|
Should I do it? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| BOOsTER |
| quote: | | your CD's can get scratched. |
and your records don't? :p |
|
|
| DJ Intrigue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis86
My mp3's dont warp. |
On the contrary, mp3s and digital downloads do come with their own unique faults just like any other audio format does, so they aren't necessarily the fool-proof answer like many on here tend to believe either. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Intrigue
On the contrary, mp3s and digital downloads do come with their own unique faults just like any other audio format does, so they aren't necessarily the fool-proof answer like many on here tend to believe either. |
No but they are a lot more convenient and you don't have to worry about a warped record. A few I ordered were warped when I got them already. Occasionaly you might buy a bad MP3/WAV file, either the volume is too low, sound quality is bad or a few blips noises, but it's a lot cheaper than having to replace a $9.99 record. I had to do that a few times to some records that either were warped or I accidently dropped and scratched up. If I drop a CD, it's a lot cheaper to replace them by burning another CD. And for home use, it's much more economical, unless your some guy with a big room and a large budget who can afford all of those records and has the space for them.
I started with vinyl, but it got to the point where you spend so much money on records that you could on some high quality WAV files. But that's not really the point of this thread, didn't mean with my comment to turn this into a CD vs. vinyl debate, but just think it doesn't make sense nowadays if you have CDJs to get TTs, maybe one cheap one, but with more and more released digitally nowadays, there really is no use. And there's no use getting a DJM 600, when there are better, more modern mixers out there and the DJM 800 which has really replaced the 600 and will last you a lot longer than a 600 will. Not saying the 600 is a bad mixer, quite the contrary, but it's better to get something that will last another 4 years, the 600 has pretty much seen it's day. If someone really wants something better than a DXM 06, it's the A&H X:One 32, Rane: Empath, Ecler Nuo 3 or Nuo 4, or Pioneer DJM400 or DJM 800. Even the Numark DXM06...thats a pretty damn good mixer for the price, prolly Numark's best. |
|
|
| DJ Intrigue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
No but they are a lot more convenient and you don't have to worry about a warped record. A few I ordered were warped when I got them already. Occasionaly you might buy a bad MP3/WAV file, either the volume is too low, sound quality is bad or a few blips noises, but it's a lot cheaper than having to replace a $9.99 record. I had to do that a few times to some records that either were warped or I accidently dropped and scratched up. If I drop a CD, it's a lot cheaper to replace them by burning another CD. And for home use, it's much more economical, unless your some guy with a big room and a large budget who can afford all of those records and has the space for them. |
I guess that just depends on everyone's personal definition of convenience and what is or is not economical, especially since the whole digital download thing is still in its infancy at this point and has quite a way to go yet, IMO.
Maybe I'm just biased, or maybe it's because the records I buy and the amount of money I spend I am able to justify 100%, but I personally don't see the point in paying for mp3/digital music (excluding cd's) until wav's are offered everywhere instead of mp3's and the track selections for digital offerings vastly increase.
| quote: | | but just think it doesn't make sense nowadays if you have CDJs to get TTs, maybe one cheap one, but with more and more released digitally nowadays, there really is no use. |
I would have to disagree with this, mostly because certain tracks are only avaliable on vinyl and nothing else, and also because of consideration for older music and music from older labels that may not exist anymore to release anything in cd/digital format. Why not allow yourself to have the best of all worlds, without limitations?
My post wasn't really directed at you, it was just more of a general comment towards the handful that feel mp3's are now all of a sudden the "be-all-end-all" format these days. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Intrigue
I guess that just depends on everyone's personal definition of convenience and what is or is not economical, especially since the whole digital download thing is still in its infancy at this point and has quite a way to go yet, IMO.
Maybe I'm just biased, or maybe it's because the records I buy and the amount of money I spend I am able to justify 100%, but I personally don't see the point in paying for mp3/digital music (excluding cd's) until wav's are offered everywhere instead of mp3's and the track selections for digital offerings vastly increase.
I would have to disagree with this, mostly because certain tracks are only avaliable on vinyl and nothing else, and also because of consideration for older music and music from older labels that may not exist anymore to release anything in cd/digital format. Why not allow yourself to have the best of all worlds, without limitations?
My post wasn't really directed at you, it was just more of a general comment towards the handful that feel mp3's are now all of a sudden the "be-all-end-all" format these days. |
Understandable however for people starting out with DJing and just bedroom or house party DJs, having a big vinyl collection isn't as important as someone who is really into it, and making a living off of it. Part of the convienece is that it saves you space like I said, you can store a whole record collection in a 200 CD case (with 3 or 4 releases from each artist on each CD), that would take up like 10 record cases or a large bookshelf. You can also play your releases on your computer, car, mini-system etc, without having to rip your files all the time, they are already ripped for you. I'm not saying digital is perfect or the be all end all, it just makes more sense for bedroom DJs unless you have the time, space and the money to devote to record collecting.
