Should I get over my prejudice/ignorance/snobbery for WAV and change to mp3?
Home :: General Discussion :: Should I get over my prejudice/ignorance/snobbery for WAV and change to mp3?Reply
Should I get over my prejudice/ignorance/snobbery for WAV and change to mp3? Posted on: 24.04.2012 by Lin Danek A combination of audiophile snobbery, ignorance, prejudice and an ability to convince myself that I CAN hear the difference has resulted in me only buying WAV files from Beatport and JunoDownload. I am also fortunate enough to have a 500GB ASUS NJ61 that only has my (stripped) OS, Traktor and music library on it. Our currency is about to hit 8 Rands to 1 Dollar and I am reconsidering the cost of WAV upgrades. I've read the science (I'm sick of reading about WAV's "voracious appetite for disc space" and "once lost with compression, always lost to compression") but want to hear from this community. 1. Is WAV REALLY worth it? 2. Will I notice the difference? I really appreciate the sound quality of the S4 and don't want it compromised. | |
| Kiyoko Wellisch 01.05.2012 | Sorry? What do you mean Jonathan? |
| Lin Danek 01.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by MrPopinjay
Yes. South Africa is one of most expensive countries in the world. Totally insane Mr. P. |
| Rochel Gleese 01.05.2012 | Plus all the record companies pay to have exclusive advertisements on Beatport. They're double and triple dipping |
| Latoria Kavulich 30.04.2012 | its all about the benjamins. |
| Lin Danek 30.04.2012 | Further to that - we as 'private' subscribers will never know what an organisation like beatport actually pays for bandwidth, but it sure as hell is a preferencial (or 'bulk') rate. |
| Kiyoko Wellisch 30.04.2012 | Exactly ekwipt. Hell, let's look at other sites, like imgur, the free image hosting site- http://imgur.com/C67cg That image has used 13.35 GB bandwidth. They host it 100% for free. Half of the people who viewed it would have seen a direct link and not even seen the ads on the site... What about sites like zippyshare? I downloaded hundreds of megs off there yesterday since I downloaded some free compilation albums- did they ask me to pay a dollar for every 20megs? Hell no. Fuck I pay |
| Rochel Gleese 30.04.2012 | Beatport is making a freakin killing off the extra $1 bandwidth my ass |
| Kiyoko Wellisch 30.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by deevey
Do you see why I believe it's absolutely ridiculous that sites feel it's ok to charge extra for a measly 30megs extra bandwidth that we are already paying for? Bandwidth and storage costs practically nothing. |
| Lilliana Perris 30.04.2012 | Thats the general consus of this thread yes. On a bigass rig...and you getting PAID....get the better format. In a club etc, it is not THAT important. If you like Wav and can afford it, get it. |
30.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by ekwipt
In an effort to bring this back OT, in my experience if you're playing on big systems regularly then buy uncompressed, if you're just playing house parties/small bars/at home get 320s. |
| Rochel Gleese 30.04.2012 | I get what we're all trying to say but we talking about file formats not what they are being played on? We're going way off topic. But it's like me saying were going backwards in technology because we can use FLAC as an audio compression. Its like someone says FLAC doesn't sound as good a my valve amp I had in 1984. No it doesn't because it's not the same frickin thing? |
30.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by ekwipt
|
| Lilliana Perris 30.04.2012 | Guys.....your 'nerd' is showing..... |
| Dorie Scelzo 30.04.2012 | Rendered graphics. |
| Rochel Gleese 30.04.2012 | Just because the monitors resolution was set higher doesn't mean there was more information coming into it? So you had movies at higher resolution than 1080p playing on your 19" CRT Dell computer monitor 10 years ago??? LOL |
| Rochel Gleese 30.04.2012 | That's great that your girlfriend works in TV. What does she do? |
| Dorie Scelzo 30.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by ekwipt
HD video is the mp3 of the video world. It fucking blows, but it's marginally better than the cable tv we grew up with, so we're happy to have it. The only difference is that video files at 30MP/frame and 24 frames/sec are legitimately too big to stream over the Internet. FLAC isn't. |
| Rolanda Clodfelder 29.04.2012 |
I believe it's ridiculous that some stores charge more for lossless formats...
