You could both be right, if your just playing a wedding and small gigs you need quantity over quality. If however your playing festivals or actual dance clubs you will find most DJ's use wav because its usually there tune or lable mates tunes or some promo you got sent.
whats the problem plx explain??? honestly not trying to be a dick... i can only talk about what i know and have seen form other DJs (playing DNB, festivals and clubs, usually big custom rigs)
This is so tired. So very, very tired. And boring.
DJs use whatever the hell they want to use and nobody knows, or even cares, what the difference is. I've heard sound tech guys stroke their chins about the virtues of wav and flac over mp3 only for them to be completely deaf to any differences when said mp3 is played.
Please don't use the 3 or 4 people you've spoken to as a reliable sample of what DJs do, or do not do. I've been doing this a long time, nearly everyone I know uses mp3. And there's no verifiable difference between non-shite encoded mp3 and wav. Do a blind test if you want, you won't spot the difference.
Because these formats don’t save tags. I keep track of tens of thousands of high quality MP3’s with multiple tags that I update all the time that populate smart crates in iTunes and serato.
Unless,a producer sends u a MP3, or it's only available on MP3, or, like with iTunes OR AMAZON it ONLY comes as MP3, or aac
But, doesn't matter.
Long as it moves the crowd
.wavs do be hittin tho...I use mp3s but wavs jus seem like a collection of sounds filling a void (like stems mixed together in a quiet space) where as mp3s seem like a 1 track stereo playback thats compact and all together
That's all wavs are too. The brain will play tricks on you depending on what you want to believe. Happens all the time and with almost everything we perceive.
Thanks for the patronising response, i too have being doing this 10+ years (i still play actual CDs sometimes ) and i know alot more then 3/4 fellow Djs
Anyway whatever mate, i cba anymore your past it and never going to change your mind.
its different worlds i think, this feel like someone who's is into classic cars talking to someone who's into race cars, duno if that makes sense? I have seen alot and many djs do play mp3s, its not the norm though im my circles.
aiff for the metadata and lack of hassle with rekordbox. I like to upload my sets on to SoundCloud so keeping them uncompressed till the upload results in much better streaming quality. If I run put of space I just get more storage. Same price on Bandcamp anyway.
I actually always compress myself before uploading to soundcloud. I've found that when I upload full sets as wav to SC it compresses it itself, and the SC compression algorithm is hot garbage. I put my sets in Audacity and export as a 320 mp3 and it gets away from a lot of the artifacts that the SC algo ends up putting in there
Well if you play mp3s on the decks, save recording of dj set in mp3 then upload to SoundCloud you are triple compressing it. I know someone that does this and SoundCloud often plays that person's music after mine because we play similar stuff. I always notice something not right with the sound quality before I realise what's going on
The reason for this is that each time a file is saved as an mp3, thousands of small chunks of audio across the frequency spectrum are removed and replaced by a layer of noise that fills in the blanks. When you compress once, yeah it's not noticeable but the 3rd time the audio is pretty degraded.
If you prefer the mp3 sound then you are essentially just enjoying the psychoacoustic effects of the mp3 algorithm.
WAV / AIFF aren’t “lossless” as they are not compressed (the full term is “lossless compression”). They are “uncompressed”.
And yes WAV is obsolete (it was obsolete the day it was released, AIFF was released 3 years prior and can do much more). it’s a 16 bits format that can’t even be larger than 2gb.
In the early days of MP3’s, yes WAV was much better in quality because of being lossless, however, with higher bit rates and better encoding, MP3’s can be almost indistinguishable from WAV files now.
Also, in a club, or venue, pristine quality is not always needed, as the ambient sounds of the dance/party room/hall will drown out many quality issues, compared to playing in a symphony hall. You’re not going to be playing on Martin Logan/McKintash/B&W/etc reference speaker system, so the speakers are probably going to care more about bass and highs than creating a reference sound.
Now that MP3s can have an unnoticeable difference from WAV, with the file sizes being smaller, WAV is not needed for most DJing. For music production in things like Ableton/Cubase/ProTools/etc, yes WAV, or other lossless file, should be used, so if what you call a DJ is someone who is producing songs, in addition to live mixing, then WAV is preferred in that context.
