TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Whats the difference (quality wise) between a 320k mp3 and a WAV file ???
Whats the difference (quality wise) between a 320k mp3 and a WAV file ???
Is there really that big a difference, and also will i be able to burn a cd of wav files to play in my CDJs ??
No, you can't burn a WAV file to a data CD and play it on your CDJs. Just burn it as an audio CD; it's essentially a WAV file with a different TOC (table of contents).
Is there a technical quality difference? Yes. Will you notice the difference? Probably not. Still, I always spend the extra buck and get the WAV just for personal comfort 
Thankyou djkoolaide for a perfect response.
I think it comes down to this. Do you play out to large crowds, and DJing is your livelihood? Are you an audiophille...really picky about your sound, and have the extra money to spend for WAV, then go for it. Just play in your bedroom or house parties, small clubs or bars, 320 kbps is fine. The only two stores I know of that sell WAVs of most tracks are Beatport and TrackItDown.net, the rest sell 320 kbps and 192 kbps MP3s, and they are still in business and DJs still buy from them.
I only buy WAVs for either older tracks you can't get on vinyl anymore, or for tracks I really really like. For tracks/artists I'm not as familiar with, or only being released as MP3, I go for MP3. I mean people can say "just spend the extra dollar, you wont regret it" but if you just listen to the tunes yourself and you can't tell the difference, it's just not worth it.
if you're playing a gigantic orgasmatronic soundsystem with monstrous woofers and super high definition speakers that will blast for miles away... then yah.
you see, the idea behind MP3 is that it is a system that will take advantage of the human ear's shortcomings. being the crappy little things we are, we can only perceive a certain frequency range, below it, is what you call infrasound, above it is what you call ultrasound, both of which we cannot hear. MP3 compression algorithms will remove the frequencies outside this range to minimize filesize while still delivering sound comparable to the original product by our human perception. now, the higher the bitrate, the more space is taken up to add definition to the sound, hence the term bit-rate, and it's measurement, kbps, ie. kilobits per second. for every second of the track, X amount of kilobits are used. the more used, the higher quality it will have, obviously.
finally, some frequencies we cannot hear can however affect the overall output of a great soundsystem. but the cases where you will be able to notice any difference between 320kbps and WAV will probably be VERY few.
Read this for really detailed and accurate information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3
Thanks for the information, i am bu no means a professional nor do i play out for an audience but I just recently purchased 2 CDJ 1000 MK3s togo along with my DJM 800 and really want to get the best out of my equipment. As far as monitoring goes, i have 2 KRK RP 5s that are just about what i need for my bedroom Djing.
I buy my tracks from beatport (320 mp3s)and the run them through ableton to get BPM readings, and recently noticed this process was converting those MP3s into WAV files. I wasn't too familiar with these files but just from listening to the two files using my headphones (the MP3 vs the WAV) i noticed the WAV was much more clear and crisp.
My main question was if i would be able to tell the difference in burning Audio CDs using the WAVs rather than MP3s. (My guess is that you can somewhat tell the difference ) And if it was WORTH IT going throught this whole process.
Another thing to those of you guys who pay the extra buck to beatport, you can just run the Mp3s through ableton and in less than a minute have the WAVs. (assuming you already own ableton)
a wav file created from the mp3 cannot improve from the quality of the mp3. the extra data is gone and isn't coming back.
any burning software will do the same conversion for you.
Exactly... it's like taking a wallet photo and trying to blow it up to a 16x20 poster, it won't look any better, it'll just be bigger.
WAV is just a file container format for audio. You can make WAV files that sound like telephone conversations, and you can make WAV files that far exceed CD quality sound.
The only thing I can say that ableton might be doing to the sound is running it through it's audio engine, which would certainly affect the audio in some way.
Why you getting the BPM of the tracks? (that's a whole different conversation)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tubby a wav file created from the mp3 cannot improve from the quality of the mp3. the extra data is gone and isn't coming back. any burning software will do the same conversion for you. |
unless you're playing on a phazon or turbosound rig, you're not going to notice the difference
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Ryan0751 The only thing I can say that ableton might be doing to the sound is running it through it's audio engine, which would certainly affect the audio in some way. |
i've heard DJs play 320 mp3s on the alpha concepts dynachord system at space miami (best sound system in the world in 04) and the difference is barely noticeable. it certainly wont keep you from going nuts when you hear your favorite beat drop. i DL everthing at 320, just my preference.
