So i have been told by just about everyone that wav's are better, but I honestly cannot hear the difference. Even DJ's ive seen at clubs will spin either and I still hear no difference. Am I a retard or is it just the file size that is different?

___________________


www.myspace.com/badapple1984

You're simply just not going to hear a difference on a big club system. Most will still not be able to tell a difference even in a familiar listening environment on familiar equipment, and I'd even go as far to say as it is probably psychosomatic in those who say otherwise.

hahaha...yea i thought I was insane, because my friend somehow wont back down and say they are just about the same quality. Do you actually know what differences there are?

___________________


www.myspace.com/badapple1984

quote:

Originally posted by badapple@trance hahaha...yea i thought I was insane, because my friend somehow wont back down and say they are just about the same quality. Do you actually know what differences there are?

Mp3 is what's called a lossy compression algorithm. It starts removing the parts of the sound least important to human hearing and, the further you compress, the more data gets removed. A 320kpbs rate just doesn't lose much important data.

It's similar to JPEG for photos.

There was actually a thread on this not weeks ago (and many before that).

The jpeg comparison is good for a visual aid, but I generally find that with mp3s, the bass is lacking depth and the hi's get too crunchy. 320 is at least decent but I personally wouldn't play in a club with mp3s. If you are using CD decks, you want to burn them as wav anyway so why not buy them as wav in first place. I get it if you are a serato/FS etc user, but storage is getting so cheap now, I would just with wav. (I just picked up a Seagate 500gb external drive for $80).

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN is at least decent but I personally wouldn't play in a club with mp3s.

Beh, most clubs and most clubbers wouldn't know if you were playing 128's in my experience.

The wav files are better quality but you won't really hear it that much. I play on large club systems every week and used to only download wav files for the quality. I now have a mix of 320 and wav. When I play the wav there is a differene in volume for sure, but as long as you're aware of it thats fine.

I have tested the same track in an empty club in wav and 320. The wav does sound better but its a small difference and know one else would really know...

320 is like 1/5 of the quality of wav. wavs have like 1,4? mb/s? and 320 has like 320kb/s. 128kbps is 1/12 of wav!! stay away.

quote:

Originally posted by palm 320 is like 1/5 of the quality of wav. wavs have like 1,4? mb/s? and 320 has like 320kb/s. 128kbps is 1/12 of wav!! stay away.

There's a lot more to it than that. You can't say 320 is 1/5 the quality of wav based on that.

like out of 5 dj's ive seen perform, they told me it varies but mostly they use 320's. I really cannot tell the difference at all

___________________


www.myspace.com/badapple1984

quote:

Originally posted by badapple@trance like out of 5 dj's ive seen perform, they told me it varies but mostly they use 320's. I really cannot tell the difference at all

This is quite common and, I'd say, likely the industry standard (for digital playback).

I mean, it's not like you're going to be dancing in the club, and all of a sudden one of your buddies stops you and goes "wait, wa-wa-wa-wait... stop. Do you hear that? Is that-- is that... a fucking 320kbps mp3 I hear playing?!"

quote:

Originally posted by david.michael There's a lot more to it than that. You can't say 320 is 1/5 the quality of wav based on that.

at the same samplerate i dont think its more to it realy.