quote:

Originally posted by teknomonki I wonder what will happen when the 96kHz 24 bit audio format becomes integrated into consumer audio (a la Super Audio CD) and renders these formats outdated?

This probably will happen but it will take a while. Most CDs are just standard CDs, and super audio CDs have never really taken off. DVD-Audio might be the next format, but it will take some time before it's common place. More companies seem to be promoting MP3, MP4 and WMAs. MP3 players seem to be replacing CD players, or CD players with MP3 capability.

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 If WAV was the best, wouldn't there be more digital download shops that would feature them?

That is probably because the digital marketplace is still quite young and has a long ways to go yet, not to mention mp3's are really nothing more than a stop-gap format right now to appease the record companies and the trendwhore consumers since nothing else is majorly out there at this point. Also, the fact that wav's are larger in size might account for some of that too, but what with 200+ gig hard drives now that shouldn't be much of a concern anymore.

quote:

Besides a lot of people went or are going digital to save money. WAVs cost a few dollars less than vinyl, so you might be saving a few dollars here and there but your still not saving as you would be downloading 320 Kbps MP3s.

Wav's don't cost that much more. They are only like an extra dollar. So, if you are paying 1.99 for a newly released mp3 (Beatport), and the wav's there are a dollar more, are you or are you not essentially already buying 2/3's of the wav file assuming the cost of the wav then is 2.99? A vinyl might cost between 6-12 dollars, so that extra dollar put into a wav file is NOT a significant difference. You are still saving a nice amount of money over the vinyl regardless.

So, like the last discussion I had with you on this, what are these ultimate savings you get from choosing mp3 over wav because I have a hard time following you? Don't take it like I'm trying to get on you, but I'm still very curious as to why people are so intent on choosing mp3's over other options.

quote:

I mean unless your a pro DJ and need them to play out, or are the biggest audiophille who has a $3,000 system, it just doesn't make sense. Are people really that picky with sound, with that great of ears to tell the difference?

I think you can only speak for yourself here, because as I have said before, it is NOT about that, it is about the fact of the matter that wav's are the superior format to mp3's. Wav's still aren't that much more IMO, considering either format is still saving you money over the cost of vinyl. Why wouldn't you want the best possible sound you can get as opposed to simply "settling" for something of lesser quality? I still don't understand this mentality in the slightest, but I guess I should look at it like mp3's are the lower-end equivalent of music formats just like the Gemini/Numark/Behringer dj gear is to Technics/A&H/Rane, etc...

Being able to hear the difference and whether or not you play out are also irrelevant, IMO.

quote:

WAVs really aren't the future, it probably is MP4, once they become more widely available, with higher bit-rates.

I disagree, and please stop saying this as if it is truth. So, why aren't wav's the future? Surely you jest if you think mp3/mp4 is the future.

quote:

WAV have been around a lot longer than these other formats.

So what? I don't follow.

quote:

In three years MP4 will replace MP3

I think you mean "IMO, in three years...."

___________________
"...the major problem in the past was to locate the settings of the ancient plastic city. referring to our latest findings plastic city wasn't a city built of stone or metal but more kind of built out of ideas.... (PLASTIC CITY) can't be found by our archaeologists. we will have to examine the ideas and then try to re-construct plastic city in out minds..." (EXCERPT FROM "SCIENTIST REPORT NETWORK" #12.587, YEAR 2495)

Yes I mean IMO on those things, i'm just making predictions but that does seem to be the way things are going, MP4 replacing MP3s, and WAVs being used by those who want the highest quality, i.e. DJs, not just bedroom DJs either. And WAVs are older, and they are a good format, not saying that. But my biggest jist with the whole thing is for someone like myself and others on here who don't do gigs but just mix in our bedroom, is it really worth it?

And besides, if I ever do get a gig, wouldn't a lot of the tracks I have be pretty out-dated, esp if I change my style? That's the point i've made before but that point makes more sense than shelling out so much for WAVs, like I did with vinyl, only to get tired of the tracks and or change my style...I don't think I will be getting a gig anytime soon, and even if I do, the MP3s I play will be fine in a small bar or club. I mean they are more, sometimes $20 to $30 more that I frankly refuse to spend on something that I may or may not use in a mix, or even listen to.

I mean I would download only tracks I really like as WAVs, and that is what I do, but I find the only way of really listening to the complete tracks is downloading them as MP3s first. That is unless I were to download and listen to many DJ sets and then find the tracks I like that way, but that's not so easy, with the IDing and the fact that many DJs use promos that haven't been released yet. If only you could listen to the full track before downloading, rather than either downloading a track because it's by an artist you like or it sounds good from the preview of it. So WAV might be the future, as long as they can make them more available on these digital download sites, and for less money. Not everyone is willing to shell out another $20 to $30. But I don't want to get into another huge, overblown discussion or argument about this with you.

