|
Right now, I'd find it really hard to tell the difference between a 320k and a wav on just about any system. 192 is slightly more noticeable although at home it just sounds the same.
But I still go for the highest option available - wav if it's there, if not 320k mp3 but if they've only got 192k, it's more important to me to have the tune than whether it'll sound good when I play it at Global Gathering (currently not on the cards, chances of it ever being on the cards are stupidly slim, chances of me happing to want to play the tune I've got as a 192k mp3 are zero)
With technology going the way it is, we're getting towards a point where disk space and download times matter less and less so it's easier and easier to get high quality copies of things. I think when we get to a point where everyone listens to and plays wavs or similar, maybe even higher, quality (even set rips, mixes done by other djs etc - everything we listen to in mp3 at the moment) THEN we'll notice if someone suddenly puts on a 320k mp3. So I say strive for excellence - keep improving (within reason of course) whether you think you can tell the difference or not, with time we'll all become accustomed to higher quality and it's better for your ears too 
So back to the original question no, 320k mp3 isn't too low quality to play out - on a top-notch club system, when you mix into it (of course the best way to test the difference is to play it from one format then the other, but in a set situation you won't do that so any difference is going to be a lot less obvious anyway) you may lose a VERY SLIGHT amount of far bottom and far top end, but I think the shoddy mastering you get on a lot of tracks at the moment will have much more effect on how it sounds than whether you're playing a wav or a high-bitrate mp3. But as I say, that shouldn't necessarily stop you from buying wavs.
___________________
Stu Cox | 

|