WAV vs. MP3

plaster · Post by **plaster** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:24 am

brianc wrote:consider this...

encode them with FLAC. it usually does a good job with compression, and it's lossless, so you can always convert them to wave files, which you can then encode at whichever bitrate you like at that point in time.

the original cd or already compressed mp3's?

.kavo. · Post by **.kavo.** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:35 am

plaster wrote:
brianc wrote:consider this...

encode them with FLAC. it usually does a good job with compression, and it's lossless, so you can always convert them to wave files, which you can then encode at whichever bitrate you like at that point in time.
the original cd or already compressed mp3's?

sure original cd or wav file!
making FLAC from mp3 ist transcode and thats crap!

plaster · Post by **plaster** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:25 pm

.kavo. wrote:
plaster wrote:
brianc wrote:consider this...

encode them with FLAC. it usually does a good job with compression, and it's lossless, so you can always convert them to wave files, which you can then encode at whichever bitrate you like at that point in time.
the original cd or already compressed mp3's?
sure original cd or wav file!
making FLAC from mp3 ist transcode and thats crap!

i wasn't sure which way was he refering to. yeh, transcode and oink give me headaches.

.kavo. · Post by **.kavo.** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:27 pm

plaster wrote:
.kavo. wrote:
plaster wrote:
brianc wrote:consider this...

encode them with FLAC. it usually does a good job with compression, and it's lossless, so you can always convert them to wave files, which you can then encode at whichever bitrate you like at that point in time.
the original cd or already compressed mp3's?
sure original cd or wav file!
making FLAC from mp3 ist transcode and thats crap!
i wasn't sure which way was he refering to. yeh, transcode and oink give me headaches.

take a

pill mate

clubfoot · Post by **clubfoot** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:24 am

well in the end i think i'm gonna go with 320kbps mp3s.

if there's no humanly audible sound difference then i'd rather save some money and storage space - wavs take more of both.

But is the usability of both types of file exactly the same on a CDJ? I'm talking hands-on control. Not sure if all you guys are using laptops or what.

theclockstrucktwelve · Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:28 am

plaster wrote:
theclockstrucktwelve wrote:
192 is garbage. I wouldn't go lower than 256
meaning...every time you go in a club, you take your spectrogram and analise? you won't hear any difference, trust me.

I don't have to "trust you" when I can hear the difference, along with any DJ or listener of a recording from a DJ.

lil' jerk · Post by **lil' jerk** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:53 am

plaster wrote:
theclockstrucktwelve wrote:
192 is garbage. I wouldn't go lower than 256
meaning...every time you go in a club, you take your spectrogram and analise? you won't hear any difference, trust me.

wow, you CAN'T notice a 192 kb/s bit rate ????

I'm going to assume you're just messing around with us...

theclockstrucktwelve · Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:59 am

clubfoot wrote:well in the end i think i'm gonna go with 320kbps mp3s.

if there's no humanly audible sound difference then i'd rather save some money and storage space - wavs take more of both.

But is the usability of both types of file exactly the same on a CDJ? I'm talking hands-on control. Not sure if all you guys are using laptops or what.

320kbps mp3 is the best option for that kinda stuff really..

if you were doing some studio mix and editing stuff a lot and whatever, you'd maybe want some wavs but you'll be in good shape for now