MP3 vs. WAV vs FLAC - Sound Quality?

[Citizen]

Ok, so I understand that MP3 is a compression format that compresses the digital data to varying extents using algorhythms - hence the inferior sound to CD audio.

Is .WAV essentiall equivalent to CD quality audio - or is that oversimplifying things somewhat?

Also, I've noticed more digital music sites are offering FLAC versions of tracks as an alternative option to MP3s - is this formate superior to MP3s and WAVs?

If one was to be using Serato/Final Scratch, in a club setting would they be best served to only play .WAVs (or FLACs?) for the purpose of retaining optimal sound quality?

Thanks!

[DJ D one]

[QUOTE=Citizen]Is .WAV essentiall equivalent to CD quality audio - or is that oversimplifying things somewhat?
QUOTE]

I think it is simplifying things, I could take a 128k MP3 and turn it to a WAV...

Don't know much about FLAC, but surely they are many ways of seeing this.

D1

[Bracko]

mp3's from sites at 320kbs are fine. that's all you really need to know. if you want to chew through your internet account then get the wavs, but there's little justification in my mind to do it.

if you're recording from vinyl on the other hand.... that's a different story.

[DSILVR]

Is .WAV essentiall equivalent to CD quality audio - or is that oversimplifying things somewhat?

To my understanding of course there is. CD quality is 128KB and a WAV is like 1000KB quality

Correct me if i am wrong.

[Spectrum]

To my understanding of course there is. CD quality is 128KB and a WAV is like 1000KB quality

Correct me if i am wrong.


My dear DSILVR,

You're so wrong! ;D

44.1k/16bit WAV (PC) = 44.1k/16bit AIFF (Mac) = CD Quality

The only difference is CD Audio lacks the checksums (error correction) of regular digital computer-based files that ensure a digital file has been copied correctly. When copying/duplicating WAVs, the computer "knows" that the file has been cloned precisely as the numbers add up as expected. For CDs, the audio data on the disc appears twice, at opposing sides. If the laser doesn't pick it up accurately in these two scanning opportunities, it gives up, and it's then up to the error correction routines in the CD player's procsessor to "guess" what the waveform "should" be doing at that particular moment. Hardly a precision clone, however, good enough in most instances.

Moral of the story: 44.1k/16bit WAV is CD quality, however, if wishing to transfer audio from one PC to another (or you wish to send your production efforts off to a mastering engineer) , burn it as a data CD (ie. retaining WAV/AIFF file format) rather than as an audio CD. The only downside is an 80 minute WAV takes up more room than an 80min CD can hold (due to the extra space required for the checksums embedded within).

There's also the issue of files working in greater resolution than 44.1kHz/16bit (eg. 96kHz/24bit), where burning to CD audio requires downgrading the files.

[Citizen]

mp3's from sites at 320kbs are fine. that's all you really need to know.

Really? A mate of min played a 320 of a tune I have on vinyl on a cracking sound system at a doof, and it definately was lacking something compared to the vinyl. Maybe it lacked a bit of "oopmh" or just a touch of clarity.

Although, other times I've been surprised to find that certain great sounding tunes were played from 320, so...

I guess I just have a hang up about dicarding audio data. Surely a superior format will surpass Mp3, and all of the people who converted purely to Mp3 will cry

if you're recording from vinyl on the other hand.... that's a different story.

Quite possibly.

[silvaside]

Also, I've noticed more digital music sites are offering FLAC versions of tracks as an alternative option to MP3s - is this formate superior to MP3s and WAVs?
FLAC uses a lossless compression algorithm which basically means no information is lost during conversion. Think of it as the winzip of audio. You can normally cut around 30%-50% off WAV filesize using FLAC. In terms of sound quality FLAC is superior to MP3 and exactly the same was WAV.

Really? A mate of min played a 320 of a tune I have on vinyl on a cracking sound system at a doof, and it definately was lacking something compared to the vinyl. Maybe it lacked a bit of "oopmh" or just a touch of clarity.
Vinyl generally has that "warm" sound to it I suppose.

[Bracko]

Really? A mate of min played a 320 of a tune I have on vinyl on a cracking sound system at a doof, and it definately was lacking something compared to the vinyl. Maybe it lacked a bit of "oopmh" or just a touch of clarity.

Although, other times I've been surprised to find that certain great sounding tunes were played from 320, so...

I guess I just have a hang up about dicarding audio data. Surely a superior format will surpass Mp3, and all of the people who converted purely to Mp3 will cry



Quite possibly.

i thought doofs only played CD's for the last 10+ years?

I agree they sound different.... but i don't think either is worse than the other in practice.

[defected819]

I only play cassette.

Mixing can be tough at best.

[Spectrum]

I only play cassette.

Mixing can be tough at best.

OMG! It's you! :rock:

http://www.iamthedj.com/blogimages/djartyom.gif

[Matty_neal]

hahahahhaahahahaa!!!

[ijed]

OMG! It's you! :rock:



oh, those crazy russians :P
love the wood finish too

[Funkedub]

The only downside is an 80 minute WAV takes up more room than an 80min CD can hold (due to the extra space required for the checksums embedded within).




burn it onto a DVD :zabiela:

[andreas]

Ok in all honesty do people find the value in purchasing WAV over MP3 from dl sites?

I have been buying MP3 as I wasnt sure the extra $ involved (ie cost at site & MB downloaded) was
worth while..

I purchase all MP3 no less than 320, what do others do?

[ChemicalJames]

Surely a superior format will surpass Mp3, and all of the people who converted purely to Mp3 will cry


Or perhaps just move on to that format.


Not everyone is a fanboy who just needs to "touch the song".

[entropy1]

is flac even supported by anything useful? (serato or torq etc?)

[silvaside]

is flac even supported by anything useful? (serato or torq etc?)
I know it's supported by Traktor.

[entropy1]

I know it's supported by Traktor.

i said USEFUL :P *hides*

[ekwipt]

Ok in all honesty do people find the value in purchasing WAV over MP3 from dl sites?

I have been buying MP3 as I wasnt sure the extra $ involved (ie cost at site & MB downloaded) was
worth while..

I purchase all MP3 no less than 320, what do others do?

