DJing Wav vs 320 mp3

[trick12]

what do u guys usually use, i go for the 320 mp3?

[i!!ustrious]

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

I compress (I feel horrible doing so) all my mixes -- fresh from pristine WAV -- down to 320 kbps, always.

Uncompressed Wave is 1411 kbps, in all its glory.

Microsoft WAV files are huuuugee bro.... stick with 320 for all purposes other than rendering sets.

[jeffrey collins]

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

For Dj'ing. Since I get most of my files in 320. I have to encode them to wavs for the cd's. But they are really still 320's. It's quite expensive to always be buying wav files.

[trick12]

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

yeah, thats true size wise wav is just too much handle, and i never really thought it made much of a difference to the normal ear when listening to both

[ganjamo]

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

it does feel different if you play it on a good quality sound system.
To an unexperienced listener (98% of ppl) it sounds the same, so dont even bother heh

[jeffrey collins]

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

I just wish they didn't stop at 320k for mp3's. they should come out with an even higher bitrate for these times. Maybe 448Kbps.

[kassios]

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

^^ Totally agree and the file size wouldn't be that bigger.

I usually convert 320 to Wav for the giggs due to the fact that Cdj 1000 reads wav faster than mp3.

[gizze]

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

You can't hear the difference between wav and 320 imho, well you can but not with this stuff, the difference is when you are playing proper music, you may hear the acoustics of the venue with a Jazz recording going wav over 320, but with dance most of it is compressed to start with.

I use a Meridian DSP processor and speakers as my main system and I have only ever heard a difference on a handful of tunes comparing the 320 mp3 and the WAV version, so I just buy wav now.
You can still get that 'passed the speaker' soundfield with 320 MP3 and that is what really matters imho.

[Weizy]

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

In all reality WAV tracks are not that expensive. Keep in mind what you used to pay for 12" records. One EP or a single would go for $8 to $12. Given that I guess I don't have a problem paying $2.50 to $3.50 per track on Beatport. Sure it would be great if they removed the lossless format fee, but remember how tough it is for producers to make any $$$ on releases these days.

As for format preference...if you really care about sound quality and fighting the compression war please consider only buying lossless formats i.e. AIFF or WAV.

[mattos000]

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

i always buy WAV, makes it easier if i want to sample a track and use it during a mix.

[subterFUSE]

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

I only purchase AIFF files, and never use MP3 for DJing. I don't mind MP3 for posting a mix recording, but for playing music in a live club environment MP3 is totally unacceptable to me. For one thing, I can hear the difference. But more importantly it is an issue of reliability. Poor quality MP3 files can actually cause crashes to the Pioneer CDJ-2000 players. As an active member of the Pioneer forums, I have personally assisted other users in testing their problem-causing tracks. The one and only time my CDJ-2000 ever crashed was while testing an MP3 file for another member. Obviously, the member downloaded his MP3 from a pirate site and it was of questionable quality.

I'm not saying all MP3 files cause crashes, but there is definitely more potential for problems than with uncompressed files. That's a risk I prefer not to take.

[panoulix]

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

^^ agreed.
However, properly encoded 320K MP3s are meant not to cause problems or such a signifficant quality loss to the common ear.

On the other hand, with prices of the HDDs and flashdrives dropping down and with the capacities of them growing day by day, anybody can carry lots of audio files in just a single drive (or 2), so yes it doesn;t worth the risk anymore especially if this has to do with gigs.

[DIDI]

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

[diegoff]

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

You can't hear the difference between wav and 320 imho, well you can but not with this stuff, the difference is when you are playing proper music, you may hear the acoustics of the venue with a Jazz recording going wav over 320, but with dance most of it is compressed to start with.

I use a Meridian DSP processor and speakers as my main system and I have only ever heard a difference on a handful of tunes comparing the 320 mp3 and the WAV version, so I just buy wav now.
You can still get that 'passed the speaker' soundfield with 320 MP3 and that is what really matters imho.

I do hear the difference between wav and mp3 320K, in any music style. As you say, for compressed music it's not a big difference, but pay attention to low frequencies -> poor deepness, and hi frequencies -> noise.
Of course, after a couple of drinks and 20 minutes exposed to 105dB at the club, everything sounds fine

[unkle]

Re: Wav vs 320 mp3

I have all my music in mp3, i cant see
the diference with the wav format, except
that the Wav is heavy as the shit.
May be Im a little deaf to hear a real
differente between them.