Personally I can understand completely why they charge more, I researched building a site hosting DJ mixes / tracks as just MP3 files even and the bandwidth costs via S3 or similar high speed service were astronomical when I ran the numbers even on a pretty small user base. |
| Rochel Gleese 29.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by mostapha
Most CRT is based on SD resolution which is 540i there's less information. CRT did have better colour gamut, low black levels and high contrast, but it has been superseded by LED technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube Have a look at consumer video cameras they're now shooting 1080p and 3D Have a look at higher end, we're going towards 2k and 4k viewing in the cinemas in the future. Even photography is going higher MP WAV and AIFF should be the minimum for DJs Let the iPods have their low audio standards, we should be pushing them |
| Kiyoko Wellisch 29.04.2012 | Good post, well said. |
| Layne Koop 29.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by Bassline Brine
Originally Posted by Bassline Brine
Originally Posted by Bassline Brine
I archive in FLAC...and I find that FLAC files are 50-60% the size of WAV files. Given that, a 1TB drive will hold about 40,000 FLAC songs. How much music do you have? If you can afford to have 40,000 songs...then just "don't buy" you next 100 songs and instead get a 1TB hard drive. I have about 3000 songs in my Traktor collection. That is everything I have even considered playing over the last 2 years (since switching to Traktor). And honestly, maybe 500 of those songs have been played more than once.
Originally Posted by Bassline Brine
I was CD based DJ for the first 10 years I was in business. So, I have had to rip my own music since the beginning. I started using a computer for playback in about 1998. My DJ computer was built in a 2U rack case and contained two 15GB (not a typo) drives. My desktop had four 40GB drives. To get it to fit...I ripped my "core" collection of about 120 CDs to mp3 @ 160. If I used mp3 @ 192, then the "core collection" would not fit on my DJ computer. Life was full of very hard choices in those days. In about 2002 my DJ computer had a 180GB hard drive. I re-ripped my full collection to mp3 @192. In about 2006 my DJ computer had two 250GB hard drives. I re-ripped my full collection to mp3 @ 224. Starting about 2008...I had 1TB of total external storage in my house. I re-ripped my full collection to FLAC. At least I will not have to re-rip again. I convert to mp3 "as needed". I convert to 192 for my iPhone...which is overkill. I initially converted to 224 for DJing...which was "good enough" on my system. After upgrading to a Yamaha 01v digital board to manage the PA...I find that there is a difference between 224 and 320....especially on quiet, acoustical or classical pieces. Since I am primarily a wedding DJ, that is an "interesting" difference. So...I converted my full DJ collection to mp3 @ 320...it took about three days for the computer to finish. BUT...the best part is that I keep the FLAC tags "current"...so I lost (almost) nothing when upgrading my ENTIRE music collection from "whatever" to 320. |
| Dorie Scelzo 29.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by Maxted
Originally Posted by ekwipt
So, no, video is not concerned with high quality. That's one thing where the analog formats just can hold more information. It's more expensive. It's a lot harder to work with. And the technology has existed to go back and forth between analog and digital formats for a while. But when it comes down to reproduction, HD video is worse than the technology that existed 13 years ago. And it all sucks compared to film. HD is the mp3 of Video.
Originally Posted by Bassline Brine
|
| Audrey Pinda 29.04.2012 | I'd love to be able to afford FLAC, honestly. But, I still don't have a huge hard-drive nor can I afford the extra $$ whenever I want to pick up a couple tunes. In a perfect world, it wouldn't be an issue or a worry. But honestly, I'm fine with 320 mp3. I've done the sound test back to back on a few different systems, and I haven't been able to tell a difference myself. I'm not playing on a multi-million dollar system, but you know what I mean. I imagine in the future once hard-drives eventually get stupid large and cheap, there eventually won't even be a need for a lossy format to save space. But we haven't reached that point yet. Right now though, I believe getting wav or flac is honestly just overkill. |
| Kiyoko Wellisch 29.04.2012 | I believe it's ridiculous that some stores charge more for lossless formats... |
| Rochel Gleese 29.04.2012 | So where to from here? We've gone from Records and Analogue Tape, to CDs, to Mp3s. I also try and produce? LOL and spend some good hard earned money on my sound quality and I'm sure the professionals spend a hell of a lot more money on their gear . I believe we should pay the producers and musicians (and I'm not saying me) more respect and play the tunes at the highest quality possible. Force Beatport to get rid of the extra fees for AIFF and WAV and stop buying everything through iTunes. We're bringing up a generation on poor sound quality with no respect for the artists. DJs playing rips off the YouTube and the Internet, where will it end... 320 MP3s ---> 256 ----> 192 ---->>>> how far will we go? I'd rather push for the download stores to a higher than CD standard Digital video wants to go up in quality digital audio is happy to go lower. Why? |
| Kiyoko Wellisch 29.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by djproben
+ lol, mailing a hard drive xD |
| Layne Koop 28.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by Maxted
Originally Posted by Maxted
Originally Posted by Maxted
I happen to use a digital mixer, and digital PA management...so that portion of my signal chain is also digital. There is analog signal path from the CD player or computer sound card to the mixer....and from the limiter to the amps & speakers. ALL sound is analog when it comes out of the speakers.
