|
Wav Or 320
|
View this Thread in Original format
| badapple@trance |
| So i have been told by just about everyone that wav's are better, but I honestly cannot hear the difference. Even DJ's ive seen at clubs will spin either and I still hear no difference. Am I a retard or is it just the file size that is different? |
|
|
| david.michael |
| You're simply just not going to hear a difference on a big club system. Most will still not be able to tell a difference even in a familiar listening environment on familiar equipment, and I'd even go as far to say as it is probably psychosomatic in those who say otherwise. |
|
|
| badapple@trance |
| hahaha...yea i thought I was insane, because my friend somehow wont back down and say they are just about the same quality. Do you actually know what differences there are? |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by badapple@trance
hahaha...yea i thought I was insane, because my friend somehow wont back down and say they are just about the same quality. Do you actually know what differences there are? |
Mp3 is what's called a lossy compression algorithm. It starts removing the parts of the sound least important to human hearing and, the further you compress, the more data gets removed. A 320kpbs rate just doesn't lose much important data.
It's similar to JPEG for photos.
 |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
There was actually a thread on this not weeks ago (and many before that).
The jpeg comparison is good for a visual aid, but I generally find that with mp3s, the bass is lacking depth and the hi's get too crunchy. 320 is at least decent but I personally wouldn't play in a club with mp3s. If you are using CD decks, you want to burn them as wav anyway so why not buy them as wav in first place. I get it if you are a serato/FS etc user, but storage is getting so cheap now, I would just with wav. (I just picked up a Seagate 500gb external drive for $80). |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
is at least decent but I personally wouldn't play in a club with mp3s. |
Beh, most clubs and most clubbers wouldn't know if you were playing 128's in my experience. |
|
|
| cammaxwell |
The wav files are better quality but you won't really hear it that much. I play on large club systems every week and used to only download wav files for the quality. I now have a mix of 320 and wav. When I play the wav there is a differene in volume for sure, but as long as you're aware of it thats fine.
I have tested the same track in an empty club in wav and 320. The wav does sound better but its a small difference and know one else would really know... |
|
|
| palm |
| 320 is like 1/5 of the quality of wav. wavs have like 1,4? mb/s? and 320 has like 320kb/s. 128kbps is 1/12 of wav!! stay away. |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by palm
320 is like 1/5 of the quality of wav. wavs have like 1,4? mb/s? and 320 has like 320kb/s. 128kbps is 1/12 of wav!! stay away. |
There's a lot more to it than that. You can't say 320 is 1/5 the quality of wav based on that. |
|
|
| badapple@trance |
| like out of 5 dj's ive seen perform, they told me it varies but mostly they use 320's. I really cannot tell the difference at all |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by badapple@trance
like out of 5 dj's ive seen perform, they told me it varies but mostly they use 320's. I really cannot tell the difference at all |
This is quite common and, I'd say, likely the industry standard (for digital playback).
I mean, it's not like you're going to be dancing in the club, and all of a sudden one of your buddies stops you and goes "wait, wa-wa-wa-wait... stop. Do you hear that? Is that-- is that... a ing 320kbps mp3 I hear playing?!" |
|
|
| palm |
| quote: | Originally posted by david.michael
There's a lot more to it than that. You can't say 320 is 1/5 the quality of wav based on that. |
at the same samplerate i dont think its more to it realy. |
|
|
|
|
