|
DJ's; How often do you play MP3's in your set? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| XaNaX |
| It doesn't matter what kind of sound system it is played on, people are still listening to the tracks with a human ear. As long as you are playing a properly encoded 256kbps mp3 or better the human ear cannot tell the difference between it and the uncompressed wav file. If you think you can tell the difference its placebo. |
|
|
| Clovis |
The thing is, even if you can tell subtle differences, like I said in the other thread, there is so much more along the chain when playing out that can render those differences null that it's pretty much BS to say you can tell the difference in a club. And then theres the actual mastering of the track...don't get me started on that. Ex Sasha's latest "Park It In The Shade" clips horribly, both on the mp3 and wav (I bought both because I was pissed after getting the mp3). Having an uncompressed file doesn't mean jack if the mastering sucks.
I can tell the difference easily on good speakers or my Sony 7506 cans, but only when I have both tracks in either format and can play them back to back.
The cool thing about wavs is that they make beatmatching and EQing a bit easier since you're working with a fuller range of sound, at least in my experience.
But yeah, like Robert said, I wouldn't with anything less than 320 @ constant bit rate. |
|
|
| DJLukasz |
| NEVER!! 192 or 320 kbps is crap on 20,000 watts! all about the wave! 1.1 mbps!! mmm... Clarity! |
|
|
| sit_down |
| heavy duty mp3 vs wav battle. who will go home with empty pockets and a new haircut? |
|
|
| Cool1g |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
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? :toocool: |
well my question was based on the premise that you do not have access to the original uncompressed WAV file and that all you can get is a 320 mp3. i guess the question would be when you convert a mp3 back to wav format, is there any data compression going on....otherwise i think in theory the 2 different formats should sound exactly the same. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| my jogwheel on my mk3 doesnt feel the same when i play mp3's |
|
|
| bucke |
seriously who cares if you play mp3s or wav's? do you really think most people can even tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a wav? sound quality will not make anyone set better, the quality of the music and the tracks is all that matters.
that being said i use digital vinyl software to play mp3's off my laptop, and most of my music is in 320kbps, but i won't dare play anything less than 256kbps, and that's only if i really really have to because i can't find the track in 320. there is a pretty noticeable difference when you mix in 192kbps tracks with 320kbps tracks so i'd say 256kbps is really the limit. also i wouldn't use mp3 cd's, i think mp3 functionality on cdj's is a waste.
also, i'm pretty sure other factors make a difference in sound quality in clubs, i.e. if the dj is pusing the mixer into the reds, it will sound like ass no matter what. the way the eq's are set up also makes a difference. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
...As long as you are playing a properly encoded 256kbps mp3 or better the human ear cannot tell the difference between it and the uncompressed wav file... |
This is what the people who created MP3 like to tell everyone, but as has been stated here by myself and others who work with sound, we can assure you that a difference most definitely CAN be heard...enough of a difference that your average listener could hear it too over time (like when a DJ is playing only MP3's all night, instead of LP's or CD's).
As for the "rest of the chain" argument, it is true that any weak link weakens the chain, but to say "because there may be other weak links in the chain, that justifies allowing the MP3 weak link", makes no sense. The goal should be to clean up your audio path from top to bottom ALWAYS.
Bottom line is; MP3 is inferior to 44.1 CD's. End of story, really.
| quote: | Originally posted by Cool1g
well my question was based on the premise that you do not have access to the original uncompressed WAV file and that all you can get is a 320 mp3. i guess the question would be when you convert a mp3 back to wav format, is there any data compression going on....otherwise i think in theory the 2 different formats should sound exactly the same. |
Right, I knew what you were asking.
Well, what is going on in reverse is really not "compression" but "EXPANSION!" The MP3 is fluffed out to fill up the stereo .wav file. If I'm not mistaken, MP3's don't maintain some sort of master algorithm for each song they convert, so that it can be re-converted back to it's original .wav form, should one choose to do so. Once they are compressed, that's it; They're a new piece of data. Unrecognizable forever from the old one.
I know that when I convert MP3's to .wav (as I've had to do now and again), I can tell that it's still basically an MP3, but now it will play in my CD players which normally don't play MP3's (the only reason for converting it, really).
So all-in-all, I feel at least comfortable enough to say that you are correct in assuming that you gain no appreciable advantages by converting MP3's back to .wav in the purely auditory sense...once the damage was done in the original conversion, I am pretty sure that it can't be turned back around.
Hope that helps, Greg. :) |
|
|
| djillicit |
I hope we're not starting another MP3 vs CD thread here. It's nearly the same debate as CD vs Vinyl, but while we're on the topic, I will contribute my thoughts.
A long while ago, the video formats BETA and VHS were competing with one another. They were both portable, they both had similar benefits, and BETA even had the quality edge because it DID have higher quality than the VHS. But VHS took over the market. Why? Because in the marketplace, history has shown that price and convenience outweigh a lot of other debatable factors.
For a LONG time, people debated the quality of CDs vs vinyl. Today, it's obvious which format is taking over between these two.
Now, the same with MP3 vs WAV. Yeah, there are clear quality issues, but in the end it's not the only quality that determines which takes its final hold.
Most independent record labels used to distribute their promo releases as vinyl. Then we saw more and more CDs. Now the *predominant* way of getting those releases out is through MP3 pools, though the option of having a CD is still available.
We can keep debating on everything, but I've always felt that new technology should be embraced. It's the only way to keep growing, and the only way to realize new developments. The industry has changed so much over the last few years, and there are a million different opinions about how to go about doing the same thing.
Find one that you're comfortable with, but keep an open mind for what's to come. Truth be told, it makes it all the more exciting. And it's really the only way to keep up and challenge yourself in the process.
(And if you do go with MP3 and are planning on playing out in clubs, settle for no less than 320khz ;)) |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
This is what the people who created MP3 like to tell everyone, but as has been stated here by myself and others who work with sound, we can assure you that a difference most definitely CAN be heard...enough of a difference that your average listener could hear it too over time (like when a DJ is playing only MP3's all night, instead of LP's or CD's).
|
The funny thing is, you can say this all you want, but in the absence of ANY way to test it, what does it matter?
Do you know exactly what type of file/source each track every DJ is playing comes from? Sasha had a few tracks that sounded bad at Vanguard, and some that sounded HORRIBLE on NYE last year, and he plays all wav. Or were they secretly mp3s? Or was his gain just too high? Or sidechaining set wrong?
You can pretend you always know the difference, but in practice, you'd be hard pressed to prove that...just think about it.
| quote: |
Bottom line is; MP3 is inferior to 44.1 CD's. End of story, really.
|
I don't think ANYONE here is arguing this. We're talking practical differences. |
|
|
| callme:gsmile: |
| maybe all of you need to man up, stop being vaginas and play records:p |
|
|
| CReddick |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cool1g
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? |
Yes. You can't polish a turd. It's only as good as the source. |
|
|
|
|
