TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Do you download in WAV or mp3?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Do you download in WAV or mp3?

Paging the DJ/Producer folk on here..


When you buy your tracks on Beatport etc. Do you pay the extra fee to download them uncompressed, wav format?

My understanding is that the sound quality difference generally isn't that discernible in a club environment, due to the acoustic degradation in the club.

Ive always downloaded them in mp3, as I could never really tell the difference.

I imagine some of the more experienced producers on here could probably tell the difference, especially on a good set of monitors.


Thoughts?

Wav is better of course. lossless uncompressed ftw.

As soon as you go to mp3, you instantly lose quality, regardless of the bitrate its encoded at. Think about it in terms of a stereo spectrum. You have wide left, wide right, and mono in the centre. Once you start moving further and further away from a lossless quality, you're shrinking that spectrum. Wide right and wide left aren't that wide anymore. Things won't sound as crisp as intended, and they won't necessarily fit in the mix as originally desired. At 320 it's not going to be that obvious, but go down to 160 or 128 (especially on a quality setup) and its certainly apparent.

Oh yes, im well aware of that.

Whether or not this has some real world applicability (in a non studio environment) is what im after.

Ive played on some derelict club systems that would turn the most intricate angelic tune into an amplified subway tunnel fart. I dont see myself throwing down on any funktion 1's any time soon... so I wonder if it matters.

quote:

At 320 it's not going to be super obvious, but go down to 192 or 160 its certainly apparent.

Not to sound lame but I cant tell the difference between a properly encoded 128 (not shit floating around the web in kazaa etc.) and a 320 or wav in home environment. I made a bet with my bro that ill be able to tell 128 from 320 but I failed )). I am sure you would fail too to guess consistently (e.g. 3 times in a row).

quote:

Originally posted by Vanos Not to sound lame but I cant tell the difference between a properly encoded 128 (not shit floating around the web in kazaa etc.) and a 320 or wav in home environment. I made a bet with my bro that ill be able to tell 128 from 320 but I failed )). I am sure you would fail too to guess consistently (e.g. 3 times in a row).

It depends what you're monitoring on. If you're using some cheap high-fi speakers or a pair of apple earbuds, it might not be super apparent. If you're using studio monitors or higher end headphones with a large frequency/stereo spectrum, it's pretty obvious imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Vanos Not to sound lame but I cant tell the difference between a properly encoded 128 (not shit floating around the web in kazaa etc.) and a 320 or wav in home environment. I made a bet with my bro that ill be able to tell 128 from 320 but I failed )). I am sure you would fail too to guess consistently (e.g. 3 times in a row).

yes you can, a trained ear can tell a 128, even i could tell.

it starts with 192 vbr when its most difficult to tell and anything above that is almost identical to the ear. 192 used to be the standard for ripping music years back, after our connections got faster it made no sense for someone to make anything less than 320.

WAV is obviously better but on paper, no mastering studio will accept an mp3 or any lossy format, only WAV.

to play in a club 320 mp3 is sufficient enough.



it's like comparing matroska video encoding to an xvid, although both are outstanding quality formats, xvid is 5times less in size, yes it is a lossy format but it's still great quality if used corectly.

quote:

Originally posted by geroin to play in a club 320 mp3 is sufficient enough.

Agreed. Realistically, a properly encoded 320 and mastered mp3 will sound good on ANY system. The chances that you'd ever play (or anyone for that matter) on a setup where you can actually take full advantage of a lossless format and notice a discernible difference over a 320 mp3 is pretty remote.

I actually played MP3s on a Funktion One lol

The thing is that the difference occurs at the extremes of the frequency range, so in most systems its not noticeable. Another thing that I've been realizing though is that if you have pro DJ aspirations its probably best to just start buying WAVs. It's just so much more expensive though ugh

quote:

It depends what you're monitoring on. If you're using some cheap high-fi speakers or a pair of apple earbuds, it might not be super apparent. If you're using studio monitors or higher end headphones with a large frequency/stereo spectrum, it's pretty obvious imo.

well I listened to it both on speakers and on headphones. My speakers are so so (logitech z5500, i love them but they are only computer speakers not pro or anything) but I have nice audiophile Sennheiser DT990 Pro headphones (a 400$ pair). I couldnt tell the difference neither between 128 and 320 nor between 128 and WAV ))).

I used to brag I could but I cant. and a lot of ppl will say its obvious but it is not at all obvious once you are there on the spot trying to tell the difference )))

quote:

Originally posted by Vanos and a lot of ppl will say its obvious but it is not at all obvious once you are there on the spot trying to tell the difference )))

I'd agree with this. It's also going to depend on the particular track and how its mastered. If it's a very low end heavy track (which typically would have an emphasis on mono components), its going to be even less apparent.

Sidenote: I'm active on the ableton forum and a while ago there was a discussion about the use of stereo on club systems. Apparently a lot of places just go mono out of the house because its less of a headache to deal with tweaking and setup. I couldn't believe that. Some places also have these crazy setups (funktion one, dynaudio, etc), but don't take the time to actually properly utilize the system ie: line array speakers upfront and then just daisy chain a few additional speakers around where its convenient. mental.

mp3s. To notice a difference I think is when you go from WAV to mp3 and then burning your cds back to WAV. Otherwise as said before, it would depend how the track is mastered. My recorder I use for gigs records at 128 but sounds pretty good (if I took a guess not knowing I would have thought 192 or something) but defintiely not 320. Who knows though, I've never actually tested myself

MP3's are for losers and posers.