Originally Posted by Maxted
The mp3 compression removes some low and high frequencies. The compression also examines the song for instances where "frequency masking" is present...and the quieter frequencies are removed. And so on. |
| Melinda Shick 28.04.2012 | Ive found a happy medium using FLAC, file size is more forgiving than wav + has the tagging abilities of mp3 (not quite but good enough) - the main point being for me that when i burn it to a CD (yes i still use CDs ) it is the original wav. I do have mp3s, some are even 192 - but these are for listening not playing gigs. Theres no real argument sound quality wise for lossless vs 320 mp3, but there is some comfort for me in knowing i have that best possible representation of that sound (Okay higher sample rates, but as far as commercially available goes). There is also the matter of "fatigue" that is much debated, as our ears aren't meant for digital audio, some people argue that their ears "tire" after less prolonged listening to a digital source vs analogue. It could also be said that the perceptual encoding used by mp3 is putting more strain on the listener, with their brain and ears constantly filling in the gaps. I'm no neuro scientist however so i could just be talking shit. |
| Lin Danek 29.04.2012 | See what Tony Andrew has to say about mp3's in the 'Funktion One - Berghain' thread. Less than flattering. Back to source. |
| Layne Koop 27.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by djproben
Whenever I hear "audiophile" I mentally substitute "complete moron". Ironically, at that point, I don't have to try and change anything else about what they say...
Originally Posted by Le Goat
Originally Posted by Le Goat
|
| Danae Dumler 27.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by mostapha
|
| Catharine Okamura 27.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by mostapha
If we are talking about a certain website's "handling fee" it isn't the cost that people gripe at though, it is the bullshit. Now, if Beatport sold only WAV, and it was only available at the higher price bracket, no option, would we complain? Would we fuck, we would talk about our music with pride, because we would feel like the cost reflected the value of the music, not some arbitrary bitchass mark up. Please excuse my language, I fear I am somewhat in my cups.... |
| Dorie Scelzo 27.04.2012 | Nice post, goat. I agree with you very much in general with a few caveats. First, people may not be able to articulate or scientifically identify a good source from a bad one (statistically, most people can't). But the difference is still there, and between the vibes of people who can tell and subtle things that people don't consciously perceive…there may still be a difference. Does it matter? Who knows?! I'm not a researcher, and I'm not a doctor (though I do play a laywer on TV sometimes). There's at least one DJ whom I very much respect that posted–several years ago–that he believed CDJs were a horrible medium for DJs. It wasn't because of the sound quality, it was because vinyl records with a needle on them respond to the room. All the noise that the party makes, the reverb in the room, etc. gets picked up (to a very minute degree) in the form of feedback. Too much and it sounds terrible, obviously. But he believed that feeding that happy noise back to the party, however subtle, made a positive difference on the party. He suggested that CD DJs hook up a microphone and point it at the crowd (placed so it doesn't get feedback from the booth monitors) on an open channel with the gain really low all evening to simulate the effect. Was he full of shit? Almost certainly, yes. But he's still an amazing DJ, and if he believes it makes a difference…it makes a difference to him that comes through in his performance. Frankly, if I see a mic in the booth and have time to deal with feedback issues during sound check (if there is one) I'd do it just to pay homage to him. ……which brings me to this awesome metaphor:
Originally Posted by Le Goat
I can pass some blind ABX tests (though I've never done a full scale one with lots of repeated measures and statistics), and I feel bad playing MP3s if I have another option. Whether or not the difference in sound is perceptible to my audience…if I'm aware of what I'm playing, it might make a difference in my performance. I'm not at nearly a high enough level to really tell. But that's worth $1/song…easily. That being said, if the only way I had to play a dope ass song was a standard home audio cassette recorded straight off a broke-ass behringer recording console, you better effing believe I'd do it. But with what we're discussing, that's not at all the case. And if I were in that situation, I'd probably have the opportunity to re-record it for the artist anyway. |