I buy everything WAV now if i can if not 320 kbps

[andreas]

But is the difference worth the price? I would buy WAV if I wanted to try and do my own
edit in Ableton but just for playing out 320K v WAV? Is there really a noticeable difference.
I cant really tell but havent tested the two over a club system..

[ekwipt]

But is the difference worth the price? I would buy WAV if I wanted to try and do my own
edit in Ableton but just for playing out 320K v WAV? Is there really a noticeable difference.
I cant really tell but havent tested the two over a club system..

I think the exact same way, so the point is why wouldn't you buy WAV, when in a year you decide you want to use A\bleton to DJ out with etc, or edit tracks and you are dealing with mp3s

[Citizen]

Is FLAC not supported by FS or Serato?

[andreas]

Think FLAC is supported by TS

[entropy1]

nah serato doesn't support FLAC

[Citizen]

Ooo, we've kind've gotten off track - but WAV is equivalent in quality to FLAC, yes?

[Pro Tool]

nah serato doesn't support FLAC
I just checked on the box and it appears that Traktor Scratch does.

[silvaside]

Ooo, we've kind've gotten off track - but WAV is equivalent in quality to FLAC, yes?

FLAC uses a lossless compression algorithm which basically means no information is lost during conversion. Think of it as the winzip of audio. You can normally cut around 30%-50% off WAV filesize using FLAC. In terms of sound quality FLAC is superior to MP3 and exactly the same was WAV.


I've used FLAC just fine in Traktor Scratch.

[ekwipt]

Very cool that Traktor supports FLAC (I like) pity the top download sites do not

[Pro Tool]

Seeing as it stands for FREE lossless audio codec - you can do the conversion yourself. for free!

[ekwipt]

Pity you have to though it would take half the time to downlaod

[Citizen]

Still no support for FLAC on Serato?

[Boonani]

For the record you cant turn a 128kbps mp3 into a WAV and call it the same. Once somethings broken the computer cant magically fix it.

Mp3 is shit - how can you compress something to a tenth of the size and expect it to equate to the same thing? Where does all that data go? It gets stripped and you pay for is in the sound quality.

CD quality (commercial CDs) contain a frequency spectrum of 20Hz through 20,000Hz, and replicate the range of human hearing. Mp3's generally only contain 80Hz (therefore losing your sub-bass for that 'thump' that kicks you in the chest) through 13,000Hz (losing all overtones and crispness, shimmer and top end in cymbals, synths, vocals, etc etc). Also, mp3s use 'Auditory masking'- IE: Masking quiet, subtle sounds in louder sounds, so you lose all subtley and beauty in a lot of tracks. Totally lame.

Once you convert something down dont even consider attempting to re-convert it back up, its ruined. The lower bitrate the worse it is.

If given the option, always go WAV - completely worthwhile in the end. If no other option is available settle for nothing less than 320kbps is worth playing out. Of course its fine for ipod listening and the like especially if you listen on bad earphones...

Enjoy :)

[DSILVR]

This thread will go on and on

[seen006]

as a Dj myself i usually use .WAV.. but the only time a croud will notice the difference between a 320pks mp3 file is if you go from .WAV to .MP3.. 9 out of 10 people still cant tell the difference but when you start playing under 320kps the quality is shite!

[BBC]

as a Dj myself i usually use .WAV.. but the only time a croud will notice the difference between a 320pks mp3 file is if you go from .WAV to .MP3.. 9 out of 10 people still cant tell the difference but when you start playing under 320kps the quality is shite!

Really? I tried this the other day. I took a 320kbs MP3 track, converted it to 160kbs and listened to both through my Sennies to see if I could hear the difference. I tested myself and couldn't hear the difference! Really suprised me. I know it's different played on a system, but I thought the difference between 320 and 160 would be easily noticeable. Not so.

So here is my challenge to you. Do the test yourself. Take a wav file, convert it to 320, then 160 and listen to all three and see if you can hear the difference. Let me know if you can honestly hear it.

[kybak]

usually when a music file is converted to mp3 the only things that are taken out are the super high ptch or low frequency sounds that out ears cant register, so we dont really hear the difference,
thats how ppl kept on getting out of there court cases with file sharing, ir napster an what not
because you cant get done for copy right infringements if what your sharing is less then 10 % of the original product, so what did they do, they converted the songs to mp3 an were left with sumting along the lines of only 9 % of the orriginal track, all the sounds we can hear an none we cant

its only when you turn your music up to " pissing the neighbours off" level where you can really hear the difference with a converted track

my opinion anyway

[wyzest1]

I actually spent an entire day this week listening A then B to a large portion of my music in both 320kbps mp3 and then Apple Lossless format.

My findings basically went as follows:

With electronic music, there is very little lost in the conversion. Sometimes you can notice a lack of presence but generally, all in all, there is no discernible difference. (This possibly has a lot to do with the fact that the instruments that create this music are quite blunt so to speak - Often, the very things that electronic music aims to achieve is clean sounds, there is no room for subtleties and nuances in the sound) - generalisation alert!!!!

With acoustic and live music however, wow, there is this whole different level that you miss out on.

Its not obvious, but the more you look for it, the more you notice how much is missing from the mp3's

Examples include the lack definition to reverb and echos - with lossless files, you can actually get some aural image of the recording space, if you close your eyes, you can almost picture the size of the space the music was recorded in.
There is also a hugely noticeable difference in "realism" - the sounds coming from the instruments actually sound live as opposed to processed sounds. (This is something that took me a while to realise, since, for the majority of my listening experience, I do listen to processed sounds and have gotten quite accustomed to their sound. infact, it was only till I pulled out my saxophone and played it, then listened to the recording i was testing, that I had this epiphany)
Drums sound like they are cracking right there, woodwind and brass has this edge to it, it doesnt sound like a recording.

On the other hand, mp3's sound flat after listening in lossless. They lack that edge, and depending on your perspective, its either unfortunate or fortunate that, the more you try to find this realism, the more you find how much is missing.

Mind you, I am using a pair of reference quality earphones (etymotic er-4p) as well as my allesandro MS-1 headphones and Alesis monitors.
Believe me, on any lesser sound system, the difference is far to discrete to notice.

