This is something that has been puzzling me for a while and as I can’t find any information online I thought I’d hear your thoughts on the issue.
I really like ‘Hardwells Tomorrowland 2012’ performance, especially how he incorporated remixes of more ‘popular’ chart music. My concern is, when I try to find the tracks, there free to download ‘niche’ less popular songs on SoundCloud etc which people have remixed, of which are only available to download in mp3 format (320 kpbs). There not available on BeatPort or any form of music selling website.
Now, as a DJ, I hear endless times to mix with ONLY .wav formats apposed to compressed mp3’s which of course, .wav is uncompressed and ‘better’. And that got me thinking, how is Hardwell (and no doubt many other top 100 dj’s) using mp3’s and getting away with it at HUGE venues with surly massively expensive and high end speakers?
I’m pretty sure there not finding a wav version (quote me if I’m wrong) as I can’t find one and also many ‘remixes’ of popular chart music, use mp3 versions of the original song to start with.
It’s annoying me because I’m finding great mixes that I want to use in set’s but then are held back by mp3 only versions. Especially as I buy all my music as wav (same price for me as mp3)
Generally a 320kbps mp3 is virtually indistinguishable from a WAV. Pretty much every DJ uses them, and I’d wager no one could tell the difference on any club system.
When it comes to sourcing tracks, if you’re a top 100 DJ then I don’t think you need to worry about finding a track you like. If you were a producer and Hardwell called you up asking for a WAV copy or the stems, would you say no? Most of those guys get promo copies of new tracks long before they’re released to the rest of us anyway, or they make their own edits.
sure, but 320kbps MP3 is a pretty poor format imo. i know it is tremendously popular thanks to beatport but that doesn’t make it better.
when storage space or related issues such as limited network bandwidth are a concern, lossy can be a good choice. but vbr -V0 is like 30% smaller than cbr 320. and -v0 is transparent like 99% of the time, whereas 320kbps cbr is transparent like 99.2% of the time. the tiny quality edge of 320 cbr doesn’t adequately compensate for the much larger file size.
if you need the absolutely best quality with no regard to file size, go lossless. that way, you can rule out that you have some non-transparent lossy audio. (non-transparency is rare but it happens. one case i recently encountered was kraftwerk - tour de france - kling klang analog mix which had audible artifacts even at cbr 320.) with lossless, there are some other benefits as well: you can edit non-destructively, you can re-encode without reduction in quality.
another thought. i think for djs, lossless makes a lot of sense. while a single encode to a high bitrate lossy format (e.g., CD-quality WAV to 320kbps MP3) may be transparent, transcodes (i.e., further encodes to lossy formats) are frequently not. and as a DJ, you deal with transcodes a lot, e.g. when you share you dj set online.
While I believe there is no audible difference between 320 kbps mp3 and Wave files on home and smaller club systems, large systems may be another story. So I guess most of the big names use wave files.
And as fullenglishpint said, getting the lossless version of any given track might be slightly easier if your name is Hardwell or anything like that…
Well, if the tracks are good and you can’t find them in any other formats, play them. Not that Youtube ripped 128k MP3 files are used as an audio torture device by some DJs.
In general, if you let’s say stream a DJ set where the bit rate is low, does not help to play WAV files as it’s not that good audio stream experience, anyway.
If you play on a huge tuned club system let’s say dubstep with lossless MP3 files where the dynamics are ripped out by the transcoding, you might as well bring a boom box with you to the gig.
In the golden days playing vinyl was no issue as properly pressed vinyl tracks have an astounding dynamics range.
Some tracks, esp dance can get away with 320 not sounding that different to wav. Converting wav to 320 can lose a lot, definition of bass, you get mushy top end.
I’ve heard many very good name Dj’s overdrive sound systems so they are being overdriven just so they could be louder. It would sound atrocious.
My point is that many Dj’s have talents in many areas of production & music, but many really lack a good ear for sound quality, whether its due to them smashing their hearing with loud headphone monitoring or just that they lack the ability to discern the difference.
Well, I worked in the top studios in London from recording & mixing through to vinyl cutting & CD Mastering for 22 years, working with many many top artists and producers, and I say you absolutely don’t know what you’re talking about
This subject comes up at least once a month. Yes, wav is technically a better file. The sound quality between a wav and a 320 mp3 on any system is practically impossible to tell. You can tell me until you are blue in the face that you can hear the difference and I will tell you that your mind is playing tricks on you. MP3 removes the frequencies that the human ear can’t hear. There are the elitist snibby DJs who have to have what they believe is the top of the line in everything but the fact is you can not tell the difference.
A few months ago Mostopha put togethe a double blind test between wav and 320 mp3 and some of us did it. 10 tracks, 15 sec clips, to get aclimated to what we were hearing first the mp3 was played 2x and then the wav 2x and then each track played 10x at random between mp3 or wav and you had to pick which it was. I got like 55% right I think, something like that. Most others had the same result or worse. Mostopha was the only 1 that got like 80% right. He did admit that he didn’t realize how close it really is and he couldn’t do it without the A/B format of the test meaning if I played a track and said tell me if its an mp3 or a wav, he couldn’t do it. He also admited that without knowing the music as well as he did he most likely wouldn’t have scored as high. Venue sound systems are for loudness, not for technical acoustics.
Again, all the so called loss of bass, high end, sounds tinny or empty is all what we percieve mp3 to sound like because we know that technically its an inferior format so we think we hear a difference, I know its inferior therefore I can tell, but the reality is, I could play 320 mp3 all night long and sas its a wav and no one would know, not the average person or the so called audiophile, so unless you walk around with an oscilliscope to look at the sound wave, your ears can’t tell.
Ask any recording engineer if they sat there for an hour tweaking and twisting knobs to get the sound as perfectly as possible and when they think they have it just right, they look over and the signal isn’t even going through any processor. If you have been in the biz for 22 years you know exactly what I’m talking about, your mind plays tricks on you…again the human ear can not tell the difference, search for the old thread and do the test, you’ll see.
Sorry, but in my opinion in a festival/club/bar environment. Who is honestly going to sit there and go… “I do believe this DJ is using mp3 instead of WAV, he clearly is garbage” Nobody.
If you want to go and spend that little extra buying WAV’s everytime.. By all means, be my guest but when it comes down to it.. Nobody is going to notice either way what kind of format your file is in.. Unless you’re using mp3’s under 128.
Yep. I think someone needs to train their ears. Does not mean that the MP3 quality is crap in all instances, but you could hear differences. Assume you have decent to good reference monitors, of course. Or good headphones. Actually I recommend training to hear such differences as it helps when you do mixing and possible final mastering.
320 mp3’s sound great. Until the price of lossless files are equal and storage costs get allot cheaper I will use mp3. Id say 90% of professional DJ’s use 320mp3 as well.