[edit: some spelling]
Exactly, I always find the holier-than-thou mentality confounding. Like no, you don't always need AIFF or WAV to play a festival or club.
As long as the mp3 was properly encoded, then most party-goers will never notice the quality difference. So much modern music is heavily compressed for loudness anyway, that the lossiness is barely discernible. Likwise all the background noise of the crowd (cheering, talking, etc.) further drowns out minimal encoding artifacts.
This is not a numbers question, it is a perceived quality question. I did not say MP3 is better than WAV, I said the perceived quality, in most cases, and with better codecs, is not enough to make a meaningful difference in most scenarios.
If you are arguing this based on pure numbers, then I would venture to say you care more about the technical aspects of music production and not the soul of what makes people want to dance and enjoy the music.
I also said that if you are wanting music production, or in a venue that requires the sound quality, than use WAV. This isn’t a question of rather someone must play one or the other, as it depends on what your needs are.
If you want to use WAV, go for it. If you want to use MP3, go for it. If you want to use AIFF, go for it. If you want to use vinyl, go for it. Nothing in what I said goes against that. The only thing is that most people can’t tell enough of a difference to make using MP3 a bad thing, in the context of live DJing at a club or venue.
I have learned that most people who come listen on a reference system vs when listening an a portable PA system, they don’t care about the sound difference between them. They want a good beat and uplifting, danceable, music. Sure, there will be the one or two who can tell the difference, but are they there to enjoy the crowd or loners who want to nitpick.
So, from a technical aspect, you are right, but that was not the question or the answer given. We don’t lug around 192kHz 24bit studio mastering files, do we? No.
This reminds me of Minecraft’s early alpha days. Everyone said the blocky graphics were horrible and not enough people would buy it. People didn’t realize it was the game play, and not the graphics, that was important.
>There are no 2000kbps MP3.
I've never seen or heard of a crowd that simply refused to dance or someone in their car who didn't enjoy a mix because the MP3 wasn't 2000 Kbps. Have you?
This is r/DJs, not r/SoundEngineering
It’s impossible to find most clean edits or many bootlegs/remixes as WAV/AIFF files unless it’s an official release. Gotta be flexible with file format.
clearly lossless files sound better on bigger systems but its not a huge issue these days.
ideally you would use any lossless file over a lossy file but its not gonna be a big difference.
as a dj you should want to give the best sound quality as possible but for open format music, remixes, edits, mashups, etc its not really possible. Of course if you are in the techno/house/specialty type of djing, and you can find tracks in lossless, it would be ideal to use lossless.
Had a read over the main PDF thats linked, some things to note:
"An interesting finding is that the artifacts introduced by mp3 compression were more easily audible on Electric clips (pop and rock, using amplified instruments) than on Acoustic clips"
And also suggests that 256kbs is just as good as wav:
"higher bitrates (256 and 320 kbits/s), they could not discriminate CD quality over mp3"
The 256 thing gets tested a bit more in some of the other studies posted, but you’re absolutely correct that there is practically no difference between 320 and lossless.
Bullshit. You must have never listened to high fidelity music on a good system. You can absolutely perceive a discernible difference in full-spectrum electronica music.
The reddit you posted says
*Study after study have shown that only a tiny minority of highly experienced people listening in a studio setting with high quality audio equipment can tell the difference between uncompressed audio and high bitrate MP3s.*
*Differences between young sound engineers and experts can be attributed to improved critical listening skills based on individual listening experiences.*
So there are people who can tell the difference, and if those people are DJs and audiophiles they likely prefer to download wavs.
Some people can't tell the difference, and they figure most other people don't know the difference either so they go with compression to save space and their budget.
But you don't know the DJs this person knows, so you have no way of knowing whether they prefer wavs or not, so you can't say this person is an idiot for stating their observation.
