If you can’t hear the difference then I’m sorry you’ve ruined your hearing. Anytime you want to test me on my home system I’m down. I’m not saying that 320 mp3 won’t “get you by” at a club. It will, especially if you’re playing all MP3’s BUT if, as the OP has said, most of his collection is wav then you definitely should (if you haven’t blown you ears monitoring too loud) hear a difference when moving between MP3 and wav’s. I’ve tested this on many finely tuned systems. And as far as the “monster cable” jab, I’ve wired many professional studios and QC’ed some of the most famous movies in the last 2 decades so unless your credentials are at least as much, you should be VERY careful about who you troll.
Stick with the WAV. There are multiple reasons for this but here is my quick run down.
-You get the “whole” song - I understand and enjoy the convenience of mp3. I grew up buying CDs so I don’t get paying almost the same price for a track (CD price / # of tracks) and geting less then 100% of what I pay for just doesn’t make sense to me.
-Storage is cheap - the mp3 format is going to lose it’s relevance as storage continues to grow. You can buy 3TB for about $150 now, in a few years you will be at 6TB.
- There is a difference - There are many people on both sides of the “I can hear a difference”. “Nobody can hear a difference” debate. The fact there is a debate means it isn’t definitive and most likely depends on the person and the system being listened too. Personally I can hear it and after joining me for a few listening sessions, so can my girlfriend. Granted I do have some higher end gear but you can still notice a difference in other ways. One way that we perceive a difference is through listener fatigue. I have been planing on writing an article about this and just have not sat down and spent the time yet. We don’t hear listener fatigue but it does affect us, so does that count as hearing a difference? Yes. This also affects our audience in ways they may perceive, but not hear. If you want an extreme example, listen to cd or flac set for 2-3 hours on headphones or a nice set of speakers/monitors. Then listen to the same set that is from 128kbs mp3 for 2-3 hours. Aside from hearing a difference, you will feel different. 3 hours of 128kbs is very fatiguing for just about anybody. 320kbs is much closer to cd quality but if you listen long enough it will be fatiguing as well. Not exactly the feelings we want to get our audience to feel, huh? What I have found that is interesting is that the less fatiguing an audio system sounds, the more willing someone is to listen to music they may not normally enjoy as much. Granted that is anecdotal but I would not be surprised to find that to be a universal.
Lets not even mention the problems with making a mix using mp3s and then compressing that into another MP3 to share.
As they say, there is more to the story but I think you get the idea. I do want to add that if the only way you can afford the songs you want to play is by buying the MP3, go for it. You can always improve your quality later on when you can afford it better.
OP here - think you misunderstood me. I’m WITH you on the noticeable audio difference - which is one of the reasons for my reluctance to change. I also am a fan (gulp 
) of Monster Cable. My Rotel/Boston Acoustics hi-fi is interconnected and speaker-wired with MC. I use both MC Copper Pro and iSport IEMs which in IMHO are phenomenal. My ‘credentials’ are listening (and appreciating) experience, not professional. I did however change from MC to DJTT USB cables (with better results wrt to latency and drop-outs). Not trolling - respecting opinions like yours.
We have to change from mp3 to wav or aiff or similar. There is a different in the sound, its a matter of to learn to hear it. I have been working with some really good sound engineers in club where they can tell if I play a mp3 (320kbps) almost all the time, with out a/b comparing. As long I still play mp3 they will look at me little as an amateur.
We as DJs should always try to get the best sound ever, even if the difference is small. Better file format, better sound card, better cables, better handling of the mixer, etc. If we do that it will make a different in the end result and we can demand better sound systems without the club owner/ sound engineer says that it does not matter as we use bad stuff 
[quote=“JonathanBlake, post:1, topic:41277, username:JonathanBlake”]
- Is WAV REALLY worth it?
[/quote] I think so, but I prefer aiff for metadata. I’d convert to FLAC if iTunes would read them without magic. And I should really check and see if SSL can read ALAC, because that would work too.
[quote=“JonathanBlake, post:1, topic:41277, username:JonathanBlake”]
2. Will I notice the difference?
[/quote] Only you can tell that. Try soundinmotiondj’s suggestion to find out.
[quote=“JonathanBlake, post:4, topic:41277, username:JonathanBlake”]
- Love the way they call it a ‘handling fee’.
[/quote]It’s because they get charged by their ISP based on the amount of data (in GB) that people download from them. Lossless files are bigger, so they cost more to provide. Makes perfect sense.
That works.
The last time I did that, I did it with 5 copies instead of 10 using an iTunes playlist on shuffle and only one trial…so it wasn’t scientific. I got 5/5 on my HD-25s. You have to listen for specific things (and know what they are), and I don’t think anyone would hear them on a club system at full volume……but the difference is there, and it is audible.
Also, 10/10 isn’t the least bit necessary if you understand statistics. You need to repeat the test several times (several sets of 5 or 10 guesses), take the average and standard deviation of your scores, and see if your guesses are significantly better than random using a one-sample t-test. If you do 100 sets of 10 guesses, you are doing significantly better than random if x > (.22s + .5), where x is your average score ( average of correct guesses / 10 for each of the 100 trials) and s is the standard deviation of your guesses for the 100 trials.
