|
Wav downloads on beatport actually cost you more money (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Ryan0751 |
| I've never ordered the wav files on a CD... how do they look? Do they print the track names on the discs and such? |
|
|
| djmushi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ryan0751
I've never ordered the wav files on a CD... how do they look? Do they print the track names on the discs and such? |
yeah, I wanna know that too! If so I`ll stop buying mp3s and buy wav instead. |
|
|
| mylespower |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ryan0751
I've never ordered the wav files on a CD... how do they look? Do they print the track names on the discs and such? |
well the wav files are burned to a data cd, so you can fit about 7 to 10 tracks on a disc... they aren't really named all that well... the songs have abstract names like "communication_orig", i would rename that to "communication - original mix - armin van buuren - ultra"
i just rip them all to an external harddrive i bought for my tracks, rename them and then burn them to cds accordingly
the discs themselves are just generic beatport discs with the order number lasered onto it as well the cd # in the order |
|
|
| sirhiss |
| quote: | Originally posted by mylespower
well the wav files are burned to a data cd, so you can fit about 7 to 10 tracks on a disc... they aren't really named all that well... the songs have abstract names like "communication_orig", i would rename that to "communication - original mix - armin van buuren - ultra"
i just rip them all to an external harddrive i bought for my tracks, rename them and then burn them to cds accordingly
the discs themselves are just generic beatport discs with the order number lasered onto it as well the cd # in the order |
Do you know if they are factory pressed or just burnt on a cdr? |
|
|
| Stu Cox |
| quote: | Originally posted by sirhiss
Do you know if they are factory pressed or just burnt on a cdr? |
They'll just be burned on a CD-R - by the nature of factory pressing, it cost more for you to start the press than it does for a couple of hundred CD-Rs so it'd be daft for you to do it for a single disc. |
|
|
| mylespower |
| quote: | Originally posted by sirhiss
Do you know if they are factory pressed or just burnt on a cdr? |
as stu said its a cdr and the cdr is maxed with as many songs as they can fit and in no particular order
and its a data cd, not an audio cd so you must rip them to your comp first and then burn accordingly
it may seem like a waste of cd but it does serve as a good method of back up |
|
|
| skot_e |
An article that appeared in a computer mag here recently made the point that should your computer be stolen, and you have not backed up any of your files (mp3 or wav) then you may have a tough time getting them replaced on insurance.
1 the insurance may not cover this, and
2 the download company may not replace them.
So if you have say 200 tunes downloaded, that's a big loss that may not be covered.
Food for thought.
I am of the belief that mp3 is about 1/10th the size of wav (not sure tho).
If you have a wave editor that can run both at the same time, play the wav in mono and play the inverted mp3 in mono at the same time, and due to phase cancellation, you will be able to hear just what it is the mp3 file leaves out in the compression.
I was told about this today, so I have not tried it, but apparently it is negligable to the ear, hence making mp3 worthy - tho it does take out some of the depth perception in the track.
makes me wonder if the wav is worth the extra $$$. |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
1. Yes, an external hard drive or DVD burner should be used to backup your music files. Then store them off site (ie, not in your house!). My friends house was burglerized and they stole all his computer equipment, including his backup drive he had stored in a closet. Goodbye all his music and photos for the last 10 years... not pleasent. And he thought he was all set.
2. MP3 is about 1/10th the size when encoded at 128Kbps. It's unfortunate that newer codecs such as AAC (supported by the iPod, based off of MPEG4) haven't overtaken MP3.
The bigger shame is that we aren't DEMANDING higher resolution formats than either MP3 or CD/Wav. DVD audio and SACD (super-audio CD) have both been around for years and haven't taken off, but both put to rest any claims of vinyl sounding better than CD, even audiophiles agree (and they don't agree with anything).
Of course, a downloadable DVD audio quality file would be several hundred megs, but it would be doable with things like FIOS (fiber to the home) becoming available. Now we just need Pioneer, Denon and the other manufacturers to make universal players that can play those formats (although you could use a computer package TODAY to play them, like ableton).
| quote: | Originally posted by skot_e
An article that appeared in a computer mag here recently made the point that should your computer be stolen, and you have not backed up any of your files (mp3 or wav) then you may have a tough time getting them replaced on insurance.
1 the insurance may not cover this, and
2 the download company may not replace them.
So if you have say 200 tunes downloaded, that's a big loss that may not be covered.
Food for thought.
I am of the belief that mp3 is about 1/10th the size of wav (not sure tho).
If you have a wave editor that can run both at the same time, play the wav in mono and play the inverted mp3 in mono at the same time, and due to phase cancellation, you will be able to hear just what it is the mp3 file leaves out in the compression.
I was told about this today, so I have not tried it, but apparently it is negligable to the ear, hence making mp3 worthy - tho it does take out some of the depth perception in the track.
makes me wonder if the wav is worth the extra $$$. |
|
|
|
| ô§§|E |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psiweaver
i wonder why its more expensive to download them. |
Cause it takes more bandwidth to send a WAV file then an MP3 file, ie WAV files are bigger, so their servers will be busier as the WAV file will take longer to send.
I wouldnt mind paying for digital downloads, still cheaper then vinyl :P |
|
|
| Max Thomson |
| quote: | Originally posted by mikefasssy
resale of most vinyl is e unless you find suckers |
aye :tongue2 |
|
|
| Stu Cox |
| quote: | Originally posted by skot_e
I am of the belief that mp3 is about 1/10th the size of wav (not sure tho).
If you have a wave editor that can run both at the same time, play the wav in mono and play the inverted mp3 in mono at the same time, and due to phase cancellation, you will be able to hear just what it is the mp3 file leaves out in the compression.
I was told about this today, so I have not tried it, but apparently it is negligable to the ear, hence making mp3 worthy - tho it does take out some of the depth perception in the track.
makes me wonder if the wav is worth the extra $$$. |
A 320kbps mp3 is about about 1/4 or 1/5 of the size of a wav, so it's not quite as significant but still saves a lot of space. Performing wave cancellation, as you say leaves behind the difference but I think you'll be surprised at how much is left behind.
I'm personally of the belief that with file space and bandwidth considerations becoming less and less significant, we should strive to improve the sound quality we use all across the board - if in 5 years time we're all exclusively listening to 16bit 96kHz sound I think we'll be sickened by a 192k or 320k mp3 which, by todays standard, is considered totally acceptable quality... listening to higher quality sound is better for your ears too ;) |
|
|
| mylespower |
I have no proof of this but i am of the belief that both vinyl and wav files provide the depth of the sound that you can feel... more so in the night club or a big system. Not to say that the 320kb mp3 doesn't have bass but it likely does not have the deep deep bass to provide the richness of vinyl or wav
basically mp3s are 'thinned out' wav files so there is a loss in quality and depth |
|
|
|
|