Hope this helps, give it a try one time, get some music you really really like, rip it from CD or better to your computer in both mp3 and lossless, name them the same and try and guess which is the higher quality version. Once you start, you may find something in your music you have missed before.

I personally listened to
Massive Attack - Teardrop
Pink Floyd - Wish you Were Here
Gui Boratto - Beautiful Life
Thelonious Monk - Boo Boo's Birthday

[Spectrum]

^^ Nice observations and summary. :D

[kieren]

Here is a link to John Lenard Burnett website http://www.lenardaudio.com/education/18_digital.html this explains it all perfectly....

When I download I stick to WAV and there is a difference but it can be relatively un-noticeable with some tracks and on some sound systems. But I still buy vinyl for sound quality but I can't get everything I want so the WAV is the next best thing!

[big eddie]

flac has a couple of major benefits over wav.
1 smaller files
2 storage of meta information / tagging
3 open source

Everything I rip these days I rip to flac. With quad core processors now commonplace and hard drive space down to under 15 cents per gigabyte, mp3s just don't make sense anymore.

I have a 'legacy' mp3 collection, but I'm gradually re-ripping everything to flac when I can be bothered and everything new I buy gets archived to flac.

*edit oh yeah Ableton Live supports flac now too.

[big eddie]

Really? I tried this the other day. I took a 320kbs MP3 track, converted it to 160kbs and listened to both through my Sennies to see if I could hear the difference. I tested myself and couldn't hear the difference! Really suprised me. I know it's different played on a system, but I thought the difference between 320 and 160 would be easily noticeable. Not so.

So here is my challenge to you. Do the test yourself. Take a wav file, convert it to 320, then 160 and listen to all three and see if you can hear the difference. Let me know if you can honestly hear it.

That's most likely because as a dj you are deaf. (no offence intended, but a great many are) Got tinnitus by any chance?

[forenzik]

One other advantage of buying your tunes as wavs that hasn't been mentioned..

You can make your own edits with a wav file, and suffer no loss in audio quality..

Whereas if you edit an mp3 (by turning it into a wav using your wave editor, and then convert it back to mp3) you are re-compressing something that is already compressed.

[ChemicalJames]

+1 for flac.

They should sell music in flac on beatport imo.

[Kiron]

Man I had the most amazing sounding tracks on FLAC, the quality blew your mind (The masters were ripped into FLAC) sad I don't have them anymore though :(

[wyzest1]

Wow, that is amazing, is that all you have to share?

[First Strike]

as a Dj myself i usually use .WAV.. but the only time a croud will notice the difference between a 320pks mp3 file is if you go from .WAV to .MP3.. 9 out of 10 people still cant tell the difference but when you start playing under 320kps the quality is shite!

I doubt that even 9 out of 10 people would tell, the 320kbs mp3s from the major sites are very good.....

[muse]

rule of thumb: all mp3s sound like shit.


when most people create music @ 24/48, compressing to 44.1/16 is bad enough :-O

[kieren]

The idea is that as DJ’s we should love the music more than anyone else in the venue, and as music lovers we should want to hear & present the music in the best quality possible.

I just don’t get it at all, I can accept that vinyl is too expensive and/or too heavy for some DJ’s but the WAV vs. MP3 argument is a argument I would expect to hear from kids talking about their iPods not professional DJ’s!!!!

.

[Spicy]

nah kieren - music lovers and audiophiles are two different things even though they are related.

rule of thumb: all mp3s sound like shit.


when most people create music @ 24/48, compressing to 44.1/16 is bad enough :rainman: i'm sure you can tell the difference especially between 16 and 24 bits.

[muse]

nah kieren - music lovers and audiophiles are two different things even though they are related.

:rainman: i'm sure you can tell the difference especially between 16 and 24 bits.

are you retarded?

[muse]

The idea is that as DJ’s we should love the music more than anyone else in the venue, and as music lovers we should want to hear & present the music in the best quality possible.

I just don’t get it at all, I can accept that vinyl is too expensive and/or too heavy for some DJ’s but the WAV vs. MP3 argument is a argument I would expect to hear from kids talking about their iPods not professional DJ’s!!!!

.

Agree

[Spicy]

are you retarded?are you suggesting there is a clear audible difference between 16 and 24 bit wavs?

because if you are, i propose the idea that you are the one who is retarded. (i dunno, maybe retarded people have superior hearing or something)

[kieren]

nah kieren - music lovers and audiophiles are two different things even though they are related.

:rainman: i'm sure you can tell the difference especially between 16 and 24 bits.
Not in my experience, most audiophile I know are purely music lovers chasing the highest quality representation of the original recording!
Though I do know a couple who are just into expensive toys!

.

[mixmastermil]

are you suggesting there is a clear audible difference between 16 and 24 bit wavs?

because if you are, i propose the idea that you are the one who is retarded. (i dunno, maybe retarded people have superior hearing or something)

Of course there is an audible difference, but as posters have said previously in this thread it is alot more noticeable with different types of music ie: you will notice more of a differece if you recorded acoustic drum rather than electronic samples.

24bit/48K = 24 bits (1's & 0's) 48,000 times a second
compared to
16/44.1K

With higher bit and sample rates you get alot more info more times per second which results in smoother more rounded waveforms. This will only be really noticeable though if you are recording the instruments your self.

[kieren]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile

.

[kieren]

Of course there is an audible difference, but as posters have said previously in this thread it is alot more noticeable with different types of music ie: you will notice more of a differece if you recorded acoustic drum rather than electronic samples.

24bit/48K = 24 bits (1's & 0's) 48,000 times a second
compared to
16/44.1K

With higher bit and sample rates you get alot more info more times per second which results in smoother more rounded waveforms. This will only be really noticeable though if you are recording the instruments your self.
Correct!
Also it depends on the quality of the system you are playing the files back on!


.

[futureproof]

Here's a quote from Francois K from a few years back which I think makes a good argument for seeking the best quality available.

***********************************************

I firmly believe, however, that no matter what style of music is played, inferior and lossy audio formats contribute to an overall mediocrity and degrade what so many of us have worked so hard to attain, especially when the alternative is readily available, and prevent us from fully enjoying music the way it was meant to be heard by its creators on large sound systems .

