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)

___________________
Next event: Exit Festival 2011 @ Novi Sad, Serbia

If you listen to a 192kbps vbr quality mp3 or a 320 kbps. It sounds not that different at all.

___________________
www.dj-liminli.net
www.essentialtunesfm.com

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

With higher bitrate, low and high tones are much clearer as there is more dynamic range and that's especially true with dance music. I would definitell stick with higher bitrate of wav.

BTW, I didn't know beatport is offering tunes in wav, so I might just begin to buy tunes there instead of cd's

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.

I dunno, but on my speakers I can tell the difference very quickly.


The 320 usually has alot more low end frequencies and clearer, sharper highs.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

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.

___________________
OMNIFEX

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery 16 bit wav - 1411kbps CD - 1408kbps

interesting. didn't know that.

___________________
|||CHRISTOPHER THOMAS|||

quote:

Originally posted by Tegu interesting. didn't know that.

Yeah... not that it makes any difference. At least you'll have yet another tidbit of useless info you can amaze your friends with

___________________
Latest releases:
Endless Cycles [Capital Heaven]
The Charlatan [Morphosis]

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

out of curiousity, what is your system?

___________________