I thought a 320kbps MP3 was the equivalent to a WAV file (or at least, 99.9% equivalent)?
soundwerks: Nope, a WAV file captures all frequencies. Any MP3 will still chop the inaudbile stuff regardless of bitrate. The 320kb/sec mp3 just has a high sample rate so the sound is smoother and more accurate for lack of a better terms.
wav would be the equivilant of about 1411kbps
Well, that's at CD quality (16 bit, 44 khz). Like I've said before, WAV files can be recorded at an even higher bitrate.
There are two things here:
1. Digitization - when sound is converted from analog to digital, the waveform has to be sampled at a specfied rate and then converted into a number. The higher sample rate, the more accurate a sound you are recording. Studio quality audio is sample at 24bit, 96Khz. CD sound is only 16bit, 44Khz. This gets a bit sticky when you consider that nearly all of the music we listen to originates in digital form in any case, it's not as if you are recording an orchestra.
2. Compression - Taking digital audio, sampled as stated above, and then removing bits and pieces of it to make the file smaller. There ARE lossless compression algorithms, which do not lose any of the original data, but they also don't compress the files much.
So sure, 320Kbps MP3 sounds "pretty good". But we live in a world where high bandwidth connections are common. We've already taken a hit in sound quality just jumping to CD's from vinyl/analog tape (not cassettes, the really GOOD tape), why support MP3 anymore? If you really must have compressed audio, then maybe we should support AAC more (MPEG-4's audio format), AAC is an even better sounding compression format than MP3.
The real thing we should push for is 24bit/96 Khz downloads compressed using lossless compression, and players which support DVD-Audio or SACD (both 24/96 capable). That would put to rest all of these discussion.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Tony Morello wav would be the equivilant of about 1411kbps |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Ryan0751 So sure, 320Kbps MP3 sounds "pretty good". But we live in a world where high bandwidth connections are common. We've already taken a hit in sound quality just jumping to CD's from vinyl/analog tape (not cassettes, the really GOOD tape), why support MP3 anymore? If you really must have compressed audio, then maybe we should support AAC more (MPEG-4's audio format), AAC is an even better sounding compression format than MP3. |
Well you think you can't hear a difference, but in the end any sort of compression artifacting can lead to sound fatigue on a big system.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Spirit5 Yeah AAC would be a better choice, however the files you get at Beatport...the 192 kbps MP4 files...comparing them to their 320 kbps MP3 files, there really is no difference in sound quality. Maybe it's a better compression technique, but it doesn't seem to make a difference. Perhaps if they had 320 kbps MP4s, or possibly higher than that, then you would hear a difference. |
I've not had too much experiance of the really high bit rate (320 so on) MP3's.
***just for informtion really***
What I would say is that MP3 compression doesn't actually just cut (or even roll off) information at the ends of the frequency range (there are peaks and low points of persection it uses mid way through also).
What it does is change the sound into frequencies then asign a different number of bits (quantisation levels) to each frequency based on it's reduction method (using the peaks and low points of perception). Basicly at a low point of perception it'll use a lower bit rate for that frequency).
Also if you hear a loud noise in one frequency you can't hear other ones closer to that so well so it cuts the bit rates on that too.
BUT the model it uses is based not based upon large venues. So I would think it would have some form of effect (especially at lower bit rates). And I would think the less like the enviroment they used in the experiments to create the model the more pronunced the losses would be. You know with reverb all over the place and so on.
That said 320 is a pretty large data rate, so it's unlikey to have much effect. And if it's a big venue everyone will be off their faces anyway 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Vero i've heard DJs play 320 mp3s on the alpha concepts dynachord system at space miami (best sound system in the world in 04) and the difference is barely noticeable. it certainly wont keep you from going nuts when you hear your favorite beat drop. i DL everthing at 320, just my preference. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.