I think that those who limit themselves to playing a format that was designed for portability and convenience are breaking a covenant that always existed between performers and their audiences, where the performer is always bringing 110% to the stage, rather than being concerned about saving a few $$ on storage space. Either that or they have no respect for the audience's ears?...

FK

***********************************************

[Spicy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile

.ah yeah i see what u mean, i always attributed them to being tech geeks of the audio kind.
Of course there is an audible difference, but as posters have said previously in this thread it is alot more noticeable with different types of music ie: you will notice more of a differece if you recorded acoustic drum rather than electronic samples.

24bit/48K = 24 bits (1's & 0's) 48,000 times a second
compared to
16/44.1K

With higher bit and sample rates you get alot more info more times per second which results in smoother more rounded waveforms. This will only be really noticeable though if you are recording the instruments your self.well, i've recorded vinyl, instruments, vocals, and did (or tried to do lol) my own mastering at both 24 and 16 bit levels all for the purpose of seeing how each will sound. the results on my own ears are that the difference is inaudible.

on that note, my equipment is nowhere near as high end as proper recording studios. it might be a different story if you're listening on an expensive setup in a proper padded room.

i see exactly what you mean that a higher resolution will record a better sound for obvious reasons, and the same applies to all digital media, but i stand my ground that the difference between 16 and 24 bit wavs is so minute normally you could not pick it.

[kieren]

Nice one futureproof, gotta love Francois, straight to the point as usual!

I was surfing the net and found this on John Burnett’s website, this is one of the best descriptions of Digital audio I have ever read http://www.lenardaudio.com/education/18_digital.html


.

[kieren]

ah yeah i see what u mean, i always attributed them to being tech geeks of the audio kind.
Yeah people do, and some of them are tech heads (I probably fall into this category in some way) but most audiophiles I have met couldn’t even solder their own cables (if they could I would be broke). In general most audiophiles buy their equipment from shops like DJ’s and by definition are constantly up-grading “like DJ’s”!

A tech mate of mine in the UK said something to me last week that has stuck, he said “up-grading is addictive, once you hear a better sounding speaker, mixer, cart etc. it is hard to be happy with the lower quality one”. This is applicable to most things in life!


.

[muse]

My love for Francois K knows no bounds :) :-D

Ok maybe I didn't word my statement so well, I'm tired and fluey. Apologies for that.

I write music @ 24/48 and use mostly analogue gear, most samples I use are recorded at this bit rate also. Not having the luxury of pressing my tunes onto wax, I have to compress them to 16/44.1 for CD to play @ gigs. The drop in sound quality is most definitely noticeable and quite disheartening, which is why I can't understand how people could enjoy playing mp3s on a club system when 16/44.1 wavs don't even sound that crash hot.

That is all.

[Spicy]

it's because you're an audiophile! :lol: :P

[kieren]

I think most producers using analogue equipment are by definition audiophiles!

.

[Pro Tool]

Just to clarify some terminology being slaughtered in here - when you take a 24bit/48kHz file and turn it into a 16bit/44.1kHz one you're doing two processes which can be achieved in a couple of ways. The bit depth reflects the resolution at which the dynamic range of your material is captured and reproduced. This can be done by dithering (the correct way) or by truncation (the wrong way). If you truncate your 24 bit files you're going to wind up with a god 30% loss in your dynamic range representation and for sure will wind up with some strange behaviour with respect to how your louds'n'quiets are translated. muse I trust you're doing it properly?

Then there's sample rate conversion. That's taking a certain number of samples and more or less averaging them accross a smaller number of samples. Basically this reflects the highest frequency which is able to be captured/reproduced with a recording. A brief google of the Nyquist theorem will reveal a lot to those who've never heard of it and makes strange numbers like 44.1kHz make perfect sense all of a sudden.

Neither of these processes are compression. Downsampling and conversion, yes. The ultimate idea being to preserve as much sonic integrity as possible while staying clear of the boundary of what was calculated to be 'ideal' and 'imperceptible' at the time.

However I'm inclined to believe that muse is either doing something wrong, or hearing a difference because there should be one. As I've said before, if you can tell the difference between a 16/44.1 and 24/48 rendering of the same material on your $1000 monitors through your M-Audio shitofile in the corner of your bedroom, you're dreaming.

While I do agree that there is a perceptable diffo between 16 and 24 bits, you really need to be using material which will exploit the difference and be comparing them in a carefully controlled environment.

[Spicy]

yeah well i wasn't even bothering to argue the 44/48khz statement because noticing that difference is practically impossible for humans.

like you said, the bit rate differences are a fair go if you aren't deaf and have a high end setup which muse quite possibly has. mmm.. analogue knob twiddling action! :drool:

[Lee Michaels]

good to see this topic resurrected.

for better quality on a big sound system wav is best! Dumbing it down/rule of thumb; 128 for pods, 320k for bar gigs, wav for club and festival sound systems. I see top DJs getting tunes from www.dancemusichub.com in mp3, it makes me cringe!!!

mp3 loses <20hz, so while you may not be able hear the difference, you can certainly feel it. You wouldn't need wav for acapelas but one benefit of mp3 is ID3 tagging so you can file and find tracks easier.

hope this helps

[muse]

However I'm inclined to believe that muse is hearing a difference because there should be one.

yes i'm doing it properly, and there is a big sonic difference.

scuse me term nazi :P just joking, nice to see another protool-er out there

pls re-read all former posts, replacing compression w conversion

[Lee Michaels]

Here's a quote from Francois K from a few years back which I think makes a good argument for seeking the best quality available.

***********************************************

I firmly believe, however, that no matter what style of music is played, inferior and lossy audio formats contribute to an overall mediocrity and degrade what so many of us have worked so hard to attain, especially when the alternative is readily available, and prevent us from fully enjoying music the way it was meant to be heard by its creators on large sound systems .

I think that those who limit themselves to playing a format that was designed for portability and convenience are breaking a covenant that always existed between performers and their audiences, where the performer is always bringing 110% to the stage, rather than being concerned about saving a few $$ on storage space. Either that or they have no respect for the audience's ears?...