| Catharine Okamura 27.04.2012 | I raised this very thread on a completely different community
(a popular British psychedelic one<naming no names>) the other day and funnily enough the answers read pretty much identically the same. Thing is, whilst the audiophile community may be technically correct, there are a number of different aspects at play for djs which change the criteria dramatically. Firstly the way we hear it - I believe for djs, while we might listen to our tunes ultra carefully on low volume in the middle of the evening , when we're mixing it is all about how it feels, we sidestep the stage of critically analysing every sound and go directly to the overall feeling the tune gives us, in which scenario the microscopic details such as reverb and delay tails, and the dynamics in the highs and lows, suddenly take on much more importance than they would do in the traditional home listening environment, even on very hi-def gear , simply because the way that we are listening to, and hearing, the music is different. That is why we use monitors, which might sound harsh in hi-fi terms, but allow us to perceive our music in a more "sound system oriented" kind of way. Secondly, is a point raised, funnily enough, by the proponents of the audiophile point of view themselves, and that is, that the experience of listening to music is subjective. While it may be true that even the most seasoned DJ might fail to successfully identify the mp3 in a double blind test, nevertheless when you are standing in front of a crowd, and you know, even if nobody else does, that the music you are playing is a feeble imitation of the real thing on a lossy format, can you really, deep down inside yourself, throw it down with the same passion and voracity as you would if you knew you were blasting out the pure, unabridged, passionate fury as the artist put on the record? This reporter says no. |
| Hipolito Scionti 27.04.2012 | I actually believe my s2 sounds pretty crisp. i got the limiter off and play well within any clipping (i believe) and with a nice fresh Inland Kevening
s AIFF (who always deliver their tunes at -6db for pro mastering and are pretty audiophile with their productions) and my vxt4s hooked direct all sounds super crystal and pretty lush. In theory its a an audio 6 sc in there so no reason it shouldn't sound clean. This has got a little OT but... yeah. |
| Dorie Scelzo 27.04.2012 | IDK…I've never used one extensively. But I'd bet money against the S4 being sub-bar. NI does make it really hard to run their stuff right sometimes. Part of me is amazed they're as successful as they are, but on the other hand……I'm still impressed when I see a DJ who isn't pegging the peak light of his mixer all evening and Pioneer started incorporating a post-meter attenuator to try and fix those problems, so……yeah… |
| Ok Moroski 27.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by mostapha
|
| Karren Rantala 27.04.2012 | I use mp3, from 256bps quality and upwards, even though I am an audiophile with a 10000 dollar hifi-system from Linn at home I have come to the conclusion that in a crowded club it doesn't matter as much the quality of your MP3, as the PA is not suitable of reproducing high quality sound, it's made to deliver booming loud sound to the crowd. |
| Dorie Scelzo 27.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by djproben
Hell, Bernie Grundman (I believe…could have been someone simlar) is a top-end mastering engineer who doesn't seem to know anything about digital audio. The guy's a genius at getting records to sound as good/loud as they possibly can and has a lot of grammys/platinum records to his credit. But he also runs a word clock that–based on his description–seems to have been modded to run based on cesium decay……because he believes that the commercial word clock (even the high end ones) aren't precise enough. He honestly believes he can hear jitter in stuff that makes the Apogee Big Ben look cheap. He also believes he can hear jitter between different brands of CDs…which isn't really possible. And he prefers for people to mail him a hard drive because copying digital data–to him–reduces quality similar to copying a tape. The guy's brilliant at what he does…but he spends a lot of money on crap that has zero audible effect. Snake oil is huge in audio. |
| Danae Dumler 27.04.2012 |
Originally Posted by RainerHaselier
ROFL and then a minute or so later "so, an mp3 is like Stalin to you?" this video is well worth sitting through the boring parts; this guy is ultimately really interesting. |
<< Back to General DiscussionReply