I usually burn everything to CD since I have mkII's at home, but a few weeks ago @ a friends I had just bought a bunch of new tracks and they were on a data disc, so I used that on the mk3. No noticable difference at all...except I kept ejecting the CD out of habit to change tracks lol...

___________________

quote:

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

i have a pair of mkIIIs but I still burn it to wav format just to be sure i can play my tracks at the clubs. you'll never know if the equipment is up-to-date.

there is a difference in the display if you use mp3s vs regular tracks. mp3s only display text unlike wav which can display the highs & lows.

___________________
CLICK HERE FOR A GOOD TIME

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis I usually burn everything to CD since I have mkII's at home, but a few weeks ago @ a friends I had just bought a bunch of new tracks and they were on a data disc, so I used that on the mk3. No noticable difference at all...except I kept ejecting the CD out of habit to change tracks lol...

When you say "no noticeable difference", on what kind of speakers are you playing back?

quote:

Originally posted by gerard6975 i have a pair of mkIIIs but I still burn it to wav format just to be sure i can play my tracks at the clubs. you'll never know if the equipment is up-to-date. there is a difference in the display if you use mp3s vs regular tracks. mp3s only display text unlike wav which can display the highs & lows.

But if they started out as MP3's and you convert them, that doesn't mean that they're back to true 44.1 quality (which is how they were probably mastered), correct?

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

I play mp3s in the sense that they're a 320 mp3 as opposed to a wav...but I'm not playing an mp3 cd.

the more you compress, the worse the sound.

I dont deal in MP3s in the clubs.

___________________
T.A. Mafia

Member #1

quote:

Originally posted by Bob_Motamedi the more you compress, the worse the sound. I dont deal in MP3s in the clubs.

BAM! There it is!

Thank you.

My point (from another thread) here is how even the best sound systems in the bigger clubs can't make up for when MP3's are played over CD's, or even better, LP's.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

I've had debate with many DJs who have played in big clubs. Some of them will argue that how well the track is mastered can be the difference in if a mp3 sounds good at a certain bitrate. Some will say that even in some cases, 192kbps is fine w/ no noticeable difference from 320.

They'll argue no matter how good someone says they can hear, they won't be able to tell the difference.

The key is to have a real good master and use the right mp3 compressor and not any random one.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveT I've had debate with many DJs who have played in big clubs. Some of them will argue that how well the track is mastered can be the difference in if a mp3 sounds good at a certain bitrate. Some will say that even in some cases, 192kbps is fine w/ no noticeable difference from 320. They'll argue no matter how good someone says they can hear, they won't be able to tell the difference. The key is to have a real good master and use the right mp3 compressor and not any random one.

Yes. Older tracks, for example (7+years or more, roughly), were often mastered in such a way that I really CAN'T hear the difference between them in .wav versus MP3.

But mostly, DJ's are playing newer tracks these days that usually ARE mastered properly (usually, not always though). In these tracks, I can certainly hear the difference. Consequently, I'd still say that the majority of one's music should be played in at least full 44.1 .wav files.

As for older tacks where it doesn't matter too much (all things being relative), is it really worth losing any more quality than is necessary?

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

Doesn't matter if it's anything less then 256 it is SHIT, you should NEVER EVER EVER play that stuff out. Unless your hearing is completely shot the difference is noticeable. Not to mention you are sending distorted signals through the club systems and it reduces the overall dynamic range of the system. That's why people have hearing damage a lot easier and ear fatigue. It's much harder on the ears.

On a track like Sander van Doorn - Riff even at 320kbps MP3 I can hear the compression of the MP3 and the distortion, really noticeable in the high frequencies. Download the WAV from Beatport and compare for yourself's.

Go play that track on Avalon or Vanguard's main system and you will definately notice the diff. The problem is most people don't have equipment at home where they can really notice it..

Anyhow, I personally buy almost all of my stuff from Beatport and always pay the extra cash for the WAV, I will always seek out the WAV file and don't mind paying extra for it. I will look everywhere and try to find the WAV before I buy a 320 MP3.

Just my 2 cents after being an Audio nut since I am a little kid, I notice the difference.

okay - this may be a dumb question but....

if i burn a 320 mp3 to a CD as a WAV file and plays the track, is what one hears out of the speakers 100% the same as if it was played as the original 320 mp3?

___________________
Check out our guest lists for Avalon, Academy, Exchange LA, Time and Temple SF at EDMLife.com
Follow EDM Life on Twitter!!!
Follow EDM Life on Instagram!!!
Presale tix for Academy LA, Exchange LA, Time OC and Nova SD!

quote:

Originally posted by RobertStern Doesn't matter if it's anything less then 256 it is SHIT, you should NEVER EVER EVER play that stuff out. Unless your hearing is completely shot the difference is noticeable. Not to mention you are sending distorted signals through the club systems and it reduces the overall dynamic range of the system. That's why people have hearing damage a lot easier and ear fatigue. It's much harder on the ears....

Agreed.

Just to be clear, my reason for asking this question was not to show anyone here up for playing MP3's, but rather to address an important issue that I think seems to be playing more and more of a factor in the old "which venue has the better sound system?" debate (along with other factors too, of course, like DJ's with shot hearing, individual system set-ups, the Sound Engineer for the particular show, EQ & Compression, etc., etc.)...it's an issue that I don't think even some DJ's seem to be aware is a serious one, hence they play MP3's without much thought to how they will sound on the floor. Pioneer only made it easier to go this route with the latest version of the CDJ1000.

And as has been stated by many a club-goer, they notice that on some nights, certain systems sound better than they did the previous weekends. So I am just wondering how much of this can be attributed to the MP3's?

As sound systems get better, it can only help to accentuate the shortcomings of the MP3, IMHO. For that reason, if anything, 44.1 .wav MUST be the default, if not eventually 96K and higher, played back from lap-tops. I'm SURE that there must be some DJ's who are playing 96K's they get exclusive access to from their Producer/DJ friends, who are sending over the full Master for remixing, etc. It would be nice to see everyone go UP in quality one day, when lap-tops and even larger hard-drives become the standard where on everyone keeps their library. THEN we'd hear some really ass-kicking music!

Ahhh, dare to dream, lol

And Cool1g, I have to admit that I'm a bit shaky in that area on the exact specifications, but I am pretty sure that at the very least, it will never be like the original .wav was...to the point where it will ALWAYS sound more like an MP3 than a .wav of the same recording. Hope that helps? Maybe someone else knows more about this than I do?

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

Last edited by donnybrasco on Dec-21-2007 at 12:35