320kbps vs. .wav question

[LabRat]

I use mp3s for all my djing. However, I've started to experiment with bootlegs and chopping up tunes etc in their wav format. I figured I may as well start buying all my tunes as wav files now but before i do i just got 1 question... Is it a noticeable difference in quality mixing from 320 - wav or to the untrained ear, there's no difference?

[Cupe]

untrained ear no difference

and they're a dickload larger than 320 mp3

[awesome88]

like cupe said, no one will be able to tell, and they are hella big.

traktor records in .wav and i always convert to 320kbps because it is heaps smaller, and it's what the rest of my music is in

[LabRat]

Yeah I know the files are super massive but for making edits n stuff it's way better then 320. Plus, I'll be able to fill up a cd with only a few songs in it now rather then having all this unused space!

[awesome88]

oh well, do both and see what you prefer

[Ravni]

I can only tell on my monitors, and its very minimal, wav is good if you crave an uncompressed format, tend to find loops and samples recorded in wav format have a greater dynamic range and i suppose it all depends wat your after.

only way you can tell truly between the two is having both identical tracks one in wav the other in 320 mp3 and there is a slight difference

I honnestly think tracks these days are over compressed but thats another issue when you people produce tracks that have compression on every element of their track. Im a sucker for an anologue sound with heaps of dynamic range rather than over compressed songs

and u fill hard drives really fukin quickly using wav files and sample.

[ChevChelios]

loops and samples recorded in wav format have a greater dynamic range

Common misconception there.

MP3 encoding doesn't actually decrease the dynamic range. When people hear compression they usually think in that way, but logically, decreasing dynamic will have absolutely no effect on the size of a file as it has nothing to do with with the 1's and 0's really.

What it does is more or less reduce the sample rate. An MP3 encoder will go through your audio file and basically hack out bits that it doesn't think are necessary and replaces it with noise.

Its quite easy to hear in a 128kpbs file, go to soundcloud and listen to a tune that normally has nice crisp hi hats and listen to what the shitty soundcloud encoder does to it, sounds fuckin bollocks.

At the end of the day, the punters aren't gonna notice cause they're fucked up and the music is too loud to hear it properly, so really it comes down to you and if you can notice.

I can notice and thats why I stopped sending my tunes around in 320, its a comfortability thing innit.

[andythemusician]

If you're playing live through really good systems you will probably notice the difference, particuarly closer the 20Hz and 10 to 20kHz ranges - thats where they start to falter.

As long as you stick to 320 and not anything under, you should be able to get away with it majority of places you will go. I encode to 320 for space saving, although if I had limitless space I'd go wav!

[eggssell]

But unless you playing in the opera house surely the diff between 320s and wav would not be noticeable given bar/club PAs and peoples chatter.

[LabRat]

I guess ill stick to the 320 and buy the wav as I need it...

Does anyone use wav files? Or like any big names even?

I understand if you're playing your own tunes you'd probably burn it straight as a wav

[andythemusician]

But unless you playing in the opera house surely the diff between 320s and wav would not be noticeable given bar/club PAs and peoples chatter.

Festivals, arenas, big night clubs. Large line array kind of systems. Anything pumping through a sizable and reputable system you will start noticing it.

But yeah, you would get away with it at the majority of places, and the times when you may not, the drunkness will cover

[andythemusician]

I understand if you're playing your own tunes you'd probably burn it straight as a wav

Of course, remember that if you have created your tune from samples or songs that are not .wav, then there isn't much point in burning your stuff as .wav. You can't turn back the clock there - once its mp3 its mp3. Sure you can make it .wav, but it will be a .wav with the compression and reduced sample size of an mp3.

My apologies if you already realise this, but I'm sure someone will see this and learn something.

[dim]

^good work gentleman

/thread?

[Johbremat]

2¢...2¢!!!

If you're not going to purchase WAVE or FLAC for the perceived increase in quality, at least purchase them for the purposes of longevity.

16K+ tunes off CD and counting. I've compressed all to FLAC as a lossless codec that support ID3 tags at half the size of the source material. I've then been able to:

- transcode to ATRAC for MiniDisc

- transcode to WMA for Media Centre

- transcode to 192kbps M4A for the car's iPod

- transcode to 512kbps M4A for SSL

and can decode to WAVE for use in whatever audio editor without compromising quality, or whatever is the latest-and-greatest format at the time.

(Granted sites like Bleep are releasing 24-bit WAVE versus the 16-bit FLAC I'm using at the moment, but those are generally coming straight from Warp's master catalogue rather than CD)

The benefit of spending a little extra coin in the first instance will save you some heartache in the long run. Not sure how long y'all have been running with the digital downloads but when tunes were first released, people were arguing 192kbps MP3 were sufficient to play in a club while they couldn't hear the difference in 320kbps MP3 and they took up too much space...

As the likes of M4A becomes more prolific due to iTunes and Juno Download (and with a lot of AxB suggesting lower bitrates of M4A outperforming higher MP3), if there's a shift in the future to a different codec of choice, if you have lossless material you'll be fine.

Transcoding from one lossy format to another? *ewww*

Remembering listening to that 4th-generation dub on a TDK C60? Yeah. Like that.

[Ravni]

loops and samples recorded in wav format have a greater dynamic range

Common misconception there.

MP3 encoding doesn't actually decrease the dynamic range. When people hear compression they usually think in that way, but logically, decreasing dynamic will have absolutely no effect on the size of a file as it has nothing to do with with the 1's and 0's really.

What it does is more or less reduce the sample rate. An MP3 encoder will go through your audio file and basically hack out bits that it doesn't think are necessary and replaces it with noise.

Its quite easy to hear in a 128kpbs file, go to soundcloud and listen to a tune that normally has nice crisp hi hats and listen to what the shitty soundcloud encoder does to it, sounds fuckin bollocks.

At the end of the day, the punters aren't gonna notice cause they're fucked up and the music is too loud to hear it properly, so really it comes down to you and if you can notice.

I can notice and thats why I stopped sending my tunes around in 320, its a comfortability thing innit.

thanks for the info dude

[CBG]

When I play wav's on a big system I can definetily tell. They sound enormous