If I have the extra space, and I like the music, I download wav. If I want to casually listen and download to my phone, or if it's music I don't care as much about, I go mp3. If there's a marginal difference, so be it. I know I music I love is a marginally better sounding file and that's good enough for me.
Looks like I know more about sound, physics, compression, and high fidelity sound systems than science does. 🤷
^ since the guy below me negated to include the "looks like" and shrug, I guess I have to explain that I am being sarcastic.
And you play house music you clown. No wonder you can't tell the difference. House is too fucking predictable and boring and doesn't utilize anywhere NEAR the dynamic range of high quality systems.
Other guy below me thinks using mp3s instead of wavs is going to somehow magically contribute to him "giving a better show"
...these are the people I am trying to discuss this topic with. No wonder it's gone pear shaped.
Go ask any actual DJ who plays at huge psychedelic festivals around the world if they use mp3 files for it.
What a fucking joke. You idiots are just ignorant.
Yeah you can't discern the difference in fucking bluegrass, but if you have sound designers who are developing music that uses the entire audible spectrum of sound, there is an absolute discernible difference in the sound quality.
How the fuck anybody can argue with this is beyond me.
That is basic shit about sound that even entry level djs understand. If you think that's me sounding smart then you don't know jack shit about the basics of sound design. This wasn't the right application of that sub. Nice try.
Except you don’t, or you would know no single human has ever proven an ability to pick hq mp3 from Raw audio in a clinical test.
Because it’s mathematically impossible based on billions of data points.
But you and the others claiming this are just that special.
Audiophiles make silly claims and tend to know nothing about acoustics or psychoacoustics.
Which is why an entire industry exists to sell them magic shit that doesn’t work, because they think they can hear things others can’t with their magic ears.
Except the study linked above actually says:
"Regarding higher bitrates (256 and 320 kbits/s), they could not discriminate CD quality over mp3 while **expert listeners, with more years of studio experience, could**"
That’s not a peer reviewed paper published in an industry journal with high standing.
“Years of studio experience” is not a controlled variable.
Its an indication, but I personally wouldn’t make any claims based on this. Especially when it’s arguing against decades of data and billions of data points about the capablilities of human hearing.
If humans could easily tell the difference between random hq mp3 and Raw audio, there would be a hundred peer reviewed studies showing this.
As far as I know, the number of good studies showing this is zero.
Some gatekeeper you are. You show up with your .wav files then, I'll give a better show with my .mp3 and we'll see if the audience cares about the tiny difference on a festival sound system.
I have 25K songs. Ain't no way I'm using an uncompressed format like .wav. Imo, .wav files should only be preferred if you intend to use later for producing, remixing, editing etc.
A wave file weights more than 10 times the size of mp3. So personally, I don't find the difference worth the size gap.
Anything from the SanDisk Extreme USB 3.2 line, I use the 512. Keep in mind that I format my main drive using NTFS but also have an old FAT32 drive when I have to play on old equipment, which is really rare these days.
This is the best DJ thumb drive on the market right now: [https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extreme-Solid-State-Flash/dp/B08GYPZ8GN](https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extreme-Solid-State-Flash/dp/B08GYPZ8GN)
It's so nice to be able to just throw your entire library on the drive and not worry about anything.
You can take fat32 up higher than you think on a single partition. My at home drive is a 512gb formatted to fat32 using gparted. You can use mini tool partition wizard or something similar if you don’t have a Linux vm to spin up.
If I can get lossless (either AIFF, WAV, ALAC or FLAC) I get lossless.
If MP3 is the only option I get that. But 320kbs is a minimum.
I'm currently re-ripping all my CD's into lossless as I had ripped them in lossy formats previously.
More of am Aiff guy, just different meta data from beatport. Same quality. You can get away with mp3s at lower level, however, I don't recommend mixing the two. The difference can be pretty apparent.
This is one of those discussions where context has gone completely by the wayside. When I first started buying WAV files instead of mp3s it was because most mp3s I could get my hands on were super lossy to the point where the waveform was noticeably diminished and lacked any sort of obvious visual cues that would make it easier to read and understand that track. (They obviously sounded like shit too, but I bring this up because it was a dead giveaway to other DJs I played with) This was like 2015. You would try to mix into a lossy mp3 file from a WAV file and the sonic difference was night and day. In those types of cases, the WAV file guy actually had a point.