FK

***********************************************


I know that this (above) quote has been quoted already but it is FANTASTIC.

We are at a junction in history where we are accepting a poorer audio experience for the sake of convenience. NOT COOL! Despite the fact that I own dancemusichbub.com (I decided to launch it when I heard a 128k file played in a club in '05) I felt a loss when vinyl died and the loss was in the "warmth" of the vinyl experience. Generations to follow will not know any better. wav is the next best format option. please let me know if the wav handling fee we charge is a barrier to purchasing wav from our site. It's all about the music and I would rather forego revenue in favour of putting a better quality sound in the clubs.

[mcdoofus]

^ WAV service fee is the only reason I don't purchase WAVs. Storage space does not worry me in the least. Even a smaller service fee would be more acceptable - being on a budget where I can only spend a small amount each week on music means that I'd rather get a couple of new MP3 tunes than buy in WAV format.

[Lee Michaels]

^ WAV service fee is the only reason I don't purchase WAVs. Storage space does not worry me in the least. Even a smaller service fee would be more acceptable - being on a budget where I can only spend a small amount each week on music means that I'd rather get a couple of new MP3 tunes than buy in WAV format.

good to hear this feedback. anyone else? if there's enough support and where our supplier/label contracts allow we'll drop the wav charge. feel free to private message on this one too.

[Spicy]

put it this way -- if the labels and retailers such as yourself want the DJs to play the highest quality sounds, why the hell are wavs more expensive than mp3s? not only do we get charged extra to buy the format, but we have to waste more bandwidth to acquire the files which adds to the overall cost.

[macc4]

the wavs should be cheaper, as less processing has gone into them

[nats81]

The explanation I've read in the past is that sound systems in your typical clubs are such that you would never hear the difference between WAV and a 320CBR MP3.

And its a bit unrelated to what was asked, but WAV's do not support tagging like MP3's do, which makes WAV a bit inconvenient in some ways.

[macc4]

You can just burn it on to cd, and write on the cd. Quite convenient if you have the right sort of texta

[kieren]

Personally I am happy to pay extra, it’s not like it’s a lot of money!

.

[JoK3R]

i remember reading an article that some university group conducted a test on a group of people to see if they could hear the difference in sound quality in flac vs 128kbps on an ipod with standard earphones, thinking the flac will win hands down but to their surprise, most people selected the 128kbps as the "better" sound and their comment was they couldnt tell them apart.

so without the "proper gear" does it really doesnt matter??...

prior to me owning an iphone, i use to lug around my old 2gb ipod nano at the gym and i would normally convert it on LAME to variable bitrate with a target bitrate of 115kbps and honestly, you really cant tell, until you conpare them on a decent studio monitors.

i archive and backup my cds in flac, but when i transport them on a portable devive, its a low kbps

[Lee Michaels]

put it this way -- if the labels and retailers such as yourself want the DJs to play the highest quality sounds, why the hell are wavs more expensive than mp3s? not only do we get charged extra to buy the format, but we have to waste more bandwidth to acquire the files which adds to the overall cost.

I hear you! wav is a very costly format for us to handle too, due to storage and bandwidth. That and the fact that distributors (our suppliers) mandate we charge extra is the reason we have the handling fee. The ISP's are the ones who profit the most as they hit you and businesses such as mine with the charges.

Ultimately we can't dictate what format dj's play so we have to offer options.

the wavs should be cheaper, as less processing has gone into them

we actually receive files from most suppliers in a wav format, press a button and it converts them into 320, 192 and a streaming format for preview (easy from our POV).

[ChemicalJames]

lol, obviously wav's are more expensive because of hosting/bandwidth issues. Which is why i want to see flac available for download.

tbh i get most of my music in wav anyway but i do findmyself going over my quota almost every month. Which means i have to either buy mp3's toward the end of the month.

if flac were available from download sites it would help prevent this whilst maintaining the recordings integrity. I imagine it would also considerably lower costs for the distributer.

It really puzzles me as to why it isn't common place.

[Spectrum]

Dumbing it down/rule of thumb; 128 for pods, 320k for bar gigs, wav for club and festival sound systems.

Wouldn't those people with micro-drivers shoved halfway down the ear canal be in a better position to discriminate rubbish bitrates?

Or are those types of people already deaf?


mp3 loses <20hz, so while you may not be able hear the difference, you can certainly feel it.

What do you suppose is the low-end frequency response of a club/festival sound system?

How much energy is being output below 20Hz?

Seems like a waste of system resources (ie. amplifier power) to even contemplate it.

Don't most system processors run infrasonic filters (ie. < 15Hz) anyway?

Personally, I think managing a waveform wobbling as slow as 20 times a second is the least of MP3's encoding worries. Pretty easy to predict where the waveform will be in several miliseconds time. Compare that to the harsh reality of vocal reproduction and the fast, high frequencies of cymbals, for example, which is where I consider pushes the limitations of low bitrate mp3.

And for some reason, the club system keeps coming up as the ultimate listening environment for audio quality tests. Personally, I think it's just about the worst.

[RohanP]

What do you suppose is the low-end frequency response of a club/festival sound system?

How much energy is being output below 20Hz?

Seems like a waste of system resources (ie. amplifier power) to even contemplate it.

Don't most system processors rub infrasonic filters (ie. < 15Hz) anyway?


^^ this the clubs ive worked in just adjust crossovers so <20Hz is taken out anyway (we cant hear it properly whats the point of having it there?)

feel free to abuse me about this but eh.. from what ive seen its common practice in most places...

[kieren]

The sound spectrum is 9 octaves or 20hz - 20khz so this is what we aim systems to cover! Maybe not every track will cover this spectrum but the system should be able to reproduce every instrument possible!

.

[Spectrum]

And to illustrate my point again and to further put this 'mp3 is no good for club system' notion to the test, here's a linky for youse all:

http://www.geocities.com/cfr707/mp3.htm

Looking at an mp3 file under the spectrum ( :bl: ) analyzer...

http://www.geocities.com/cfr707/mp3_files/image005.jpg

Note the low frequency content is wonderfully supported, and in fact it's the highest of frequencies that get lopped off?

