| Author
|
320 Kbps - Wave
|
gill
Melorix
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
628
Posted : Jun 16, 2006 15:07
|
|
Ashleee
Started Topics :
2
Posts :
27
Posted : Jun 16, 2006 20:28
|
Imo it doesnt matter, it still sounds phat and is most definatly still worth dancing to!
Just because the sound is of a slightly lower quailty does not mean im not gonna dance like there is no tomorrow.
My only worry would be that it could effect the trance state. If a wav was to be mixed with a mp3, there is a possability you could here the difference of quality which would kinda knock you out of it a bit. |
|
|
Krell
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1114
Posted : Jun 16, 2006 22:38
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-06-16 20:28, Ashleee wrote:
Imo it doesnt matter, it still sounds phat and is most definatly still worth dancing to!
Just because the sound is of a slightly lower quailty does not mean im not gonna dance like there is no tomorrow.
My only worry would be that it could effect the trance state. If a wav was to be mixed with a mp3, there is a possability you could here the difference of quality which would kinda knock you out of it a bit.
|
|
Yeah, that would suck.
However, the differences between MP3s and WAVs are so small that even IF you hear them, the differences in the production quality from artist to artists is still much greater.
So, in your case, dont worry, unless its a crappy DJ who will present crappy material to you..
In that case, it wont be because he/she plays MP3s, but because the DJ has no sense of overall quality - and also, then you probably wouldnt be dancing during the set in the first place anyway 
- Krell
 Label DJ>
www.jesterrecords.ca |
|
|
|
Pax
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
178
Posted : Jun 18, 2006 11:28
|
What about an MP3 encoded at 1008 kps?
Isn't that CD quality? |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Jun 18, 2006 17:07
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-06-16 11:36, TrippyJohnny wrote:
The day someone do a test on a full quality rig then there will be a truthful answer to the question.
I do think there is a almost no difference while listening at home on a hi-fi or PC. But I doubt there is no difference once played on a big rig.
and as a dj why play mp3 when you can play wav?
|
|
You obviously didn't check the link rah posted:
http://www.djmag.com/djtech018.php
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Basilisk
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
168
Posts :
2984
Posted : Jun 18, 2006 18:33
|
|
It would be useful to have a test with some highly advanced psychedelic trance... I recall Colin OOOD saying he had participated in some such test here at isratrance, but I don't recall ever seeing the details...
|
|
|
|
Rah
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
77
Posts :
498
Posted : Jun 18, 2006 19:37
|
it's the same link i posted in the first page...
elementoftime.net
musique à la carte in mp3 & wav.
Sonic-energy.net
Reviews, interviews, downloads, articles. |
|
|
|
Pax
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
178
Posted : Jun 19, 2006 10:10
|
|
oops it's 1400kps..my bad. |
|
|
|
dirty 1
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
141
Posted : Jun 20, 2006 17:31
|
this thread just seems like another excuse for people to excuse themselves for not buying cd's...
mp3's @320 is the same as a lazer print of a monet painting...good,just not good enough...
but save your breath guys,if these folk cant hear the differance between a original wav and a mp3 @320,it's just aint worth the bother explaining in words.
the better the sound system,the more obvious the quality of the cd.
|
|
|
|
pr0fane
Moderator
Started Topics :
418
Posts :
3816
Posted : Jun 20, 2006 18:50
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-06-20 17:31, dirty 1 wrote:
this thread just seems like another excuse for people to excuse themselves for not buying cd's...
mp3's @320 is the same as a lazer print of a monet painting...good,just not good enough...
but save your breath guys,if these folk cant hear the differance between a original wav and a mp3 @320,it's just aint worth the bother explaining in words.
the better the sound system,the more obvious the quality of the cd.
|
|
Nope, for me this isn't about people not wanting to buy CD's. I buy 5-10 CD's every month, and on top of that, a lot of music from sites like beatport.com and audiojelly.com (stuff that never gets released on CD anyways), so this is a quite interesting subject to me, as I of course want the best quality available when I play out. Audiojelly, one of the biggest digital suppliers of music for DJ's, don't even offer WAV-downloads, only 320 kbps. Do I think people notice? Nope, not really. The link to DJMag was a good read that supplied some real valid test on the subject instead of just biased and or/prejudiced opinions, and I think Krell had a very good point when he said this:
"the differences between MP3s and WAVs are so small that even IF you hear them, the differences in the production quality from artist to artists is still much greater."
On top of production, there is also the element of mastering (no mastering/bad mastering). The first releases on Digital Oracle are good examples of poorly mastered CD's. DJ pr0fane (Iboga Records) | Multiphase
www.sunrisesupplies.com | www.iboga.dk | www.soundcloud.com/pr0fane |
|
|
|
Rah
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
77
Posts :
498
Posted : Jun 20, 2006 19:38
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-06-20 17:31, dirty 1 wrote:
this thread just seems like another excuse for people to excuse themselves for not buying cd's...
mp3's @320 is the same as a lazer print of a monet painting...good,just not good enough...
but save your breath guys,if these folk cant hear the differance between a original wav and a mp3 @320,it's just aint worth the bother explaining in words.
the better the sound system,the more obvious the quality of the cd.
|
|
nobody excusing anything here. I like buying my music and owning the physical product. The problem is when you mention "mp3" people automatically assume we are talking about that file you downloaded two years of of the net or whatever. I'm talking about talking a properly mastered CD like pr0fane mentioned, downloading the latest LAME encoder and converting it to 320 (prefferably with -insane preset as spindrift mentioned). That's when you will fail to hear any difference between the wav file and mp3, unless you work in mastering studio or something...
elementoftime.net
musique à la carte in mp3 & wav.
Sonic-energy.net
Reviews, interviews, downloads, articles. |
|
|
|
PlutoDelic
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
244
Posted : Jun 21, 2006 01:53
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-06-19 10:10, Pax wrote:
oops it's 1400kps..my bad.
|
|
how i sad before, MP3 is limited to 320 KBPS mathematicaly, but if MP3 could be encoded to 1400, comparing it with a 1400 KBPS WAV would be really interesting, i think the MP3 processing is 10x time faster then wav, MP3 would defenitely WIN
PSYKS |
|
|
|
Cardinals Cartel
Black Machine
Started Topics :
191
Posts :
3097
Posted : Jun 21, 2006 04:49
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-06-16 11:36, TrippyJohnny wrote:
The day someone do a test on a full quality rig then there will be a truthful answer to the question.
|
|
Ha .. get out and wake up from your
trip johnny .. This day is behind us ..
Dont forget we are in the '21 century .
|
|
|
|
Dj Emotion
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
17
Posted : Jun 27, 2006 00:41
|
why not play records??!!!
Oh yeah....cause then we'd all only have like 20 records
|
|
|
|
superman
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
20
Posts :
219
Posted : Jun 27, 2006 04:20
|
320 maybe wont b different than wav when u hear it in ur computer speakers or what so ever !
but try to hear the big huge difference specialy the high frequencies in a big sound system and then u can understand !
Let The Game Begin.... |
|
|
|
