Should I get over my prejudice/ignorance/snobbery for WAV and change to mp3?

[mostapha]

surround sound would be a significant step forward. but few wanna do it because it is much more complicated and costly to record in 5.1 (or 7.1, or ...).

Stereo would be a step forward for a lot of club.

[rotebass]

I think the discussion is wrong. It does not matter if no one can hear a different or not. We have to move forward!!! Why should we stop at mp3 or aiff. Lets move forward to 24bit/96khz etc. And to move from mp3 to aiff/WAV is the first step. We have no longer a use for a file format that are a compressed as memory is getting bigger. We should always say -how can we make it sound better and move forward.

And we have also see the source as just a small part in a big chain of equipment, that just to improve that, does not make a different. But when all parts are improved makes a different in sound.

So please don't says mp3 is good enough when we can go so much further.

I'll buy .wav when Beatport stops charging a premium for them. I'm not paying 30% more for something that does not provide a tangible benefit. It's strictly business, there is no ROI on paying for lossless audio files.

[rotebass]

that's a bit of a ridiculous statement imo. even if we knew that 24/96 >>> 16/44.1, i'd still think there'd be many other more important things to do in order to improve sound quality in the clubs...

The day I walk into a club and see a PA that has useful output above 17kHz is the day I will subscribe to that drivel.

[djgstefan]

that's a bit of a ridiculous statement imo. even if we knew that 24/96 >>> 16/44.1, i'd still think there'd be many other more important things to do in order to improve sound quality in the clubs...

I do understand what you mean, but, is it not easier for me to improve my source than try to get the club to change the speaker?

How about doing a test like this:

4 decks running, mixing digital with 1 -3 effect on each deck, Mp3 vs 24/96 aiff. Djing is going to more and more production and most of my producer friends says 24/96 make a big different?!

[mfuchs19]

Nice discussion. I can honestly hear the difference between 320 MP3's and FLAC audio files, but the difference is minimal. I think a lot of it could well be the placebo effect, but if it sounds nicer (whether placebo or not) it still sounds nicer and therefore is worth it to me. I don't keep all my music in lossless but on the rare occasion I buy a CD (such as m83's Hurry Up We're Dreaming that was recorded on analog media) I'll rip it in both lossless and 320 MP3 format, one for my iPod, one for at home cheapo hi-fi listening consisting of a cheap DAC and decent headphones. For me, it seems to sound nicer (more clear with more punch and better sound staging definition) but many people may disagree and I respect that too. It's all personal experience/opinion.

[mostapha]

You know iTunes will convert on the fly when you're transferring to an iPod, right? You don't need to keep both as long as you have the losseless?

[JonathanBlake]

http://www.beatportal.com/feed/item/...s-of-lossless/

[MrPopinjay]

> “Uncompressed files are the only ones suitable for proper editing, which is a big part of my life,”

That Magda guy in that article clearly doesn't quite understand how lossless compression works...

[3heads]

That Magda guy

Haha, u serious?

I agree on the editing point though. For everything else 320kbps is good enough for me.

[MrPopinjay]

Yeah I'm serious. I don't know who they are and they don't understand lossless compression.