I tried searching before making this thread. If I missed something please paste a link. I was curious what the consensus is on a 320 mp3 vs. wav. I know wav is lossless and mp3 is lossy codec. Basically is it worth the extra dollar on beatport or would I be fine with a 320?

I mean, I wouldn't know... I've never played anything live, but from reading around here, a lot of people would say that 320 is good enough. I mean if you just play at home and maybe a friends house now and then, and I've heard people say that 320 is fine in clubs too.. then you should be fine.

for the most part it really doesn't matter, and a lot of quality issues depend on the reproductive quality of the system your playing on...so you're really only as good as the speakers allow. that said, on studio monitors for dj'ing or production you can certainly here a qualitative difference, but its a very personal choice of whether that merits paying nearly double what you would (in some cases) for an entire collection of tracks in .wav. personally i used to buy exclusively .wavs for a while and eventually settled for 320mp3 when some of the vendors i started buying from no longer offered wav.

___________________
http://www.djandrewgarcia.com

320's for me... id buy wavs if all the download shops offered them... i kinda like consistency... everything i buy has to be one format, and since wavs arent yet a standard offering i will stick with 320 for now. maybe that is poor reasoning but whateva

I think that 320 is plenty for any club. I know for a fact that a Very Big Dj gave me a bunch of cds and they where all 320. He plays at many clubs, pacha etc so if its fine for him I think 320 is good enough for everyone else

You could play a 192kbps MP3 in any club you'll ever play and nobody will be able to tell the difference.

Anyone who says they can is either:

A. Lying

B. A Mutant

___________________
last minute disco dot net

I'll vote for B then

I only buy WAV's.

I think they sound better, put a WAV next to a 320 MP3 of the same song, sure they sound very "similar", but the MP3 is missing so much high and low feeling and clarity.

I used to spin vinyl which used to cost me $20 a record (after shipping), now I pay $2.50 for a WAV ....... it's not even a consideration for me.

Maybe you need to look your equipment, how much did you spend on it? If you spent $1000 then I'd say 320 is fine. If you spent $15,000 then I'd say go with a WAV.

I vote WAV, i just wish more shops provided them

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by eye_03 the reason why i dont do it is because i see people like you at clubs doped out of your mind. i say "shit, i dont wanna turn out like that scumbag"

I don't know, I find it possible to differentiate on certain tracks which have a characteristic crispness and clarity in high quality.

I suppose in most clubs they just destroy the sound anyways with booming bass and the sound is complicated and obfuscated by the sound of vibration in the actual material of the place, and usually you're under the influence and it doesn't matter.

Playing a 192 kbps mp3 for me is like watching a movie at a theater without corrective lenses. (I'm a bit near sighted)

I generally play 320 kbps mp3s except for select tracks which I really love and own in wav format or original productions in wav.

mostly though it's because i collect music and i like to collect it in the best form affordable. i also buy vinyl. you can easily tell the difference in headphones


EDIT: we should do some sort of test where a mix is recorded with tracks of variable quality - wav, 320, 192 and see who notices what.

like an ID contest haha

quote:

Originally posted by Mmanu I'll vote for B then

I've never once seen a person who could tell the difference - it's all a bunch of bullshit, douchebag "my e-penor is bigger than yours" nonsense.

If we really wanted to play "let's drop some names," () I'd gladly pass along the names of several big name DJ's who play illegally obtained, 192kbps MP3's several nights a week - but at the end of the day, I'll take personal experience over anything else.

99.9% of people in a club can't tell. Period. It's a fact that there's no use in arguing.

Edit: I think those of you who claim to be able to tell this huge difference (especially in a club) really need to check the source of your MP3's.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

I didn't say huge.
192= less bass, less highs, muddy mediums. People can't tell the difference, because they usually don't run a Pepsi challenge in clubs...
the source for my mp3s is 24 bit/192 Khz, mastered on a TL audio 48 channel, tascam digital recorders/Macintosh. Thanks for your great insight, please have a cookie

quote:

Originally posted by Mmanu I didn't say huge. 192= less bass, less highs, muddy mediums. People can't tell the difference, because they usually don't run a Pepsi challenge in clubs... the source for my mp3 is 24 bit/192 Khz. Thanks for your great insight, please have a cookie

I could really give fuck all if just because you can notice the difference on your headphones at home so you assume you can in a club.

___________________
last minute disco dot net