Anywho, perhaps this is not such a big deal after all given that the typical club PA box rarely extends beyond 17kHz (and certainly drops off before the average studio monitor or even iPod in-ear bud does) thereby further burying the beloved club system testing ground into the mud.

[mcdoofus]

lol @ AnalFreq :lol:

[Spectrum]

^^^ :lol: I so missed that!

[big eddie]

And to illustrate my point again and to further put this 'mp3 is no good for club system' notion to the test, here's a linky for youse all:

http://www.geocities.com/cfr707/mp3.htm

Looking at an mp3 file under the spectrum ( :bl: ) analyzer...

http://www.geocities.com/cfr707/mp3_files/image005.jpg

Note the low frequency content is wonderfully supported, and in fact it's the highest of frequencies that get lopped off?

Anywho, perhaps this is not such a big deal after all given that the typical club PA box rarely extends beyond 17kHz (and certainly drops off before the average studio monitor or even iPod in-ear bud does) thereby further burying the beloved club system testing ground into the mud.

The mp3 no good on club systems meme has a very different origin than the situation we have today.

When it first turned up, dance music mp3s were in general 128-192kbit vinyl rips that people were burning to cds and they did sound like arse in general on big systems, this had as much to do with the transfer from vinyl using dj carts & djm500/600s as a preamp as it did mp3 compression.

With a modern digital master compressed to mp3 @ 320kbps, the difference is much harder to pick, especially with dance music.

Listening on my cans or on a decent hifi system I can pick mp3s from uncompressed. To dance music I'm not familiar with on a club system, it's getting pretty difficult, if not impossible to do reliably.

My main issue with mp3s now is it is nolonger necessary.

Hard drive space is under 15 cents per gigabyte and we've got 10mbit+ internet connections.

flac all the way.

[ferretrock]

rule of thumb: all mp3s sound like shit.


when most people create music @ 24/48, compressing to 44.1/16 is bad enough :-O
I'd say that if you are producing, you should try 24/44, or 24/88. 48 is just silly nowadays if you aren't working towards a DVD, DVD-A or SA-CD final... you're hardly putting things on a DAT master.

I agree that the second I put the dither plug on the master channel things turn a little ugly. :(

i remember reading an article that some university group conducted a test on a group of people to see if they could hear the difference in sound quality in flac vs 128kbps on an ipod with standard earphones, thinking the flac will win hands down but to their surprise, most people selected the 128kbps as the "better" sound and their comment was they couldnt tell them apart.Yes - mentioned before... A bunch of old DJs listening at a club (Fabric).
And I said then, and I'll say it again... mp3s (particularly low bitrate... around 128-200kbps) have a very compressed sound. Percussion has a bit of a squish to it, which could be perceived as something nice for dance and modern rock/pop. When you're used to listening to more dynamic music, you realise just how shit this 'compress at every stage' mode of listening is.

[Spectrum]

I thought low bitrates were a good thing?

http://www.eskildsen.dk/Upload/HtmlArticles/Article692/BitCrusher.jpg

Or will people tell me it is it no longer 2003 now? :emo:

[muse]

I'd say that if you are producing, you should try 24/44, or 24/88. 48 is just silly nowadays if you aren't working towards a DVD, DVD-A or SA-CD final... you're hardly putting things on a DAT master.


Well a lot of the time that IS the case coz I work in the film industry.

That is not the point of this argument though.....

24/48 is more force of habit for me... yeah I could just start at 16/44.1 when making fat beats for gigs but I would prefer to have the original sound fan-bloody-tastic for my own enjoyment:)

[omnipresence]

I hate this argument but it's hard not to become involved. Actually, I don't have anything nice to say so I won't say it at all. Must... resist! :P

[big eddie]

Well a lot of the time that IS the case coz I work in the film industry.

That is not the point of this argument though.....

24/48 is more force of habit for me... yeah I could just start at 16/44.1 when making fat beats for gigs but I would prefer to have the original sound fan-bloody-tastic for my own enjoyment:)

What about 24/96, at least then you get a straight /2 to 48 and a bit more to work with going to 44.1

[wyzest1]

Wow, I missed a bit.

I'm pretty sure my nice concise observation (although my own personal experience) of what the perceivable differences between lossless flac and 320kbps mp3 audio lay, were enough for even the most die hard sticklers for purity and realism to realise that, in a club environment, where the audio systems EQ is shaped (generalisation alert), there is no/very little noticeable difference between these formats. (sorry for the convoluted sentence)

99.9% of the 320kbps mp3 digital files that come from beatport will sound exactly the same as the WAVs from beartport sound on 99.9% of sound systems. This is because not only is the detail that is destroyed in the compression so insignificant with the style of music released on beatport as well as the mastering techniques used on these releases, but also the speakers that make you dance in the club are the equivalent of a watch maker with Parkinson's when it comes to accuracy of that level.

I can't tell the difference between 24bit and 16bit at the same sample rate when blind A/B ing. I would love someone who can to tell me what they notice as the perceivable differences on any particular track - I only have a very small collection of 24bit recordings - to provide me with said tracks so that I can further ruin my enjoyment of inferior quality recordings.

This subject is fascinating, but there is a line where reality stops and idealism starts, admittedly, its one of the most blurred lines possible, but its there.

I work in a nightclub that has been extensively tested and tuned, Let me tell you, you can tell when someone drops a track that is below 192kbps. everyone in the club notices - they don't all turn around and go, wow, this dj sucks, he is playing low quality mp3s. They simply stop feeling that forceful edge of attack and vigor that a live clap/snare hit has. And like a bad choice of song, they lose that inhibition and reclaim control of their bodies, they realise they are tired, thirsty and horny, and that, is how dancefloors get emptied.
But the difference between the same beatport release in both the available formats is a audible as a scream in space.

[kieren]

And to illustrate my point again and to further put this 'mp3 is no good for club system' notion to the test, here's a linky for youse all:

http://www.geocities.com/cfr707/mp3.htm

Looking at an mp3 file under the spectrum ( :bl: ) analyzer...

http://www.geocities.com/cfr707/mp3_files/image005.jpg

Note the low frequency content is wonderfully supported, and in fact it's the highest of frequencies that get lopped off?