I don't really think it's the medium itself that is important, however if your not getting money for what your doing and your just using it as a hobby, your obviously don't need anymore than what you have. Vinyl isn't cheap, and it requires much more maintenance and time vs. Digital. And I do see that digital releases are becoming more and more common. AudioJelly gets promos all the time, and sometimes they get tracks before the vinyl releases, sometimes shortly after. Now this thing depends on what your into, but it's mostly progressive house and trance that are becoming more and more common on digital nowadays. Other stuff might be less common.
320 Kbps MP3s and WAV files aren't that big of a difference really. Some people make it out to be like they are utter crap, but the difference is so slight, it's not worth it, esp if you want a large collection of files. All and all I just feel that having CDJs is better than having TTs, and 2 CDJs is really all you need. No sense getting the same records on both formats. |
|
|
| DJ Intrigue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
320 Kbps MP3s and WAV files aren't that big of a difference really. Some people make it out to be like they are utter crap, but the difference is so slight, it's not worth it, esp if you want a large collection of files. All and all I just feel that having CDJs is better than having TTs, and 2 CDJs is really all you need. No sense getting the same records on both formats. |
Being able to hear the difference between mp3's and wav's/cd's/vinyls is totally meaningless to me and I really don't care about that. My problem lies with the fact that mp3's are a lossy audio format, despite the quality level. Wav's, cd's, and vinyls are not like that, since they are the de-facto audio standards and when you buy one of them, you know that you are getting full-on audio without any loss of data. I personally feel that paying for mp3's is a step backwards for music, so I won't ever spend a dime on them. That's just the consumer in me speaking, as I'd rather spend my money on a full quality audio product as compared to saving a few dollars on an inferior product of the exact same thing.
As for the rest, I don't have much to say except it does depend on each person's preferences and musical tastes. Digital releases still have a way's to go yet and they could start by replacing all mp3's with wav's and by increasing the variety of tunes offered. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Intrigue
Being able to hear the difference between mp3's and wav's/cd's/vinyls is totally meaningless to me and I really don't care about that. My problem lies with the fact that mp3's are a lossy audio format, despite the quality level. Wav's, cd's, and vinyls are not like that, since they are the de-facto audio standards and when you buy one of them, you know that you are getting full-on audio without any loss of data. I personally feel that paying for mp3's is a step backwards for music, so I won't ever spend a dime on them. That's just the consumer in me speaking, as I'd rather spend my money on a full quality audio product as compared to saving a few dollars on an inferior product of the exact same thing.
As for the rest, I don't have much to say except it does depend on each person's preferences and musical tastes. Digital releases still have a way's to go yet and they could start by replacing all mp3's with wav's and by increasing the variety of tunes offered. |
Personally it doesn't matter. I only buy WAVs if i only like one track or it's something I really like. I'de rather save money and buy 320 Kbps MP3s, and i'll know i'll save money in the long run in case I don't particularly like the track. It's just a personal thing, and I am kind of biased towards it now I admit. I can see what your saying, but I don't listen to radio shows or that many DJ sets so I mostly hear the tracks first via previews and if I like what I hear, I buy the 320 Kbps. I did the same thing with vinyl, there were many tracks I heard via previews. The difference isn't that big, to me at least, because i'm not an audiophille. I can only tell the difference if it's like a 192 vs 320.
WAVs are bigger, take longer to download and frankly it's not always worth the extra $1.00 per track that Beatport sells. If they can only sell WAVs at a lower price, i'de get them, but since there are so many tracks out there and many I haven't heard before, i'de much rather just get a 320, save a buck on each track, and still get good sound quality. Besides most other stores sell 320 kbps MP3s, not WAVs, and people still buy their tracks, like AudioJelly and DJDownload. Their tracks are already expensive enough as it, esp with exchange rates, adding a WAV charge to that would really suck. And with MP3 support on new CDJs, that's another plus for MP3s, although I admit mine (CDJ 1000 MK2) don't have it, but that's not an issue for me because i'de rather have only 8 or 9 tracks per CD vs 40. I guess I personally am more of a music buff who collects tracks to listen to and mix with, rather than a DJ, because right now I really don't play for anyone else other than my own enjoyment in my bedroom. But that could always change in the future, and unless I get a high paying job and my skills up, i'll stick with 320s...i've hardly mixed lately though. I guess i've been trying to save my hearing...until I get some new headphones that I don't have to crank up as loud. Mine have degraded in sound quality it seems over the years... |
|
|
| Demoted |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
|
In three words or less, define the word red. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Demoted
In three words or less, define the word red. |
Dude, you know it takes me a while to get to my point on here, that's not new news here. I have to elaborate on everything, i'm not a simple person. And I couldn't do that..but I would just say..."fire hydrant" or maybe "tomato" to describe red, or just "fire", but that can be orange. See I can't do it....it's impossible for me :D But to sum up in a few sentences each what i've been saying on my reponses to your first post and DJ Intrique's...and this is it, done with the thread, i've made my point..I think....
