Question about WAV/MP3
im going to play soon at a small gathering about 100 people.
and i have 2 hour opening set the first hour im going to play dub chill set about 100-120 bpm
and the tracks are wav format.
and the second hour progressive trance about 130-140 bmp and the tracks are mp3 320 kbs
will it make a big difference in the sound?
the sound system isn’t that big i think somthing like 3-4 350 watt speakers
and 2 large floor speakers.
tnx 
Will not be an issue in a club.
The Wav’s ‘might’ sound brighter…but no one will notice…only maybe the Audiophiles hidden in the back.
Don’t mix it all up though…
its an open air party.
won’t make a bit of difference unless you were using a really low quality mp3 but since you are using 320, not noticable at all
Most likely no difference based on the PA you mentioned. If good sub-woofers you might lose some low-end with MP3s.
Personally I prefer WAVs as they are closer to vinyl sound than MP3s…
you can always convert said files to said format using “Ultra Mobile 3GP Video Converter” google it. Its a free converter so you dont have any mix up in formats.. thats what i do.
not even, we had a big thread about this, wav vs. mp3, there was a test done, even when listening really really really hard, and trying to concentrate on the subtle differences, near impossible to tell. In a club, not going to matter at all
yep!
people won’t notice unless the mp3 was at a lower rate. They’ll have to know what to look for to hear a difference and better reference source.
I’ve heard that mp3, even at 320, loses a lot of sub-bass frequency compared to wav; did the test compare that at all?
mp3 compresses frequencies that are impossible for the human ear to even hear. The test wasn’t a specification test, it was a listening test to see if in fact 1 could hear the differences between a 320 mp3 and a wav. There is no doubt that a wav is technically a better file. If you looked at an mp3 and a wav on an oscilloscope the difference would be clear. But when listening and knowing what to even listen for its nearly imppossible to tell.
Forum member Mostapha set up a double blind test, 10 tracks. For each track, first the mp3 was played 4 times, then the wav 4 times to orient you to what you were listening to…then the track was played 10 times at random mixing up the mp3 and the wav. The majority of people who took the test couldn’t tell the difference, I think I got like 55% right. I was 1 of the poeple that said you couldn’t hear a difference. Mostapha was the only person that was really able to hear a difference, I believe with like 80% right, I’m sure he still has all the figures. Mostapha himself did admit that it was a lot harder than he thought and that he probably would not have scored as high if it wasn’t with music that he knew and he wouldn’t have been able to pick out the file type if the test wasn’t in the ABX format meaning if someone just played a file and said tell me if that was an mp3 or a wav, he couldn’t do it. The difference, if there even is 1, is so miniscule that even when really listening hard and concentrting it was nearly impossible to pick out.
I have played mp3 out in a very, very famous Berlin club… just after an oldskool vinyl dj.
The crowd went nuts when I played the kinda seemed to wake up a bit… lol The mp3 was a 320. Very well produced and direct from the producers studio. (Like all the mp3s I play)
I put just added little more bass in the mix (2%) when using mp3… to be honest your guests in the club are wrecked and just wanna dance.
But I review every single mp3 promo pack that gets sent to me in the studio before … if it sounds shit I will not play out.
My biggest gripe with MP3 even 320k is that a lot of music today is hyper-compressed. Then you run a lossy codec over those compressed bits and rip out the few transients that are left leaving more harsh sound. It all depends on the final mastering and if whoever did the lossy codec ripping took into account that. Alas most aggregators just run default settings on their MP3 LAME or QuickTime settings so it’s a hit-and-miss.
I have some really nice sounding MP3 files purchased or via soundcloud, also some really nasty sounding ones, all 320k. Oh well. I think use your ears, if the MP3 sounds bad, just don’t play it, sounds even worse over a big club system.
WAV and lossless tracks from the original master somewhat isolates from all this.
PS: To really hear differences, you need either decent to good studio reference monitors (if you can’t hear the diff between MP3 and original WAVs, then me thinks the reference monitors are not that good.) Or a big and good club system. And of course ears that are used to really good sound so they know what sounds good and what not.
PSS: I’m afraid the current club generation has not even heard vinyl over a PA system so they are happy with what they are hearing. Hopefully Bassnectar’s and Skrillex’s PA systems will start to convert them back to a good sound as dubstep requires really good low-end PAs to be felt and heard.
Today, 11:24 AM #1
SJB246
SJB246 is offline
Tech Student
Join Date
Aug 2012
Posts
1
Default MP3 vs WAV… Seriously?!
Hey everyone,
After a week of looking into this debate that seems to never end, I don’t know what to do! WAV, or 320kbps MP3?
Of course WAV is better than 320 kbps mp3, but is the difference worth getting so worked up about?