So, if you average 7/10 and are fairly consistent (arbitrarily defined as s = .1), you’d reach significance at α=.05, meaning that there was a 5% chance that you did that well without being able to hear a difference.
Wikipedia and excel, numbers, or a ti-83 can help you with this if you know how to use them. Or take a statistics class.
@OP, if you’re having problems paying for them…I’d seriously consider buying less music. Just be really picky about the tracks you actually buy…make sure you actually have a reason to have them. That might not be possible depending on how/why/where you DJ, but it might make a difference. An extra 35% on each track is significant…but not compared to just buying half as many tracks and only focusing on the ones that will be in your set for a while.
-
I think so too, and despite insistance from others that you can’t - you can. Pariticularly on HD-25s.
-
Data in South Africa is VERY expensive, so it’s a double whammy (ie the cost incurred my end as well). I get their additional cost(s), but it is steep - I’m sure they get a far better rate than you or I.
-
Any pointers on what specifically to listen for?
-
My stats sucked at varsity - but that makes sense.
-
Sound advice (pun intended) - I am being far more selective of late.
Well thought. Well put.
Transients, reverb tails, the character of the noise floor (mp3’s noise floor sounds a bit more like pink noise than white…if the rest of your stuff is quiet enough to hear it), the tails of cymbals and snares…stuff like that. The mp3 compression algorithm just throws away detail in the highs and in quiet sounds.
Honeslty, it’s not that huge of a difference. It’s not like the AAC files I get from iTunes aren’t listenable in my car or even in my headphones or on my (low-end) monitors (in a basically un-treated room). And if it’s a burden, don’t worry about it too much. There are things you can do to screw up your sound way more than using mp3s…many of which people think of as normal (like clipping a mixer’s outputs or running Traktor way too hot).
The difference is audible…and it’s worth disk space and money to me. I can easily see how someone could decide differently if their priorities were different. But I’d still rather just buy less music than buy crappier music.
Wutt?
I’d really like to know where you (legally) get those cheap WAVE files…
Price per track (CD Price/# of tracks) of a CD should be somewhere around 1€/1$ (e.g. 14 €/14 tracks).
A complete album in 320 kbps mp3 typically costs about 10 €/10 $, so it may be a bit cheaper than buying the CD. BUT… if you want that album as all WAVE files, you usually have to pay about 1€/1$ PER TRACK, so this will more than double the cost of the album (compare to the mp3 version), and also make it about twice as expensive as the CD version.
I also grew up buying CDs (and, mostly, records) so I don’t get why I should pay twice as much for not getting any more than I did before when the difference between WAVE and (decent quality) mp3 is at least arguable, it just doesn’t make sense to me… 
So yes, WAVE is technically and (arguably) audibly the superior standard, but is it worth the extra buck (aka the allmost-double-the-cost-fee)? - You decide..
(Note: this calculation doesn’t take into account one of the main advantages for DJs when buying digital formats: you don’t have to get the whole album if you only want to play 2 of the tracks… Nonetheless, the individual tracks would still be more expensive than on CD).
To the OP:
If you’re willing to keep on spending the extra buck (even though you know it’s one of the biggest rip offs these days), do it.
If you say you can hear the difference you probably shouldn’t switch. You can still think again once lossless formats like FLAC become widely available (and supported) as these feature 100% identical audio quality while providing advanced tagging possibilities over WAVE.
I have always and only played Wav’s out to big festivals etc.
I do believe that it sounds better…it HAS to.
But when i am playing in the clubs and jamming Electro, I have been using MP3’s (much to my mate and mentors disgust) and have not had any issues with sound quality there.
If you not being paid big money’s to be play out, then I think its fair to say, you dont need the Wav’s.
If I was being paid PROPER money for my sets at a BIG show, then i would be sure to ONLY have Wav’s and make my performance the best it can be. Regardless of the argument on these file types…I would do it to make myself feel like I did the most I could to sound the best.
But if I am just jamming for my enjoyment at home or for friends, 320Mp3’s are the way to go I reckon.
Wavs do sound different/better, at least on studio monitors. I’d assume they sound different on huge systems as well. Do they sound different enough to be worth the hassle? Not for me. I don’t use Wav, and as far as I’m aware none of the DJs I’ve talked to in my area do either (it’s the type of thing I’d expect to get brought up too). I’m sure I’ll get flamed for this next sentence, but here it goes. Honestly, in my experience the sound quality difference between an S4 and a proper external mixer/decent soundcard (Mackie d.4 pro, then my DJM900) is more substantial than the difference between Wav and MP3. You might be getting better results with your S4 than I did, but I found it really killed the dynamics in my tracks in comparison.
Just out of interest, you’re saying s4 soundcard is worse than djm900 soundcard? Or you talking about the mixer with another external soundcard?
Confirmation Bias (by any other name) IS a real thing…and makes “self testing” suspect in all cases. I have to “randomize” my own testing so that I can rely on the results.
Have you tried to test yourself in a “double blind” setting? Or using the method I described…of creating a “random” arrangement of source material, and then finding a “random” starting point?
