Trance Forum | Stats | Register | Search | Parties | Advertise | Login

There are 0 trance users currently browsing this page
Trance Forum » » Forum  DJing - 320 vs. wav
← Prev Page
1 2 3 4 5 Next Page →
First Page Last Page
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on StumbleUpon
Author

320 vs. wav

~d2~
Inactive User

Started Topics :  7
Posts :  751
Posted : Mar 22, 2009 15:52
I just blind tested 320 against wav with a reference track I use. I failed, however I have been mixing a few tracks so I am quite fatigued. The phase bleed was around 28dBFS on that track Dire Straits - Private investigation. I also tried a heavily compressed track which had been clipped ( these can cause more audible problems for the conversion) Again I couldn't tell the difference. That track had peak phase bleed at around -18dBFS . Prodigy - Spitfire.

I still wouldn't use it for production, of course, as the effect would be cumulative over various tracks. Not much of an issue with conventional DJing with just a few tracks but with more people using Live then there could be an argument for ditching mp3.

The thing is I can hear difference of 24/96 vs 16/44.1

I was surprised not to hear hear it. But there you go, you never stop learning and being surprised.
Upavas
Upavas

Started Topics :  150
Posts :  3315
Posted : Mar 23, 2009 09:44
It really depends what you are referencing with... nuff said!           Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/
Symptom


Started Topics :  4
Posts :  19
Posted : Mar 23, 2009 20:03
WAV is always good. There you go.
Vensker


Started Topics :  1
Posts :  39
Posted : Mar 23, 2009 21:30
WAV sounds better than mp3,even if you are playing with a good sound system; you can try mixing one WAV track vs an MP3 track, and you can hear and feel the difference.

MP3 is a compression, and it affects low and high frequences; Psychedelic music goes stronger on Bass lines, and this ones are mostly affected by the compression, "punch" sounds lower.


          www.myspace.com/vensker
www.dark-records.com
www.myspace.com/nucleocorpdjset
Psy_Clone
IsraTrance Junior Member

Started Topics :  30
Posts :  397
Posted : Mar 23, 2009 22:07
Soon the mp3HD will compete the WAV.
This should be interesting           Now say the magic words: Bleep Bleep Deep Deep Wham.....
Kane
IsraTrance Junior Member

Started Topics :  23
Posts :  1772
Posted : Mar 25, 2009 04:47
Quote:

On 2009-03-23 22:07, Psy_Clone wrote:
Soon the mp3HD will compete the WAV.
This should be interesting




It doesn't offer any significant advantages over FLAC from what I've read. Both are lossless and the (size) compression ratios are nearly identical..isn't this all that matters? FLAC has been around for years and hasn't replaced WAV, so I doubt this will be the case.           You believe in the users?
Yeah, sure. If I don't have a user, then who wrote me?
~d2~
Inactive User

Started Topics :  7
Posts :  751
Posted : Mar 25, 2009 13:22
+1
RK9
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :  21
Posts :  210
Posted : Mar 27, 2009 00:00
I heard MP3HD contains a regular MP3 stream and then also a lossless stream, so that it can still be played on stuff that only supports old MP3

That makes it even larger than flac, and almost as big as wav!
VINICIUS OIB
IsraTrance Junior Member

Started Topics :  11
Posts :  184
Posted : Mar 27, 2009 23:57
1 more "brain-chip" added! 10nx guys for the discussion.
So, agree with a lot of points of view.. and i "prefere" to play WAV tracks because:
- Original quality
- Bought it! Support!
- ...

By the way, i need a "cientific" explanation for the variable bitrate of FLAC tracks. So?           https://soundcloud.com/viniciusoib
https://www.mixcloud.com/viniciusoib2/
Celebratiohm Crew - Brazil
Colin OOOD
Moderator

Started Topics :  95
Posts :  5379
Posted : Mar 28, 2009 09:07
FLAC is able to use different compression ratios depending on the content of the audio file - a long section of digital silence is obviously more compressable (all zeros) than an equally long section of music.           Mastering - http://mastering.OOOD.net :: www.is.gd/mastering
OOOD 5th album 'You Think You Are' - www.is.gd/tobuyoood :: www.OOOD.net
www.facebook.com/OOOD.music :: www.soundcloud.com/oood
Contact for bookings/mastering - colin@oood.net
Kane
IsraTrance Junior Member

Started Topics :  23
Posts :  1772
Posted : Mar 30, 2009 00:05
Quote:

On 2009-03-27 00:00, RK9 wrote:
I heard MP3HD contains a regular MP3 stream and then also a lossless stream, so that it can still be played on stuff that only supports old MP3

That makes it even larger than flac, and almost as big as wav!



They're both generally around 5MB/minute..half the size of a wave. I just don't see why we need another one of these formats..I guess people need the "HD" part to take it seriously and start developing hardware for it.           You believe in the users?
Yeah, sure. If I don't have a user, then who wrote me?
dirtyphreak
IsraTrance Junior Member

Started Topics :  12
Posts :  297
Posted : Mar 30, 2009 00:29
mp3-j's sacks
wav is the way !!! respect yourself

there is a principle called GIGO = garbage in garbage out
is popular computing slang for “if you input the wrong data, the results will also be wrong.

Mp3's compression takes out certain frequencies through the way it is compressed, since these frequencies are no longer there, we tend to turn up the volume in order to compensate, the result is that the frequencies that are still left are too loud.
This results in serious loss of sound quality, especially low mid frequencies, mp3s compress the ultra-low and ultra-high frequencies that are mostly inaudible to the human ear.
mp3's actually get rid of around anywhere from 75% to 95% of the original waveform .
mp3's tend to destroy the ultra high and ultra low frequencies of a waveform          http://lamat-records.com
http://www.facebook.com/dirtyphreakgt
https://instagram.com/dirtyphreak/
Kitnam
Mantik

Started Topics :  110
Posts :  1151
Posted : Mar 30, 2009 01:44
all of you, please make a little test.
1. take an original wav-track.
2. make a 320 mp3 version of it. nothing else.
3. re-convert the 320 mp3 into a wav (so its able to beeing imported by your DAW, most of them do this automaticly)
4. open 2 audiotracks, one with the original, one with the double converted file, dont touch the volume-faders. leave it like it is.
5. turn over the phase of one audiotrack, doesnt matter which one.
6. press play

hear anything?
do it, its funny.
you should hear some very quiet signals at around 15-20 khz or something.

this is what your mp3 is missing from the original. if you hear nothing, then your mp3 does not made any loss of the material.

if you ask me, it absolutly that does not matter on 99% of all party-soundsystems, but everyone should judge on his own.



RK9
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :  21
Posts :  210
Posted : Mar 30, 2009 03:41
Obviously the signal is different and there will be an auible difference signal. That has no bearing on whether someone can tell the difference between the two in a normal situation.
~d2~
Inactive User

Started Topics :  7
Posts :  751
Posted : Mar 30, 2009 05:10
+1 RK9
Trance Forum » » Forum  DJing - 320 vs. wav
← Prev Page
1 2 3 4 5 Next Page →
First Page Last Page
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on StumbleUpon


Copyright © 1997-2019 IsraTrance