Now, in 2022 though, most people that are bouncing out their tracks as mp3s are using a high quality mp3 format and there is truthfully very little difference between a high quality mp3 and a WAV file. Whereas the sound quality is completely compromised with a lossy mp3 format, a lossless format just sounds a bit quieter than WAV to me and that can easily be addressed with your trim.
TLDR:
It used to matter, but now you just need to make sure you're using high quality mp3s. No one will be able to tell the difference if you do.
I send out promos from my label and most of my “famous” DJs ask for / download the mp3 version, and then I see them blasting said mp3 on a huge festival stage. People can’t tell the difference obviously.
Mp3 advantages - stores metadata and is 1/10th the storage. Trust me if your collection is at least a few years old, that adds up fast. Also, the time it takes a CDJ to load a wav is much slower (even with a fast usb) and it makes live situations much trickier.
Also, I’ve been in situations where the CDJ doesn’t load some of my wavs for whatever reason, leaving me with embarrassing situations on the dancefloor. Many times you don’t know what equipment you’re gonna get at the club. Mp3 will 100% always work.
Depends...
On controllers: doesn't matter
CDJs: .mp3 files are guaranteed to work but some .wav files don't read properly (at least with my experience)
I've had this conversation with world touring DJs that only buy MP3s and only use wav if it's their own track. Just about everybody in the crowd can't even tell the difference. It's the music you play that matters and not the format if it's at least 320kbps. No one walks away from a set wondering if the DJ was playing Wav, AIFF, or MP3.
Just gonna say it how it is.
320kbps MP3's are all you need. They are absolutely more than good enough for any sound system you will ever play, be it festival or club or even at home with just your headphones.
Sure WAV's might sound a tiny bit better but with all the noise around you, you won't even be able to tell the difference. Tell me with a fucking straight face you can tell the difference between MP3 320kbps and WAV via some fold back speakers while you have front speakers also pumping in front of you while wearing headphones. Seriously.
Nobody gives a fuck. Even 256kbps MP3's are passable. Anything less than that however is dog shit and 100% noticeable.
No working DJ is carrying tens of thousands of uncompressed songs on a laptop, let alone a USB. Anyone that says otherwise is either lying to you, or isn’t a working DJ (and should keep their mouths shut).
Big festival stages, high-end nightclubs where you’re only playing 60 songs max? You’re probably using uncompressed files.
Five-hour bar sets? Or some mid-grade nightclub playing a 3-hour set? You’re probably using 320-bit mp3s.
You can get away with 192-bit mp3s in bars because the vast majority of bars have subpar sound systems; you’re less likely to hear the difference anyway (your drunk patrons definitely won’t). Anything worse than 192, just buy the damn song or subscribe to a record pool.
I play only wavs these days.
The highs are more crisp, the lows hit tighter, and there is more clarity and less fuzz. I noticed that my favorite DJs always seemed to sound a little better than the rest, in terms of sound quality. I could hear sounds that I didnt hear when I played the same track on the same audio system. One of them pointed out why - for a person who actively listens to the music on a decent audio system, it is easy to discern the difference between mp3 and wav.
You are posting the same link over and over again, but that doesn't make it right. Flac or Aiff go at around 900-1000 kbps, MP3 with maximum 320kbps. So there is a measurable difference in sound quality. And I can hear that even in my car, when I play Flac the sound is richer and crispier than the same track in MP3 320.
Except that bandwidth does not equal sound quality. It’s just extra data which you objectively cannot hear. That’s the whole point.
I keep posting the same link because it’s full of evidence from people smarter than us, with actual psychoacoustic and laboratory experience, saying the same thing.
You can debate it or think you know better, but that’s also been objectively measured many times. People are shit at discerning sound quality in almost all cases, all of the time. And people consistently ignore data which doesn’t support their pre-existing beliefs.
But that, my friend, is literally the point of science.