Anywho, perhaps this is not such a big deal after all given that the typical club PA box rarely extends beyond 17kHz (and certainly drops off before the average studio monitor or even iPod in-ear bud does) thereby further burying the beloved club system testing ground into the mud.
The only real way to make a comparison in a graph like that would be to use white or pink noise, taking the average peaks from music is almost insane if you want to prove how good a MP3 is compared to a WAV. You would need to record the pink or white noise as a WAV then make a copy converted into a MP3 then show me a graph and one showing under the 3khz area a lot clearer. Anyone who has use analyst programs likes SMAART to help get Linier Transfer out of a system will tell you tuning to average music peaks is not precise enough!
The graph you showed was to show the degradation in comparison with 2 other graphs and it does that clearly but it was using music average levels (the red line) and only really shows clearly the high frequencies!


.

[kieren]

The range our ears are most sensitive to is 300hz – 3khz the slightest loss or distortion in this area can be very noticeable and is the reason why speaker designers try to avoid placing a crossover point in this area although this is unavoidable in high powered systems as you will generally blow compression driver/horn trying to play them from 3khz to 20khz at high volumes (hence the need for ultra high frequency tweeters like bullets & slots in the old days) so generally you bring the compression driver/horn down closer to 1khz and run a tweeter from around 7khz up.

our ears (generally speaking) are -20db less sensitive at 20hz than at 40hz and a lot of lazy system designers will shelf a system at 40hz, 50hz or even 60hz but as a bass note can be clean down to 42hz this is a very un-musical practice and something I consider a cop out.

I think my point is that you may not be able to hear a difference on the system you play on now but what will you do when all you have is your 128-192 MP3’s and you get to play on a high end system and the guy before you had vinyl or WAV files?

.

[big eddie]

The thing is though, low bitrate mp3s are now an anachronism. People may have 'legacy' collections of them, but where are people buying them from now?

[kieren]

Personally I think as long as you can get them DJ’s should be buying “Loss-less un-compressed” formats but obviously not many DJ’s give a shit these days!

.

[ChadPMIK]

I hate this argument but it's hard not to become involved. Actually, I don't have anything nice to say so I won't say it at all. Must... resist! :P
:nooo:

[big eddie]

Personally I think as long as you can get them DJ’s should be buying “Loss-less un-compressed” formats but obviously not many DJ’s give a shit these days!


I've bought plenty of white label records in my time which certainty left a bit to be desired sound quality wise. But I bought them because it was the only way to get that tune. These days I'd prefer flac as I've said, but I think it's very easy to become bogged down in semantics on the internets.

It's unfortunate for a lot of nub kid djs out there now is that there is just so much poor (mis)information circulated on so many topics.

[Spicy]

What about 24/96, at least then you get a straight /2 to 48 and a bit more to work with going to 44.1seems a little pointless doesn't it? humans can barely hear past 20khz, and 96khz (48/nyquist/blahblah) would probably only be apparent when doing a spectral analysis. certainly wouldn't make a difference to the ears i think.

so what exactly are you guys looking for in that upper most frequency range if you can't even hear it?

[futureproof]

I understand all the good points about the scientific side of this discussion, but for me its a simple principle.

Everyone agrees that piracy is bad because it short changes the producers of music.

Similarly, I see it that DJs should feel obligated to the patrons of the bars/clubs they play at, to always play the highest quality format they can.
These people are paying your wages and deserve the best.
The argument about bar/club sound systems not being good enough to notice the difference is fair enough, but that is the venue owners fault not the DJs.
Maybe if more DJs complained to venue owners that "My WAVs sound like MP3s" regularly, then things might get better.

I am fully aware that this sounds blindly idealistic, but the old adage 'If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem' seems to have some relevance here.

[macc4]

I understand all the good points about the scientific side of this discussion, but for me its a simple principle.

Everyone agrees that piracy is bad because it short changes the producers of music.

Similarly, I see it that DJs should feel obligated to the patrons of the bars/clubs they play at, to always play the highest quality format they can.
These people are paying your wages and deserve the best.
The argument about bar/club sound systems not being good enough to notice the difference is fair enough, but that is the venue owners fault not the DJs.
Maybe if more DJs complained to venue owners that "My WAVs sound like MP3s" regularly, then things might get better.

I am fully aware that this sounds blindly idealistic, but the old adage 'If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem' seems to have some relevance here.

If we are talking sound quality, why not take it a step further and only play vinyl ?

[futureproof]

If we are talking sound quality, why not take it a step further and only play vinyl ?

What's vinyl ?

[macc4]

vinyl is the HQ futureproof anti piracy medium

[futureproof]

Sounds good, probably deserves a thread of it's own though.

[kieren]

I've bought plenty of white label records in my time which certainty left a bit to be desired sound quality wise. But I bought them because it was the only way to get that tune. These days I'd prefer flac as I've said, but I think it's very easy to become bogged down in semantics on the internets.

It's unfortunate for a lot of nub kid djs out there now is that there is just so much poor (mis)information circulated on so many topics.
Yeah I have vinyl that would sound worse than a 128 MP3 but I, like you bought then because I couldn’t get a better version, these days there is often the option to grab the WAV, I’m not saying DJ should switch to vinyl but at least buy the best format you can get! And the cost is insignificant even if you need a bigger connection, as DJ’s survived for years spending $200odd a week on vinyl, crap I still do spend around $200 a week.

Yeah quite often I just keep out of it as I can’t be bothered with the arguments “hence why I am avoiding a couple of threads on ITM ”. Is there a point to this battle when intelligent discussion is overwhelmed by misinformed dribble? I believe some new DJ want to step up to the plate but are just so misinformed they will never get there!


.

[macc4]

I believe some new DJ want to step up to the plate but are just so misinformed they will never get there!


.

Herein lies the problem with the fresh batch, they expect all the answers to be displayed clearly in point form on the internet.

[kieren]

seems a little pointless doesn't it? humans can barely hear past 20khz, and 96khz (48/nyquist/blahblah) would probably only be apparent when doing a spectral analysis. certainly wouldn't make a difference to the ears i think.

so what exactly are you guys looking for in that upper most frequency range if you can't even hear it?
I am lost, who is trying to produce 96 kHz, and even dogs can’t hear that, at high enough spl it might affect you but probably not your ears?:stroke:

.

