Music Format
So… what is everyones take on the best digital music format for djing?
I was thinking about using Apple Lossless but i have to admit i have no idea which is the best (i am using mac)
.wav of course - if you mean the absolute highest quality. I suppose a lossless format would be okay, but you have the added overheaed of decompressiing the files on the fly to play them. I have always ripped to wav, mixed with wav, burned from wav and only converted to aac for my i-pod.
mp3 is only for pirating :eek:
Not quite..I jest a little, but I suppose its okay or for sharing at a listenable but not great quality, but I would never pay for an mp3 (and I don’t pirate).
flac is also a good lossless format. and smaller than .wav if i remember correctly.
I have never had an issue with a 320k mp3, regardless of the system I’ve played on (small and large). Of course WAV is the cleanest but it’s also HUGE, and I don’t think that size factor makes it worth it.
I haven’t dealt with FLAC yet. I know it’s smaller, but does it support tags like mp3s?
Hi, Im new to the board…Now I go tthat out of the way…
Maybe its because I came up well before there was digital djing or “controllerism”. Maybe I like to believe in the continual evolution of technology improving upon the species. Or, maybe, just, maybe, I want to keep whats left of my rapidly failing hearing. But for me, Ill take a wav or any other loss-less option over mp3s pretty much any day
Yes, FLAC supports tags just as mp3 and compresses about 50% of the original, is a great format I think but not supported by the on-line stores sadly so I´ll keep with 320kbps mp3 wich is ok for me.
flac isn’t greatly supported at webstores, but you can convert to flac lossless and rip to flac from your cd or vinyl ofcourse. I’d take flac over wav and flac over mp3 but wav over mp3. Mp3s (even from webstores!!) are often transcodes (= bad quality). Sometimes wavs are even transcodes! I guess buying CD/Vinyl is the only real safe option you have..
Funny, I frequent another site devoted to dance music and a member there
made a point that seems to resonate:
We spend inordinate amounts of time researching this and that, spending
on quality products, or putting the money in to develop and manufacture
our own. We for the most part, scrutinize the details.
And yet…
When it comes to the weakest link in the chain, we “settle” for something that should
have never even introduced itself into the discussion of sound quality; especially if we
are talking about playin in anything larger than the bedroom or basement.
Mp3s. Ipod- friendy? heck yeah. Club-friendly? not so much.
Hey, all I know is that when I’ve played 320k mp3s through great sound systems they sound louder and cleaner than some CD decks. Though, I spend a lot of time on the EQ process, whereas a lot of DJs I know don’t really pay close attention to that.
But I agree in principal. If it wasn’t for the size and tags I’d just rip everything in wav
I have always played Wav’s.
I don;t know about 320 on a huge outdoor rig…i reaaaalllllly don’t.
I know guys that do play em…and it sounds ok i guess.
Just not sold yet myself.
Hmmm.
Well, I wont lie to you all, I have used mp3s when I had no other
option; essentially around the time I was transferring vinyl to
cd and I just didnt know any better. And truth be told, I can
imagine very few reasons to do so again as the end results were
not very good.
If the room acoustics are tight, the signal chain is quality,
you keep on top of the gain structure (assuming you use
a mixer/ controller with vu meters that tell you when you hit 0db)
then maybe, maybe, you might argue mp3s can pass muster, but not
by much.
I mean, we’re talking about playing a file that is less than
half the size of a 16/44.1 audio cd/ wav @1411kb (which appears to be
the minimum for a lossless file). Traktor has supported files @ 24/96 bit/
res for a lot longer than most folks knew what traktor was; That
has to speak volumes about how well the music should sound AND feel.
I can understand the need to work with lossy years ago since space
and processor speeds were at a premium. But now that prices have
come down and there are so many more storage options that ever
before, I cant see any practical reason to stick with lossy.
As mp3 compression cuts out the frequencies that humans cannot here, what about what humans can feel?
Does mp3 cut out that ‘bass in the chest’ feeling or not?
Also as i will primarily be using iTunes does it support FLAC and wav?
iTunes = WAV yes, FLAC No.
Mate if you are just starting out and have the option, i would go for the WAV format, but as DA said and i can also reiterate that HQ mp3’s are absolutely fine to play out with, i’ve even rocked out with 192’s on a 10k system no worries.
I dont use itunes, so I guess someone will have to help with that. Unless
Im mistaken though I think there may be a hack that allows one to utilize
flac in itunes, but I cant locate the link that builds on that.
The track/ song may still have a enough energy to be felt, but once the
sub freqs are cut out, the sensation will be less defined.
Another thing to consider is the dynamics of a piece of music, If youre
familiar with the “Sound Wars”, then you can get an idea of what is currently
going on with the overall quality of music: the music is heavily
compressed, and boosted so that the dynamics are diminished to a degree
and the music sounds hot. And just so we are clear, this happens with
music that is suppossed to be mastered at high bit rate and resolution.
Just for loose reference:
a file is produced at 24/96 having a total 4608kbs. File is hot
and compressed but still has its dynamics
same file gets knocked down to 16/44.1 CD audio, or, 1411kbs. File is hot
and compressed and has lost some dynamics, but still is bearable.
same file again is knocked down again to (if we’re lucky) 320kbs. File is hot
and compressed. But now, because so much information has been
removed, dynamics are severly diminished
going further below continues to remove any further useful information,
resulting in a file that barely useful for the pc speakers, but will sound
shrill in a much larger space.
