| Author
|
320 vs. wav
|
distantcontact
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
79
Posted : Mar 18, 2009 21:16:05
|
I am sure this has been discussed, but I couldn't find it in the search - so sorry mods if this is redundant.
So I am in the market for some new tracks which I would eventually like to compile into a dj set which optimally would be played at a party on a large sound system - about 30k. I am in a grind for money right now and am interested in downloading digitally as it is the fastest and cheapest for specific tracks. 320 tracks are about a dollar less than wav tracks....It's the difference of about 15 tracks .
I have played on a large system, but it was a while a go and I am having a hard time remembering if I could hear any difference between 320 and wav or flac vs wav.
On my alesis mk2 monitors I can't hear any specific audible difference between the two (I conducted a blind test) although i did feel the wav track was a tad punchier in the bass.
So!!! drop some knowledge on me people! Give me your experiences with various qualities on a large system. I have a few albums that were sent to me by artists in flacs too- Any info on flac vs wav would be appreciated too! |
|
|
VINICIUS OIB
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
184
Posted : Mar 18, 2009 21:38
|
A "dumb" advice... eheheheheh... my opinion:
FLAC - Lossless
Not really true. It has a small lost (something about 2 - 4%) and the bitrate is variable (not constant like wav).
So... "maybe" can cause unexpected effects.
Quote:
|
On 2009-03-18 21:16:05, distantcontact wrote:
On my alesis mk2 monitors I can't hear any specific audible difference between the two (I conducted a blind test) although i did feel the wav track was a tad punchier in the bass.
|
|
"Hard-bass feelings" bro. That's the point.
 https://soundcloud.com/viniciusoib
https://www.mixcloud.com/viniciusoib2/
Celebratiohm Crew - Brazil |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Mar 18, 2009 22:00
|
Despite what a lot of people will claim, it has been repeatedly determined in blind tests that LAME encoded 320kbps is transparent, with the exception of extremely rare exceptions where you have unusual source material that exposes issues with the encoder.
And that is regardless of if you listen on a top quality PA, esoteric mastering speakers or cheap consumer equipment.
But one thing to remember is that if you apply any processing the psycho-acoustic model will break down which results in a discernible difference.
I would not say that is a huge issue though, since it will only be apparent when you are doing very obvious processing in which case it's not so bad if the sound get very slightly more messed up.
The price difference is really a joke since we are talking about very small amounts today for the storage and transmission of the extra bytes. I did some calculation with Amazon S3 prices and I think that the extra cost for a FLAC compared to an mp3 would be around $0.1-0.2 depending on how many copies you sell per month.
But for some reason the few shops that sell FLAC usually charge an extremly hefty premium, and thinking only about quality you or the audience will not notice a difference regardless of how good ears and playback system you have.
But on the other hand there is a lot of misconceptions and scepticism about mp3, and the extra cost could be worth it just for peace of mind for you and the audience should they find out you use mp3's.
Blind tests is good for determining the actual facts, but still placebo is very noticeable with audio, so if you or anyone else suspect it is not sounding really good it will not sound really good.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Mar 18, 2009 22:06
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-03-18 21:38, VINICIUS OIB wrote:
A "dumb" advice... eheheheheh... my opinion:
FLAC - Lossless
Not really true. It has a small lost (something about 2 - 4%)
|
|
It's very easy to test for yourself. Take a track, make a FLAC, decompress to wav.
Do a bit-comparison and you will see that the PCM data is identical.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Symptom
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
19
Posted : Mar 18, 2009 23:01
|
Well here goes my point of view. An MP3's average size is 10 MB.
--------------------------------------------
A WAV's average size is 80MB.
--------------------------------------------
There is a reason why the size is bigger and that is quality 
--------------------------------------------
You will sometimes hear comments from DJs that there is no difference those are the ones that play MP3's.
------------------------------------------------------
If you want to do things right start getting WAV or FLAC.
For my self I do it as motivation... to appreciate my music more, having it in lossless quality.
Rather than having 7,000 MP3's. I'll have 1,000 but I will sure appreciate what I have.
---------------------------------------------
I am not aggainst MP3 djs so it's everyone's choice and this is just my point of view. |
|
|
|
~d2~
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
751
Posted : Mar 18, 2009 23:08
|
FLAC is a lossless compression format 
When done right Mp3's at 320kbps can sound very close to wav. The downside is that mp3compression requires extra headroom to avoid distorting. The lower the bitrate the more headroom. Good preparation of files ready for mp3 compression is not often practiced.
The other thing to consider is that mp3 is really best though of as a once only process and the end of the production chain. If in the future you decide you want to edit or sample a song then wav is a better choice.
|
|
|
|
theendtone
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
20
Posts :
100
Posted : Mar 19, 2009 19:04
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-03-18 23:01, Symptom wrote:
Well here goes my point of view. An MP3's average size is 10 MB.
--------------------------------------------
A WAV's average size is 80MB.
--------------------------------------------
There is a reason why the size is bigger and that is quality
--------------------------------------------
You will sometimes hear comments from DJs that there is no difference those are the ones that play MP3's.
------------------------------------------------------
If you want to do things right start getting WAV or FLAC.
For my self I do it as motivation... to appreciate my music more, having it in lossless quality.
Rather than having 7,000 MP3's. I'll have 1,000 but I will sure appreciate what I have.
---------------------------------------------
I am not aggainst MP3 djs so it's everyone's choice and this is just my point of view.
|
|
+1
|
|
|
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Mar 19, 2009 19:26
|
In the end 320kbps mp3 is not BAD quality. It will sound good on a large sound system. That's what djs should really be concerned about, not the slight improvements in sound quality you get from wavs that almost no one at a party will notice.
http://soundcloud.com/ascensionsound
www.chilluminati.org - Midwest based psytrance group |
|
|
|
famiable
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
19
Posts :
201
Posted : Mar 19, 2009 20:19
|
Point well made:) SOmetimes even when you have the wav files and the cleanest production quality from the artist..the sound is finally limited to how good the speakers are and the tuning of the sound system..
assuming everything else is perfect..320 and wavs are hard to distinguish which has been proven many times by now..but to each their own..
Quote:
|
On 2009-03-19 19:26, Ascension wrote:
In the end 320kbps mp3 is not BAD quality. It will sound good on a large sound system. That's what djs should really be concerned about, not the slight improvements in sound quality you get from wavs that almost no one at a party will notice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
~d2~
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
751
Posted : Mar 19, 2009 20:54
|
|
Can anyone link me to some evidence of this 320kbps transparency. |
|
|
|
x-rayz
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
576
Posted : Mar 19, 2009 22:51
|
|
~d2~
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
751
Posted : Mar 19, 2009 23:12
|
You might have to convert the mp3 to wav to try it.
|
|
|
|
RK9
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
21
Posts :
210
Posted : Mar 20, 2009 04:10
|
also depends on the kind of music.
Music with lots of clean tones will compress very well. Very atonal music with nots of hissy and scratchy sounds will be treated very badly by MP3
Here's a test: make a .wav of full-volume white noise (such that each sample is uniformly random across the whole dynamic range) and then compress to mp3. You might have to drop the quality down to 192 or 128 for the effect to be dramatic enough but it's still there at 320. |
|
|
|
x-rayz
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
576
Posted : Mar 20, 2009 10:16
|
|
Psynthex
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
41
Posts :
677
Posted : Mar 20, 2009 11:42
|
Nice debate Keep on doing it and please report  To hear some results
Psynthex [ Vertikal Records ]
http://www.myspace.com/psynthex
Minniq [ Parked Below Records ]
Frequent Pill [ Ultimae Records ] |
|
|
|
