. Check out www.meyersound.com for more info.
This system was truly amazing! So much power and dynamics. Clear as a mountain stream :-) Every artist I talked to at the festival said the same thing, that is was the best system they have ever heard.
Anyway, I was interested in how it would sound when I played on this system since some people claim that the mp3 sound quality sucks and I figured that if any system would reveal it then this Meyer system would.
Since it wasn't really possible to hear the sound myself since I was on stage I asked some friends to have a close listen to the quality of the sound and then let me know what they thought. These people are all artists and they were all there to play live at this festival. So these people know how to listen and are very picky about sound quality. Everyone I talked to after my set said that they couldn't hear any difference at all between the mp3's and the uncompressed wav's I played.
In conclusion. After this experiment I'm completely comfortable with playing mp3's and I'm not worried at all about the sound quality. If professional musicians, who knows what to listen to, can't tell the difference between an uncompressed audio file and a properly encoded mp3 on a very, very high quality system, well then I'm willing to bet that no one else will either.
As always, YMMV and so on..."
Here is the link to the forum for the above post:
http://www.nativeinstruments.de/for...?t=22527&page=8
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.