I play Flac's. Real DJ's play Flac.

quote:

Originally posted by LightsOut Agreed. Realistically, a properly encoded 320 and mastered mp3 will sound good on ANY system. The chances that you'd ever play (or anyone for that matter) on a setup where you can actually take full advantage of a lossless format and notice a discernible difference over a 320 mp3 is pretty remote.

i think the only time you would want something like that is for classical music recording, just to save every single bit of the sound/frequency/signal without any loss, audiophiles that spend 10's of thousands of dollars on special systems in their homes. technically best would be to listen on vinyl but i think WAVs/cds would be very good too.

For a club track most of the time it's pointless imo. so many producers (not all) use sample based sources that were not even recorded themselves, some even convert mp3 samples into wavs back and forth and use them in a track, converting mp3 to a WAV will not make it lossless, i'm not even talking about mastering themselves incorrectly/clipping music and sounds etc, it doesn't make any sense unless everything from ground up is done by a real studio professional, not a bedroom producer.

quote:

Originally posted by jchung52 mp3s. To notice a difference I think is when you go from WAV to mp3 and then burning your cds back to WAV.

when you go to mp3 you already lost information, no matter what you do after that (technically) but if it's 320 it's impossible to tell.

im actually too poor to get lossless

mp3(320 is a must) mostly. the key factor is the mastering on the track in my opinion. Even on vinyl, some of the masterings i had were dodgy as fuck, just because it lossless doesn't automatically mean its going to sound good. I havent done any club floor tests with wav/320 comparisons but 320 sounds great given the club has a nice system.

always been downloading wavs. IMO on big enough system the difference comes in the way bass and sub bass sounds/distorts. For example If compressed mp3 goes through additional signal compression on the way to the speakers it will sound over-copressed/squashed and if loud enough it will not be as pleasant for ears over a length of a whole clubbing night. On home listening levels not as big of a factor though.

Interesting feedback.

A quick google search revealed THIS article which parallels much of what has been said above. Theres also a sound test on there.


Additionally, they showed a sound chart comparing their two samples.

WAV


MP3

quote:

The frequency charts are identical, but as you can see the 2nd frequency chart (representing the mp3) has a steeper roll off after 16khz. The null test reveals the sonic difference between the two files. Not all of this represents loss of sound � it represents change in sound. The mp3 quantizes differently, which is not a loss of sound � just a micro-auditory restructuring of sound. The loss is broadband information which is harder to perceive than designated frequency information. However, if you notice the biggest difference exists where the snare drum is hitting � and it�s no coincidence that snare drums contain the highest content of broadband sound.

There is a huge difference between 128kbps and 320kbps MP3s.

I download and burn all my music for DJing as 320kbps MP3s. Yes, WAVs are better quality but for gigging in clubs properly encoded 320kbps MP3s are sufficient.

quote:

Originally posted by Nicolas Oliver There is a huge difference between 128kbps and 320kbps MP3s. I download and burn all my music for DJing as 320kbps MP3s. Yes, WAVs are better quality but for gigging in clubs properly encoded 320kbps MP3s are sufficient.

Yeah that's what I'm thinking as well.


As for .wav is that the alternative off beatport because I picked up a few of those back when I did my bday gigs a few years ago and it wouldn't play on a cdj1000 (pioneer), coudn't figure it out.

Personally, I can hear a difference between a WAV and MP3 when I compare them on a good pair of headphones or monitors. The difference isn't really that great. Obviously, WAVs tend to sound brighter and more pronounced. Now in a club environment, it's a bit hard to tell whether a djs playing WAVs or MP3s. But when a dj that plays MP3s follows one that plays WAV or vice versa, the difference in sound quality is more obvious. Echoing what others have said, I agree that MP3s sound just fine if they are mastered and encoded properly.

As rulzz mentioned, a set of WAVs is easier on the ears. This all depends on the quality of the sound system at the end of the day. Also, factors such as how packed the club is, whether people are chatting or not, and whether the mixer is being reclined or not all determine your ability to enjoy the extra clarity of WAVs.

I just wish that WAVs weren't as expensive and large in size as they are. I've though of using AIFF or FLAC, but I've stuck to MP3s for the time being for the sake of functionality. I do buy tracks that I really like as WAVs and encode them into MP3s. Those WAVs will come in handy once I have a large enough vinyl collection to play them with.

320kbps

Fantastic interview with Tony Andrews, worth the watch for any audiophile.

quote:

Originally posted by LightsOut Fantastic interview with Tony Andrews, worth the watch for any audiophile.

Nice. Got this running in the background at work.

^^^

One of my fave quotes: "Everyone says Steve Jobs is great, but he didn't do anything for audio"

quote:

Originally posted by Vanos Not to sound lame but I cant tell the difference between a properly encoded 128 (not shit floating around the web in kazaa etc.) and a 320 or wav in home environment. I made a bet with my bro that ill be able to tell 128 from 320 but I failed )). I am sure you would fail too to guess consistently (e.g. 3 times in a row).

I can def hear the difference in my car.
You just need a somewhat quality system to be able to hear it.
As someone mentioned, on cheap speakers or apple earphones u wont know the diff

quote:

Originally posted by TheVrk I can def hear the difference in my car. You just need a somewhat quality system to be able to hear it. As someone mentioned, on cheap speakers or apple earphones u wont know the diff

128 vs 320 is very clearly different.. as is 192 vs 320. 320 vs wav i cant tell the differnce.. yet.


I spent some time last night fooling around/tweaking my soundcard and monitors (something that was long over due), I also just downloaded:

'Oliver Huntemann - Magnet' in both wav and mp3.. gonna see if i can notice the difference.

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