Last edited by Spirit5 on Aug-07-2006 at 02:59

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 More companies seem to be promoting MP3, MP4 and WMAs. MP3 players seem to be replacing CD players, or CD players with MP3 capability.

I personally think that is because of pop-culture rather than anything else. Yes, mp3 players do seem to be replacing cd players, which I think is rather unfortunate. I remember having this exact discussion in one of my music business classes last spring and the general consensus was that if this continues, people are going to very quickly forget about how music should sound and how the quality levels should be since all they know is the sound of compressed mp3's. Audio technology should move ahead, not step back.

Mp3's IMO, are nothing more than a stop-gap format and once another breakthrough format comes along that indeed ends up being the true predecessor of cd's (whatever that may be, but not mp3), I think you'll see less and less of them.

___________________
"...the major problem in the past was to locate the settings of the ancient plastic city. referring to our latest findings plastic city wasn't a city built of stone or metal but more kind of built out of ideas.... (PLASTIC CITY) can't be found by our archaeologists. we will have to examine the ideas and then try to re-construct plastic city in out minds..." (EXCERPT FROM "SCIENTIST REPORT NETWORK" #12.587, YEAR 2495)

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Intrigue I personally think that is because of pop-culture rather than anything else. Yes, mp3 players do seem to be replacing cd players, which I think is rather unfortunate. I remember having this exact discussion in one of my music business classes last spring and the general consensus was that if this continues, people are going to very quickly forget about how music should sound and how the quality levels should be since all they know is the sound of compressed mp3's. Audio technology should move ahead, not step back. Mp3's IMO, are nothing more than a stop-gap format and once another breakthrough format comes along that indeed ends up being the true predecessor of cd's (whatever that may be, but not mp3), I think you'll see less and less of them.

Are you forgetting that most people aren't rich, most people aren't audiophilles or pro DJs, and most sites they get stuff from are MP3/MP4 or WMA sites. Most people just buy stuff to listen to, regardless of the quality, just as long as it doesn't sound like shit, which neither 192 or 320 Kbps MP3 do for the average listener, or MP4s or WMAs. I love CDs, but I also love MP3s. Many people even upload CDs onto their MP3s so they can take a few albums with them rather than carrying a case load of CDs like I do (and wont do once I get a smaller MP3 player). Yes you will see less and less of them, I agree, because MP4 I think will replace it as the format for people who are either just bedroom listeners/mixers like myself or just people who enjoy listening to music wherever. People like them because they are small (the files and the players) and are an alternative to CDs, and are cheaper. And they can also pick and choose, rather than pick up a CD or Vinyl which may have some stuff they like and others they don't like. But I will admit to listening to more CDs than MP3s, esp lately. Maybe because my tastes are going towards non dance music, and more towards downtempo/ambient/chill stuff and singer-songwriter music. And besides, you would need a pretty big hard drive on an MP3 player to fit a good number of WAV files. Most people seem to get 10 or 20 gig players.

Last edited by Spirit5 on Aug-07-2006 at 03:10

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 But my biggest jist with the whole thing is for someone like myself and others on here who don't do gigs but just mix in our bedroom, is it really worth it?

I would say yes... simply because the price differences are NOT anywhere near the exaggeration you make them out be. You act as if the differences are akin to that of a BMW vs. a Kia, but that I think would be better reserved to describing a vinyl vs. an mp3, not a wav vs. an mp3. Again, I STILL fail to see what gigs, or anything of that sort have to do with this. So, normal music listeners shouldn't download wav's simply because they don't dj or play out in a professional environment where quality matters? Not everyone is an audiophile, but that doesn't mean the highest possible quality of music shouldn't be worth it.

quote:

And besides, if I ever do get a gig, wouldn't a lot of the tracks I have be pretty out-dated, esp if I change my style?

Well, that's probably one of the downsides of buying digital... you can't re-sell your music if you grow tired of it. But I think I'd like to keep those tracks around just in case I ever wanted to come back to them at some point.

quote:

I mean they are more, sometimes $20 to $30 more that I frankly refuse to spend on something that I may or may not use in a mix, or even listen to.

Ok, but why would you buy them in the first place if you didn't like what you hear? I know I buy a lot of music that I have no intentions of playing in mixes or even out, but I buy them anyway just because I enjoy the song so much and want a hard copy of it. Possibly if the differences between wav's and mp3's reach that much like you say, then maybe it is best not to buy a large amount of new tunes all at once.

quote:

I mean I would download only tracks I really like as WAVs, and that is what I do, but I find the only way of really listening to the complete tracks is downloading them as MP3s first.