DJM 600 - Not worth getting nowadays, even for that low of a price (wouldn't trust it that low either). Better to invest in a newer mixer. Maybe one with digital ins once more come with them other than the DJM 800, or a really good two or three channel mixer.
TTs - Not worth getting nowadays unless you already have vinyl. You can get the same releases on digital nowadays, esp trance and prog.
320 vs WAV - Not worth getting WAVs unless you can really tell the difference, have the money and an expensive sound system where you can tell. 320 kbps MP3s are not that much different (esp for home use), and many other places only sell them anyways... |
|
|
| DJ Intrigue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
Personally it doesn't matter. I only buy WAVs if i only like one track or it's something I really like. I'de rather save money and buy 320 Kbps MP3s, and i'll know i'll save money in the long run in case I don't particularly like the track. It's just a personal thing, and I am kind of biased towards it now I admit. I can see what your saying, but I don't listen to radio shows or that many DJ sets so I mostly hear the tracks first via previews and if I like what I hear, I buy the 320 Kbps. I did the same thing with vinyl, there were many tracks I heard via previews. The difference isn't that big, to me at least, because i'm not an audiophille. I can only tell the difference if it's like a 192 vs 320.
WAVs are bigger, take longer to download and frankly it's not always worth the extra $1.00 per track that Beatport sells. If they can only sell WAVs at a lower price, i'de get them, but since there are so many tracks out there and many I haven't heard before, i'de much rather just get a 320, save a buck on each track, and still get good sound quality. Besides most other stores sell 320 kbps MP3s, not WAVs, and people still buy their tracks, like AudioJelly and DJDownload. Their tracks are already expensive enough as it, esp with exchange rates, adding a WAV charge to that would really suck. And with MP3 support on new CDJs, that's another plus for MP3s, although I admit mine (CDJ 1000 MK2) don't have it, but that's not an issue for me because i'de rather have only 8 or 9 tracks per CD vs 40. I guess I personally am more of a music buff who collects tracks to listen to and mix with, rather than a DJ, because right now I really don't play for anyone else other than my own enjoyment in my bedroom. But that could always change in the future, and unless I get a high paying job and my skills up, i'll stick with 320s...i've hardly mixed lately though. I guess i've been trying to save my hearing...until I get some new headphones that I don't have to crank up as loud. Mine have degraded in sound quality it seems over the years... |
Whatever floats your boat I guess. I take it then your main concern is saving money and getting essentially *more* for less with inferior mp3's when there are clearly highly quality options out there in addition. I honestly still don't understand the notion of buying mp3's in the first place, but it's your money, not mine. I've always been a firm believer in quality over quantity, regardless of a slightly higher expense. Mind you I'm no audiophile either.
It's all about the fact of the matter for me, and the fact of the matter is that mp3's are lossy no matter which way you spin it and I hardly think they warrant being paid for in this sense. Paying for mp3's is quite regressive IMO, which I feel is a bit of a shame when all things are considered. |
|
|
| DJ Intrigue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
320 vs WAV - Not worth getting WAVs unless you can really tell the difference, have the money and an expensive sound system where you can tell. 320 kbps MP3s are not that much different (esp for home use), and many other places only sell them anyways... |
I still don't think that's a fair assessment at all, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this because wav's are still worth it regardless of being able to tell the difference or not. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| I'm sick of debating this but I will say this. It's not really to me about quality vs. quantity, else i'de be buying hundreds of dollars worth of tracks a month and i'm not. Rather I think it's 1. saving money (obviously) 2. having a good variety of tracks at your disposal from multiple genres so you can be more creative and just make more diverse sets and 3. 320 kbps MP3s are HIGH QUALITY MP3s, many stores online sell them, not WAVs. I bought $45 worth of MP3s last week, and I went to see how much they were going to be for WAV files, since I was debating whether to get them. It winded up being $76 dollars, that's $31 more that I could spend on gas or saving up for my books in the summer. I mean I have other things, like school and I work, and only make $8/hour so it's not like i'm or some other people on here are DJing at clubs and need the highest quality possible and can obviously afford it (and or spending all of their money on tracks). I did do that at one time with vinyl, but it got to the point where I got sick of them (mostly trance), hence why I went digital so I could branch out into other genres and save money (you really wouldn't be saving much with WAVs, might as well just stick with vinyl). Hence why it's a waste of money I feel to get TTs and collect vinyl if you already have CDJs. There really all you need for home use, just like 320s. Your not playing for anyone besides your self.... |
|
|
|
|