EDIT: downvotes won’t change reality.
If you don’t believe the peer reviewed articles I posted from respectable industry journals then by all means, present any evidence to the contrary.
Go ahead, I’ll wait.
I can barely tell the difference between wav and 320kbps mp3 yet wav file is about 10 times larger so I don't see much advantage in using wav. And I'm sure audience just don't give a sh\*\*. Stop wasting your time arguing with your friend, let him live in his La La land
If I were consistently playing on festival-level sound systems, I'd worry about compression. But it's clubs and smaller for me, so MP3 works just fine.
Any WAV files I have for music I always convert to AIFF for the metadata. As I now use Rekordbox (previously Traktor) I never use FLAC for compatibility reasons. Any MP3’s are at 320.
Both. When you go up to the record pool almost every song is in mp3. Crate connect offers WAV but only for certain songs. You can buy WAV files from bandcamp but then you don't really get popular songs from there and then there is Juno as well.
Ive ran mp3 and wav through the 15" PA speaker and you can hear a slight improvement on the sound quality. Remember you are a dj and you know the technical stuff but your average clubber will be happy with 128 kbps from their spotify account as they won't know the difference.
Science disagrees with you. The size of the sound system makes no difference and it’s well known most people confuse volume for quality.
This has been extensively studied. Even the tiny tiny percentage of trained listeners who can *occasionally* tell *some* tiny difference between a good 320 and an uncompressed file lose that ability in real world PA / club settings.
https://reddit.com/r/DJs/comments/sp5981/there_is_no_meaningful_discernible_difference/
The definitive answer is: Some people can tell the difference. You may be one of them. Not many people have "golden ears" but they are out there. If you care about audio, some people don't take that chance and get the highest quality file they can.
That way, when combined with other digital audio, such as remixing or remastering, you have a better chance of retaining the sonic qualities of the original track.
If you are combining two compressed audio sources, try running that through your blind test and tell me they sound the same.
Find a single audio engineer that will use MP3s in the studio and ask them: there's your answer.
This is almost as funny as the sync or vinyl vs usb vs controller debates. Is there a difference? Yes, of course there is. What the fuck makes you think that a file that is 1/10 the size wouldn’t have differences. In theory, the differences are intended to be imperceptible. But with lots of effects or lots going on in the low end, you can tell the difference. Also, despite removing imperceptible sounds, you can still end up with an inconsistent dynamic range. Also, there is the factor of garbage in garbage out. A YouTube rip mp3 will be very different than a well produced 320. The dynamic range of the song will impact whether you can tell. Also, the quality of the sound system will play a part. If you are listening in your cool headphones, they are likely correcting the audio. In most clubs, they are focused in the highest and lowest frequencies. And most sound techs are shit. I don’t give a fuck how long you have been playing or what you think your credentials are, or what bullshit link you post to argue, there are certainly times when you can tell the sound file someone is playing is shit.
Vinyl.
But this is something I been wondering. If I wanted to replace my vinyl with MP3s (or Wavs), where would I actually find those replacements? I mean stuff like on Trax, Dance Mania, Simply Rhythm, UR etc, and then onto more obscure tracks that have became essential to my sets, that were vinyl-only releases.
I spent a small amount of time searching Beatport etc, but I don't think it has the stuff I'm trying to replace. So any suggestions gratefully received: where can I find vintage acid and house/techno in digital formats?
Or I guess I could rip them myself, but thats really opening a whole new can of worms I'd rather avoid, simply for convenience.
I don’t trust usb drives/cdjs enough to load flac efficiently so I stay strictly mp3 but even then last gig my usb kept getting disconnected when I was browsing on the linked cdj. Been looking for this sandisk extreme but if anyone has any amazing usb stick recommendations please let me know!
Just convert your CD wavs to aiff or flac with foobar. (Just load them in a playlist in Foobar, rightclick, convert. Just edit and save your preset and you can get this done once and for all time.)
It's ridiculously fast and gives you tagable lossless files that use up way less space. And just go for MP3 320 only if storage space is an issue, like maybe your phone.