Mostly this speaks to the fact that human ears TOTALLY SUCK as measuring devices. Watch the video link I posted earlier for more. ALL things “audiophile” rely on the fact that human ears are HORRIBLE measuring devices.
Confirmation Bias runs rampant in the WAV/mp3 issue. Until you have done a “double blind” test…you will not know if you can tell a difference or not.
I do understand statistics. I set the bar at 10/10 because far too many people maintain that the difference is “obvious”…and because most people are not willing to sit through enough test samples to reach a statistically stable result.
Could you identify a shape as a “circle” or an “octagon” 10 out of 10 times?
Could you identify the color as “yellow” or “purple” 10 out of 10 times?
Could you identify a song as “The Beatles” or “The Rolling Stones” 10 out of 10 times?
Now…suppose I was a TOTAL bastard on the test…and I prepared nine samples. One at a “reference level”, one at -0.5dB, and one at -1dB:
- WAV (0dB, -0.5dB, -1dB)
- mp3 @ 320 (0db, -0.5dB, -1dB)
- mp3 @ 192 (0dB, -0.5dB, -1dB)
Most people should know that “louder is better” is a real thing. To get a “fair” comparison, sources should be normalized within 0.1dB. Difference as small as 0.2dB (which is not consciously audible) produce a statistically significant preference for the louder sample.
How confident are you that you could correctly identify the bitrate of the source…if the samples were NOT all as the same sound level?
Correct.
And given the peculiarities of the Equal Loudness Curves, the differences in sound systems, differences in room modes and room acoustical treatment, differences in listening position, the acclimatization of people to listening on ear buds, the rise of streaming media as a “reference” for media content, and so on…it is very unlikely that anyone can definitively tell the difference between WAV and mp3 @ 320…or even 192.
There are dozens of elements within the signal chain and room acoustics that all matter more than the difference between WAV and mp3 @ 320. For instance, I find that using unbalanced signal cables (as opposed to balanced) to connect the DJ mixer to the top of my post-processing effects rack is MUCH more noticeable than the difference between WAV/mp3 sources.
I’d bet you were smashing into the limiter.
It’s not your fault. Between not having a good level meter on anything they make and default settings that are loud as hell and will clip anything, NI seems to be on a crusade to make all their customers sound like crap.
I’m convinced they only have customers because they’re really good at the loudness war……and by really good at it, I mean they decided a long time ago that loud distortion sounded better than appropriate volume dynamics.
@ SOundinmotiondj, no self testing at all. Test has been and always is with numerous test subjects in a very controlled environment. I’ve done many different types of these tests both as the tester and the “testes” One of the first tests I put together was was the exact same song in four formats. 44.1 16 bit wav (CD quality) ATRAC, AAC, and 320kbps mp3 (This test was done quite a while ago so FLAC & Ogg Vorbis were still not on my radar). First the subjects were allowed to just listen to each of the four tracks in whatever order they wanted and for as long as they wanted, switching as mauch as they wanted. I then had them rate each in order from what sounded best to what sounded worst to them. 95% picked the wav as sounding the best and 100% had the mp3 as the worst. The AAC & Atrac were very close with AAC narrowly winning out 2nd and ATRAC 3rd. The second test was to play the same segment of the song of each encoded type in random order totaling 100 and have the test subjects pick which they thought each one was. This became even more muddled with .wav, ATRAC & AAC BUT the MP3 was still correctly identified 90% of the time. It was stated earlier, you can totally hear it in the reverb tails and dynamics of the track both in the highs and lows.
@SirReal: Interesting results. I have done similar tests…and found the results to be slightly worse than “random guessing” would produce (but not in a statistically interesting amount)…or when I add a “Can not tell” option…that option gets picked about 2/3 of the time.
Either way…there is no substitute for controlled testing and measurement.
It was said earlier, you have to “know how to listen” and what to listen for. My tests may be biased as subjects are almost always in an audio career, ie mixers, audio editors, sound engineers. I’m guessing my results wouldn’t be quite so definitive if I took just random people off the street. The point is, though, with people who actually “listen for a living” the data shows there is a very discernible difference between 44.1k 16 bit wav and 320 MP3. I bet it’d be even more so with 48K 24 bit wav. That being said, if some DJ played an all 320mp3 set most people would never realize it but if they intermixed MP3 and wav I’m sure some people would notice a difference, I know I would and have and I have far from “Golden Ears”
Nice topic and some great points.
Nice video here about our hearing capabilities here:
To my surprise this video reveals that Funktion One tested on the NI audio interfaces…
Yeah! I seen that video…and I must say, he is a WHACK character!
He obviously knows a shitload about building sound…but his ‘theory’ on sound quality is a bit whack…
Maybe I just don’t understand, but saying that a thin little cable can run a bigass system?!
Just a bit odd.
On another note, the guy who owns Beartrap Productions, whom I play for, has met and discussed sound with Tony himself.
He now owns the biggest TurboSound Rig in Cape Town (maybe the whole of South Africa) and only has good things to say about Tony.
Funktion One is defintely one of the top sound systems in the world.
Agreed!
Play one or the other. Mixing them is where the trouble starts.