Kodiak Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 I see Beatport is offering a deal to upgrade all your tunes to lossless AIFF format. Is this worth it? I normally just get the 320kbps MP3's. Would I notice much of an audible difference? I also am not performing live (but who's to say I never will) so ultimately my mixes will be downsampled and put online anyway.Also I don't get all my tunes from Beatport, so there is a fair chance that in my mixes I would have a combo of both formats. Would this be noticible from song to song in a mix? Quote
russell Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 You wouldn't notice the diff on a home system. You would on a good club system though.Regardless you should always want the best quality at the source you can get. I always buy .wav, .aiff or .flac if i'm buying digital. Quote
GREMM1S Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Not really man, unless you are playing at a club where they have a top system or actually give enough shits to tune it properly. Quote
OxyKon Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 I saw that, but mp3's do me fine, I see no need to convert to it Quote
overit Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 If they are converting from 320 to Aiff definitely not. You can't polish a turd.If they are deleting the old 320 and giving you a new Aiff maybe, I tend to agree with Russel and always want the best quality. But if you have heaps and are not playing on quality systems then you will just be filling your HD for no perceivable benefit.edit: just noticed your final q: Having a vareity of qualities (i.e. aiff and mp3 and wav) would result in a variety of sound qualities through reference monitors or a good club system. You would end up needing to take this into account when mixing. If you are ever hoping to mix in clubs you should be getting the best quality you can. On a hifi the difference won't show up as much. Quote
GREMM1S Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Sadly bar a few, aussie clubs have crap systems anyway.Just adds more time in syncing/moving files and obviously more storage space.I would be inclined to go mp3 or wav and not even bother about flac, aiff etc Quote
Mitch Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Aiff takes less space than wav, holds metadata and album artwork, and is still a lossless format. Also fully compatible with rekordbox and other DJ softwareWhy would you use wav and not aiff? Quote
russell Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Why would you use wav and not aiff?or flac? Quote
LabRat Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Mp3 is fine. I have a few aiff files from mates tunes but the average person won't hear the difference. If you wanna do a bootleg it's probably a good idea to get aiff Quote
Cupe Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 FYI drunk and drugged up punters wouldn't' notice if you were using 128 Quote
russell Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 FYI drunk and drugged up punters wouldn't' notice if you were using 128Perhaps not consciously. And anyway, that's besides the point. As a DJ you want to be providing the best musical experience you can. If you playing mp3's, particularly 128's you losing certain frequencies and therefore losing the feel of the music. a 128 would sound pretty muddy on a good system. Remember in a club you don't just hear the music. You feel it. Quote
GREMM1S Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Aiff takes less space than wav, holds metadata and album artwork, and is still a lossless format. Also fully compatible with rekordbox and other DJ softwareWhy would you use wav and not aiff?Wav is higher quality from memory? I just dont see the point in going half way, either stay on 320 mp3 or go to wav, what is the go with WAV and metadata these days still doesnt do much at all? Quote
russell Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Wav is higher quality from memory? They're both lossless formats are they not? Quote
Mitch Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Aiff and wav are same quality. Lossless = lossless. And no - still no metadata for wav Quote
GREMM1S Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Aiff and wav are same quality. Lossless = lossless. And no - still no metadata for wavI know they are both lossless but still thought wav was better.Hmm think ill stick with the mp3s. Quote
SolDios Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 My general thing is I get aiff whenever possible and keep it on my backup hd. My pa setup is good, but not good enough so you can tell the difference between 320 and lossless. So I generally just use 320 and keep the lossless on my external for if I ever need it.When it comes down to it, 320 is still good, not quite as good as lossless but it's still good. I mean has anyone ever said kill humans is good but only if the audio quality was slightly higher. For the love of god dont use wav or convert it to aiff. Wav is a pain in the ass because of the no id3 support.Sent from my R800a using Tapatalk Quote
GREMM1S Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 My general thing is I get aiff whenever possible and keep it on my backup hd. My pa setup is good, but not good enough so you can tell the difference between 320 and lossless. So I generally just use 320 and keep the lossless on my external for if I ever need it.When it comes down to it, 320 is still good, not quite as good as lossless but it's still good. I mean has anyone ever said kill humans is good but only if the audio quality was slightly higher. For the love of god dont use wav or convert it to aiff. Wav is a pain in the ass because of the no id3 support.Sent from my R800a using TapatalkUsbs also make it more feasible to have higher quality files.Interesting thought i had the other day, does or can anyone notice any difference in identical files with one burnt and the other on usb?I think they sound better on the usbs. Quote
Scottie Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Unless there's been an error in a conversion or burning/copying process they will be no difference. Quote
overit Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 ^ nope, no difference i can hear.And for the record it also doesnt matter if you are using vinyl DVS to play a digital track. It still sounds digital. Quote
GREMM1S Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 ^ nope, no difference i can hear.And for the record it also doesnt matter if you are using vinyl DVS to play a digital track. It still sounds digital.Yeah of course, i dont rate the sound of serato that much tbh.Seems like it looses something along the way. Quote
Mitch Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Should be the same as they are the same file. Unless you scratch the cd to the point where it skips obviously Quote
GREMM1S Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 You would think somewhere with the optical transmission and conversion of the file quality or integrity would be lost somewhere.Where as USB is straight transmitting the media.Who knows just a random thought! Quote
Mitch Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Cd is still digital media so the same 1's and 0's end up on the cd Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.