|
So I need CDJ's that can support WAV files...
|
View this Thread in Original format
| stealthman |
| Is it only the Pioneer 1000's that can support this file format atm or are there cheaper alternatives? (and do not suggest I use software) |
|
|
| AnomalyConcept |
If you have wav source files, might as well burn them as audio CDs.
You wouldn't have to worry about compatibility then. What benefit does it give you to have them as a data CD? All I can think of is maybe transferring them to a computer, but you have the original anyway. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
There is no CDJ that supports wave files as far as I know.
When you burn .wav files to CD they are converted to .cda, and that's the format that all CD players use. |
|
|
| stealthman |
| yeah but does the cda format still retain wav quality?? |
|
|
| AnomalyConcept |
The bit rate is 1411.2 kbit/s:
2 channels x 44,100 samples per second per channel × 16 bits per sample = 1,411,200 bit/s = 1,411.2 kbit/s.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bo..._CD_standard%29
Unless your source wav is over that (higher sampling rate, better resolution, etc.) it will at least preserve that quality.
CDDA is a standard, after all. If you need better than 'cd quality', you might be better off doing it in software or building your own player. |
|
|
| dark_Omens |
| quote: | Originally posted by AnomalyConcept
If you need better than 'cd quality', you might be better off doing it in software or building your own player. |
Or using vinyl :p |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
WAV is a container format, it does NOT specify the quality of audio.
You can have WAV files that are the quality of a phone call, and WAV files that exceed CD quality.
What you care about is the bitrate and sample rate. Everyone basically uses the same bitrate as what CD's use, because it's standard.
When you burn a WAV file at that quality to an audio CD, the audio is unchanged, just burned into a different format (CD-Audio, or the Redbook standard).
None of the players play DATA CD's with WAV files burned onto them, because that's pointless. If you burned a bunch of CD's like that, they would only play in PC's, and you could have just burned CD-audio in the same amount of time and have discs playable anywhere. |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
Debatable. Yes vinyl sounds "warm"... but think about where the music we play comes from... computers. Digital.
Most people just export the audio from their DAW in 16bit/44Khz CD quality audio.
So it's not like by using vinyl you are "adding" quality to the music.
| quote: | Originally posted by dark_Omens
Or using vinyl :p |
|
|
|
| Max Thomson |
and there's also a reason people pay a lot for analog mic-pres, valve tubes, etc. analog processing colors the sound in a way that we hear as a more pleasurable listening experience. I find that the digital recordings, particularly sampled dance music, can be abrasive or harsh sounding because of the fast attack and release times of transients. analog gear can smooth out those transients, making the elements of a tune gel a bit better.
its a never-ending debate, but there's a reason serious musicians and producers pay serious cash for analog gear, and its not because they want to hear a carbon copy of the protools files, no matter how high the sampling rate or bit depth might be.: its because they want that x factor that only analog gear provide. the x factor that can make a good recording sound great and a great recording blow your socks off. personally i think nice analog gear gives music a character that digital just can't provide. whats going to be interesting in the coming years is how digital technology emulates old and new analog gear, to the point where we might not even be able to tell the difference between the two.
or will we?
heady. |
|
|
| mfitterer1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Max Thomson
and there's also a reason people pay a lot for analog mic-pres, valve tubes, etc. analog processing colors the sound in a way that we hear as a more pleasurable listening experience. I find that the digital recordings, particularly sampled dance music, can be abrasive or harsh sounding because of the fast attack and release times of transients. analog gear can smooth out those transients, making the elements of a tune gel a bit better.
its a never-ending debate, but there's a reason serious musicians and producers pay serious cash for analog gear, and its not because they want to hear a carbon copy of the protools files, no matter how high the sampling rate or bit depth might be.: its because they want that x factor that only analog gear provide. the x factor that can make a good recording sound great and a great recording blow your socks off. personally i think nice analog gear gives music a character that digital just can't provide. whats going to be interesting in the coming years is how digital technology emulates old and new analog gear, to the point where we might not even be able to tell the difference between the two.
or will we?
heady. |
I honestly believe we are already there. Many people you think that use outboard analogue gear don't. It's that simple. |
|
|
|
|