[kieren]

Herein lies the problem with the fresh batch, they expect all the answers to be displayed clearly in point form on the internet.
Yeah the net is never going to provide perfect information, the information is out there but if you don’t understand the basics you will never be able to filter the craptalkers out, and if you know the basics you wouldn’t need to ask the questions in the first place….. Catch 22 I thing (I use to own a bar called Catch 22).

.

[Spicy]

I am lost, who is trying to produce 96 kHz, and even dogs can’t hear that, at high enough spl it might affect you but probably not your ears?big eddie mentioned it because one of the other guys works with high sampling frequencies.

if you go by the nyquist theorem, the ideal sampling rate would be double that of the highest frequency of whatever you're sampling. so sampling at a rate of 96khz would mean the highest frequency coming from your source is 48khz, which is about 28khz higher than what humans can hear.

understandably i have some flac files of records which were sampled using a very high quality setup, and they were done at 96/24 in order to make the digital transfer as accurate as possible. it's fairly unnecessary but those audiophiles.. you can never please them! :P

unless you're going to press a nice chunky thick 45rpm record, working in such high sampling rates is fairly pointless isn't it?

[kieren]

big eddie mentioned it because one of the other guys works with high sampling frequencies.

if you go by the nyquist theorem, the ideal sampling rate would be double that of the highest frequency of whatever you're sampling. so sampling at a rate of 96khz would mean the highest frequency coming from your source is 48khz, which is about 28khz higher than what humans can hear.

understandably i have some flac files of records which were sampled using a very high quality setup, and they were done at 96/24 in order to make the digital transfer as accurate as possible. it's fairly unnecessary but those audiophiles.. you can never please them! :P

unless you're going to press a nice chunky thick 45rpm record, working in such high sampling rates is fairly pointless isn't it?
Ok, you’re talking sampling rate, as far as I remember the Sampling rate does set the frequency response but it is normally higher than double the highest frequency required and speakers in general are not likely to play over 20khz like you said. Also I though all measurements for digital file sampling rates was in words per second & DB range and not frequencies as it is a file of 1’s & 0’s?
Though I’m not a expert in digital technology I thought CD’s where 44.1k and pro audio can be 48k.

I’ll have to look this up when I get a chance, I don’t get to deal with this stuff much; I’m a bit confused now!

.

[kieren]

understandably i have some flac files of records which were sampled using a very high quality setup, and they were done at 96/24 in order to make the digital transfer as accurate as possible. it's fairly unnecessary but those audiophiles.. you can never please them! :P
I always thought that 96/24 would mean “bits per word/sample rate” not the other way around?

I’m lost, it doesn’t help that I spent the night soldering and doing my tax, I think I should go to bed and re-think this later!


Oh and your so right on the audiophile comment, i just got off the phone with a client who wants to use my recording booth to compare drivers for his vintage cabinets,,, nuts, actully not a bad idea but nuts none the less!

.

[Spicy]

yeah exactly. and CDs were set to 44.1k (so response would be up to 22.05) because that's more than what most speakers and human ears can handle anyway.

hmm let me see if i can find a good thread about it - pretty sure there was one in the last 6 months or so either in this forum or the music studio. i think it was here though.

[kieren]

yeah exactly. and CDs were set to 44.1k (so response would be up to 22.05) because that's more than what most speakers and human ears can handle anyway.

hmm let me see if i can find a good thread about it - pretty sure there was one in the last 6 months or so either in this forum or the music studio. i think it was here though.
I posted this before, it's great though i haven't read it for ages but i think John Burnet is a king. http://www.lenardaudio.com/education/18_digital.html check it out, i am reading it now (though i'm a bit crosseyed)....

.

[RohanP]

I always thought that 96/24 would mean “bits per word/sample rate” not the other way around?

.

Its 96kHz/24bit (thats recording studio quality) then most studios mix, then dither to 44.1kHz/16bit for CD mastering..

or now days you'll find electronic music producers will use 48kHz/32bit but theres no point really unless the samples are recorded in 32bit, which im pretty sure most recording studios dont support (although i could be wrong).

[kieren]

Its 96kHz/24bit (thats recording studio quality) then most studios mix, then dither to 44.1kHz/16bit for CD mastering..

or now days you'll find electronic music producers will use 48kHz/32bit but theres no point really unless the samples are recorded in 32bit, which im pretty sure most recording studios dont support (although i could be wrong).
Yeah sorry i put that wrong, i have no idea what i meant!

Then the 96khz would just be an attempt to oversample at 48khz in order to keep the resolution higher in the DAC or ADC. I’m not to sure how this works really, I assume it is to use lower quality converters!

Yeah 32bit would up the game considerably!

.

[Spicy]

adobe audition doesn't do 24 bits, it jumps from 16 to 32. not sure why though.

[RohanP]

yeh its weird, most modern programs dont, FL doesnt do 24bit either it goes straight from 16bit integer to 32bit floating point.

[kieren]

does this mean i'm going to have to upgrade my MOTO24i/o again. I haven't enev used my studio much and it's already outdated... Such is life these days... LOL.

[muse]

If we are talking sound quality, why not take it a step further and only play vinyl ?


I do

[RohanP]

haha if its 16bit maybe.. 24bit just gives you a better dynamic range i believe around 140dB instead of 96dB (16bit).

just means u can record without using as much compression (or none at all depending on whats being recorded) also when recording quiet vocals its way easier to keep it above the noise floor = easier mixing :D

[muse]

I'd say that if you are producing, you should try 24/88.

this is a good idea, and I have checked it with my guru who also agrees with you.

My G5 and storage space can't handle this but am upgrading to a Mac Pro in a few months so I'll definitely give it a whirl then.

cheers :)

[Pro Tool]

does this mean i'm going to have to upgrade my MOTO24i/o again. I haven't enev used my studio much and it's already outdated... Such is life these days... LOL.
Naw you're still close to the top of the heap with that believe it or not.

[kieren]

Naw you're still close to the top of the heap with that believe it or not.
Top of the Shit heap right!:rock:

.