I mean I’d love to have all WAV but there seems so many problems:
Metadata sucks, and for me that’s terrible.
There stupidly expensive.
You can’t find all songs WAV.
They take up a huge amount of space.
But then I don’t want to purchase a load of 320 kpbs mp3’s only to have to rebuy them all in a year because I need wavs…It’s hard enough having to deal with the fact of purchasing a ‘virtual’ song and not getting a physical copy to do what I want with…
So guys, I’m not after a massive techy debate, just down to earth does it realllly matter at home/clubs/venues?
Thanks a lot everyone
P
Today, 12:21 PM #2
Maxted
Maxted is offline
Tech Guru
Join Date
Oct 2010
Posts
533
Default
Doesn’t matter quality wise, at least not so much that it would be a problem for djing. (Maaaybe if you’re talking sampling from tunes for production)
Personally i’d say wav then rip to flac for your metadata and to save space, i myself have a mixture of flac/320 mp3 with the majority being flac from my cd collection and the mp3s from when i couldnt find wavs.
Today, 12:25 PM 3
dj matt blaze
dj matt blaze is online now
Tech Mentor
Join Date
Mar 2011
Location
Jersey Shore
Posts
326
Default
big thread about this a few months ago that you can read here…Should I get over my prejudice/ignorance/snobbery for WAV and change to mp3?
in the end…won’t make a bit of difference, 320 mp3 is more than fine
Today, 01:51 PM #4
MrPopinjay
MrPopinjay is offline
Tech Guru MrPopinjay’s Avatar
Join Date
May 2010
Location
Brighton
Posts
3,008
Send a message via Skype™ to MrPopinjay
Default
wav isn’t a great format. Use flac. It’s a lossless form of compression which mean it has the audio perfection of wav but a much smaller file size and better metadata.
I think it’s pretty shameful that companies still charge more for wav and flac. Whenever possible I try to avoid purchasing from companies who do this.
Check out Reddit’s /r/DJs/
Another great little community :]
Today, 01:58 PM #5
sobi
sobi is online now
Tech Guru sobi’s Avatar
Join Date
Apr 2009
Posts
861
Default
Take a 320 and WAV file and put them in a play list. After that, hold down the up or down arrow key for 5 seconds. Without looking, load that song, listen, and then load the next song and listen. Do this with a bunch of songs. If you overwhelmingly notice your mp3’s to be of a lesser quality, you have your answer.
I think it’s bullshit at the end of the day. If you have a high end audiophile type listening station at home, it’s one thing, but chances are that for playing out, there’s only a handful of venues in your area of the country that even have a system capable of making the difference noticeable.
Today, 02:02 PM #6
MrPopinjay
MrPopinjay is offline
Tech Guru MrPopinjay’s Avatar
Join Date
May 2010
Location
Brighton
Posts
3,008
Send a message via Skype™ to MrPopinjay
Default
Sobi- if you can get either for the same price, which would you go for?
Check out Reddit’s /r/DJs/
Another great little community :]
Today, 02:33 PM #7
sobi
sobi is online now
Tech Guru sobi’s Avatar
Join Date
Apr 2009
Posts
861
Default
I could get them for the same price via Satelliterecords.com, and I get MP3.
Today, 02:49 PM #8
MrPopinjay
MrPopinjay is offline
Tech Guru MrPopinjay’s Avatar
Join Date
May 2010
Location
Brighton
Posts
3,008
Send a message via Skype™ to MrPopinjay
Default
And why is that?
Check out Reddit’s /r/DJs/
Another great little community :]
Today, 03:24 PM #9
padi_04
padi_04 is offline
DJTT Moderator padi_04’s Avatar
Join Date
Nov 2009
Location
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts
4,557
Default
Please continue the discussion on any of the multiple threads on the subject.
MBP 13,3" / Maschine / Saffire Pro 14 / Oxygen49 / iPad / HDJ2000 / Stache
Soundcloud | Facebook | Beatport 1 | Beatport 2
Conspiracy Against Truth
Need help setting up Traktor?
Today, 03:56 PM #10
sobi
sobi is online now
Tech Guru sobi’s Avatar
Join Date
Apr 2009
Posts
861
Default MP3 vs WAV continuation
Just starting this here since the mod locked the other thread, and logically, if they lock due to so many, why wouldn’t that one get locked? Just saving time from searching…
Quote Originally Posted by MrPopinjay View Post
And why is that?
it saves space on my computer and there’s no discernible difference that I can tell.
huh? how would you convert an MP3 to a WAV? You can’t add whats missing
Get aiff versions, if you want metadata and uncompressed audio. If you want cheap, try Audiojelly first, see if they have the tracks you want in wav, then add data and convert to aiff. For the rest, buy 320K mp3. Not too much difference, but it’s noticeable if you know where to look.