I know I'll get flamed to high hell for saying this, but I could care less. I illegally download my music first from p2p, and then pick and choose the ones I want to buy from there. I still think that is one of the best ways to go about finding music and I have a good 300 records and some 100 cd's as a result.

Do you pay for the mp3's first, and then buy the wav's as a result? Cause if you do, that's such a huge waste of money and there are other ways to listen to full tracks.

quote:

Not everyone is willing to shell out another $20 to $30. But that's all I'm going to say because we've had this discussion before Intrique, but I just used this to clarify my points.

I fully realize that not everyone is willing, but with all due respect, you are already paying for 2/3 of the wav when you buy the mp3. It's not like wav's are 2,3, or even 4 dollars more than an mp3, they are only a dollar more... if the former were the case, then I would definitely understand, but that is so little though for a notch up. I suppose my value of a dollar and yours are vastly different, but why wouldn't you just go all out since you only have 1/3 left to pay? In you opinion (and for my wondering), what SHOULD wav's cost if you were to go with them instead?

___________________
"...the major problem in the past was to locate the settings of the ancient plastic city. referring to our latest findings plastic city wasn't a city built of stone or metal but more kind of built out of ideas.... (PLASTIC CITY) can't be found by our archaeologists. we will have to examine the ideas and then try to re-construct plastic city in out minds..." (EXCERPT FROM "SCIENTIST REPORT NETWORK" #12.587, YEAR 2495)

25 to 50 cents more. So a regular MP3 would be $1.49, and a WAV $1.99 to $2.25. I actually only have 5 tracks as WAVs, because i only liked the one track, not the whole release. So I really am not doing that because i'm quite frankly happy with most of the MP3s I hear, that i've felt it isn't worth it unless I really really like the track, and to be honest, there's fewer and far between for me nowadays. I guess i'm getting away from this music slowly...I might be exaggerting the price difference, even though it does add up on my cart, but I think your exaggerating the differences between them because from a bunch of stuff i've read, on many forums and sites online, the differences are much smaller. I'm talking about 320 Kbps vs. WAVs, as you get smaller the differences do become a bit more obvious, I admit.

I don't download illegal sorry, nor do I download and listen to that many sets. I just buy CDs, and find tracks I like on mixed CDs (though i hardly buy any nowadays) and listen to previews of tracks from artists I like or labels or tracks that just sound good. Oh and gigs, well I haven't had one, and other people on here I'm sure aren't going around DJing at big clubs or bars. Most people seem to do house parties or just make mixes at home and post them online. It's a hobby, not a career, so not all of us need the highest quality. To me mixing is just an extension of listening and my passion for the music. But that's all I have to say, no more arguing with you because we just go on and on about this crap.

Last edited by Spirit5 on Aug-07-2006 at 03:49

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 Are you forgetting that most people aren't rich, most people aren't audiophilles or pro DJs, and most sites they get stuff from are MP3/MP4 or WMA sites. Most people just buy stuff to listen to, regardless of the quality, just as long as it doesn't sound like shit, which neither 192 or 320 Kbps MP3 do for the average listener, or MP4s or WMAs. I love CDs, but I also love MP3s. Many people even upload CDs onto their MP3s so they can take a few albums with them rather than carrying a case load of CDs like I do (and wont do once I get a smaller MP3 player). Yes you will see less and less of them, I agree, because MP4 I think will replace it as the format for people who are either just bedroom listeners/mixers like myself or just people who enjoy listening to music wherever. People like them because they are small (the files and the players) and are an alternative to CDs, and are cheaper. And they can also pick and choose, rather than pick up a CD or Vinyl which may have some stuff they like and others they don't like. But I will admit to listening to more CDs than MP3s, esp lately. Maybe because my tastes are going towards non dance music, and more towards downtempo/ambient/chill stuff and singer-songwriter music. And besides, you would need a pretty big hard drive on an MP3 player to fit a good number of WAV files. Most people seem to get 10 or 20 gig players.

Richness has nothing to do with it, I'm not even sure how it relates. And again, audiophiles and pro dj's are NOT the only people who should be able to expect and want higher quality audio, but unfortunately like you said, people today really don't care about quality (that goes with many other things as well).

Pretty much all of what you say here goes along with pop-culture and the reflections of the times. I think it is fairly simple in that regard. But you are right though with alot of what you say, but at the same time, I still feel like they are nothing more than a temporary appeasement right now until another major format comes along.

I like mp3's too, and for many of the same reasons, but I don't see them as being even remotely purchase-worthy.