Just for kicks and giggles, click on the link below, take this test and see
if you can tell the difference. And then after that, just think about how
much better that file would sound if you suffered yourself to get it as
a 16/44.1 wav or similar flac file.
i use .wav because Im a lil neurotic to be honest. when i use a song that is an mp3 and it doesn’t instantly sound great, i second guess everything from the encoder to my cdrom drive mechanics. when i use a .wav from a glass cd like a cd single or promoonly, i know the file is the same as the source, and there is nothing ripping wise i could have done differently. from a digital store, i get .wav if its offered, hq mp3 if not. I guess when its in my control, i make a .wav, when its not, if my ears think it sounds fine, an mp3 is fine.
Cmon guys, seriously, do you really think there is that much of a difference between 320k mp3s and wav? I mean, I know there is a lot of discussions around that topic all over the web for years and years now, and I can understand that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t see the point in compression these days anymore because HD space is cheap, and I consider that as a valid point.
Still, I really doubt that there is much of an audible difference between 320k mp3s and wav files. I mean, I am not the super-expert or something, but the thing I personally trust the most on this topic is my own ears. And they just don’t hear it.
Let’s be honest, a lot of recordings out there especially in the electronic genres may be rockin’ the dancefloor, but from an audiophile point of view they are awful. What do you guys think where all those sounds you hear there come from? 16bit/44k audio cds and software synthesizers, and I bet that a lot of people still use old 128k mp3 files they found somewhere on the web as sample sources. Then the drum sounds are squeezed through a compressor individually, then the whole drumtrack again, so are vocals and synth sounds, and in the end there’s another stage of compression and limiting of the whole tune, and presto - all dynamics that may have been there are gone (loudness wars).
A little story here: I am the type of guy that spent a lot of money on a headphone and a dedicated headphone amp, so I think I can tell the difference between something bad and something good (I don’t say I can, but I think I can). I am also a big fan of “The Bad Plus”. When their last album “For All I Care” came out, all I could get here in Germany was the 128kbit DRMed AAC in itunes, as CDs weren’t available yet. Then, some time later, I could upgrade to 256k iTunes plus files. When they played live in my neighbourhood, I went there and also bought the CD (sadly no T-shirts).
Yes, I could tell there was an audible difference between 128k files and the CD. But even when really focusing on it, I couldn’t tell the difference between the 256k AAC and the CD at all. And that’s Jazz, three instruments and sometimes a singer, recorded in a pro studio by a pro engineer with a realistic sound of the finished product in mind, not some bangin’ Neuro DnB tune stuck together on a laptop, which is full of distorted and lofi samples and lacks any kind of soundstage to start with.
This is just my ears and my opinion, and other people may think otherwise, but trying to make out the difference between a 320k mp3 and a 16bit/44k wav file is mumbo jumbo in my point of view.
There’s sooo many other important topics for a digital DJ to consider. You can encode mp3 files in a good way or a bad way. I personally encountered a lot of files that I bought on Beatport, Trackitdown, iTunes and the like that have been ripped from vinyl and sounded like the stylus had seen it’s better days ten years ago. I’ve even heard some that were evidently reencoded from a lower to a higher bitrate. But the wav files for those (when available) were just as bad. Then there’s the soundcard issue. A Maya 44 USB, or a U46DJ, or average laptop line-out just sound bad. Using wavs doesn’t help them much.
@Barghy (and all the others, actually): Seriously, there are just as many opinions on that topic as there are people discussing it. This is just mine, so don’t take it for granted. Get a track on CD, do some reading on how to encode mp3s properly, and then do a blind comparison. Do you hear a difference? Then go for the wav files. I personally doubt you will, but it’s up to you.
I have no problem with either, the factor is not space for me its the extra £1.15 or whatever each wav song costs…
DJing is not my career more a serious hobby as a student so i can’t really afford to shell out £3.50 per song when i can easily get them for less. I mean thats way more expensive than a CD and if CD quality is seen as below standard then clearly people here are being a bit too concerned.
What would be the problem with buying as 320kbs mp3 and then encoding as apple lossless in iTunes?
+1 what jester and da said. i´m using 320 mp3´s and they are just fine…
This is really similar to the debate on analog vs digital that we all cry about having to sit through everytime we speak to a “traditional” DJ.
Look, no one here is saying they hear a noticeable difference between a 320k mp3 and a wav file. It sounds like you’re saying you’re “sure” there’s a difference and don’t want to risk it. Not going to argue there.
But I’m definite that I can get that chest pounding boom out of a 320k mp3. I’ve done it. I’ve heard other DJs do it. I just make sure those tracks are encoded right, at a good level, and I slam them out like any other DJ. 
so you talk all about how there’s too much limitations on dynamic range already..yet saying that an uncompressed format vs an additional compression would be the same? mp3s just add ANOTHER level of compression to it. they take what they think is “unimportant” to the dynamic and chop it off.
so, yes, adding another compression vs. not = not the same.
edit: not trying to get into this debate, because it will never end. let me just say that it is totally personal preference, and i think most could agree to that.