___________________
"...the major problem in the past was to locate the settings of the ancient plastic city. referring to our latest findings plastic city wasn't a city built of stone or metal but more kind of built out of ideas.... (PLASTIC CITY) can't be found by our archaeologists. we will have to examine the ideas and then try to re-construct plastic city in out minds..." (EXCERPT FROM "SCIENTIST REPORT NETWORK" #12.587, YEAR 2495)

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Intrigue Richness has nothing to do with it, I'm not even sure how it relates. And again, audiophiles and pro dj's are NOT the only people who should be able to expect and want higher quality audio, but unfortunately like you said, people today really don't care about quality (that goes with many other things as well). Pretty much all of what you say here goes along with pop-culture and the reflections of the times. I think it is fairly simple in that regard. But you are right though with alot of what you say, but at the same time, I still feel like they are nothing more than a temporary appeasement right now until another major format comes along. I like mp3's too, and for many of the same reasons, but I don't see them as being even remotely purchase-worthy.

Don't feel like responding to this whole thing because basically we are both repeating each other in our responses like we do all the time. But not everyone is a perfectionist either....we should expect high quality but that doesn't mean we are all wealthy enough to have it, nor are really that much of a perfectionist that we aren't just happy with what we have. That is another problem, people just want things better and better, when what matters sometimes is being happy with what you have.

It's simple really...quality I don't doubt is important, but it's not like 320 Kbps MP3s are complete shit, it's not like your settling for 160 or 128 MP3 files you got from P2P encoded or ripped pretty poorly (someone who doesn't have a job, someone who is young, might, but not me who does make some money, has a credit card). I had a bunch of those, I got rid of them because I have something better...and I am actually paying for them. People get stuff within reason. Why are stores like Ikea so popular? because they are affordable, and they might not be the best made stuff, but are fine for what they are. Sometimes you just have to live within your means...and besides I and other people on here or in real life aren't perfectionists, a little bit of a quality loss (which is mostly inaudiable) isn't going to stop us from buying it and listening to it.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Intrigue Pretty much all of what you say here goes along with pop-culture and the reflections of the times. I think it is fairly simple in that regard. But you are right though with alot of what you say, but at the same time, I still feel like they are nothing more than a temporary appeasement right now until another major format comes along.

slighty off topic...there was an article in a magazine discussing this. It must have been Popular Science, or something like that, its true that the sound quality is decreasing, while the amount of music being listened to goes up. People don't listen to music now for the sake of listening to music, rather having it as a background while doing something else. Having every single one of your albums on hand on a device the size of your thumb drastically reduces the value of said music.

EDIT: just seems people are putting convenience above all else

quote:

Originally posted by adder slighty off topic...there was an article in a magazine discussing this. It must have been Popular Science, or something like that, its true that the sound quality is decreasing, while the amount of music being listened to goes up. People don't listen to music now for the sake of listening to music, rather having it as a background while doing something else. Having every single one of your albums on hand on a device the size of your thumb drastically reduces the value of said music. EDIT: just seems people are putting convenience above all else

I mean I agree with this, thus why i've gotten tired of EDM lately....I haven't downloaded any MP3s in almost a month..and I don't want you or DJ Intrique to get the impression i'm spending hundreds of dollars on stuff I don't listen to or just getting stuff for the sake of it. It is usually stuff that I listen to over and over as previews and read about and only select stuff from artists I like. I mean yeah quality vs. quantity, but i think sometimes having a larger collection of stuff is good because it means you have more to work with, esp as a DJ. I've seen plenty of guys with rows and rows of vinyls. It also means you could have a greater variety in your sets, from different styles.

I admit to having it as background music, but I also actively listen to it as well. It depends on what it is but if music was more interactive, I think it would have potentional to be more than background music. I think this will be true with BT's latest album. But having it as background is just where it's taken us. Hence why there is music in movies and on commercials and in elevators, stores and some buses and such. Even if it might be decreasing, what is most important, the quality of the sound or the quality of the material being produced? I mean it would be great to have both I think.

I still don't see what is so bad about 320 Kbps MP3s though, there's far worse sounding stuff out there...that's the highest quality MP3s your going to get. I buy more CDs because of the quality of it, and maybe if I didn't spend so much on CDs like I have been, I probably would download WAVs, but I'de have to spend more time listening to sets and finding stuff I like...I'de rather buy a CD from an artist than a 128 Kbps MP4 AAC on Itunes, but I'de rather buy a 320 Kbps MP3 on Beatport than a WAV. I'm weird that way...

Last edited by Spirit5 on Aug-07-2006 at 04:45