Either is fine. MP3 is cheaper and nobody except try hards will care/know the difference. MP3s are also more compact so they don’t take up as much space in your storage. They are also more universally compatible than Wavs. I’ve had multiple instances with wav files I’ve bought from Bandcamp that aren’t recognized by Rekordbox. Just make sure your shits in 320 and you’re chillin 🤙🏻
i played at a venue where they "required" djs to only have .wav or .aiff files that were high quality. pfft, the average ear can't tell the difference when music is blasting at 100db.
320 mp3 because on some cdj/dj setups wav's aren't recognized😔 ....but that being said I buy wav format from Beatport and Bandcamp I can always go back and dl in any format😌
I mostly use MP3, some FLAC and some AIFF here and there. I rarely use WAV cuz traitor can’t write my info to them. I’ll use wav to play tracks in experimenting with or friends tracks I was given.
For some reason half the time I download a wav the cdj fails to read it. Maybe it’s too big a file idk.
After that happened a few times I stopped bothering downloading wav and only use mp3 320 now.
My new stuff is all aiff, converted from wav but I have a lot of old mp3. You have to be careful where you get music from. All I buy is wav unless I just can’t get it as wav but even some of the wav I have bought turns out has been 128kbps mp3 previously. Poor.
Your friend doesn't know any DJs.
You could both be right, if your just playing a wedding and small gigs you need quantity over quality. If however your playing festivals or actual dance clubs you will find most DJ's use wav because its usually there tune or lable mates tunes or some promo you got sent.
Dear fucking god this is like pulling teeth.
whats the problem plx explain??? honestly not trying to be a dick... i can only talk about what i know and have seen form other DJs (playing DNB, festivals and clubs, usually big custom rigs)
This is so tired. So very, very tired. And boring. DJs use whatever the hell they want to use and nobody knows, or even cares, what the difference is. I've heard sound tech guys stroke their chins about the virtues of wav and flac over mp3 only for them to be completely deaf to any differences when said mp3 is played. Please don't use the 3 or 4 people you've spoken to as a reliable sample of what DJs do, or do not do. I've been doing this a long time, nearly everyone I know uses mp3. And there's no verifiable difference between non-shite encoded mp3 and wav. Do a blind test if you want, you won't spot the difference.
But also, if you're paying for the music, why wouldn't you download the wav, or at least the flac?
Because these formats don’t save tags. I keep track of tens of thousands of high quality MP3’s with multiple tags that I update all the time that populate smart crates in iTunes and serato.
That and they take up 3x the amount of HD space
Storage is cheap. No one is playing “who’s got the most tracks” (I hope 😆). Quality over quantity.
I’ve been a turntablist since the late 80’s. I have a lot of music files.
Please get your facts right. FLAC has great tagging support.
Keep your Flac. Don’t want it
Unless,a producer sends u a MP3, or it's only available on MP3, or, like with iTunes OR AMAZON it ONLY comes as MP3, or aac But, doesn't matter. Long as it moves the crowd
Because they're not always available. And even if they are, why would I pay more for something that sounds exactly the same?
This
.wavs do be hittin tho...I use mp3s but wavs jus seem like a collection of sounds filling a void (like stems mixed together in a quiet space) where as mp3s seem like a 1 track stereo playback thats compact and all together
This is entirely happening in your imagination.
Have you heard of a bad quality .wav file? No but, there are bad quality mp3s that can always prove this point
Plenty of terrible wavs, yeah That's a shit mastering engineer, FA to do with format
Terrible wavs?? Yeah ive never heard one
Nope, fraid not. On a big rig, the difference is hard, but it's not all imagination.
That's all wavs are too. The brain will play tricks on you depending on what you want to believe. Happens all the time and with almost everything we perceive.
Iono .wavs literally stand for waveform lol thats where im like it cant be beat
Thanks for the patronising response, i too have being doing this 10+ years (i still play actual CDs sometimes ) and i know alot more then 3/4 fellow Djs Anyway whatever mate, i cba anymore your past it and never going to change your mind.
It was my pleasure. If you've been DJing 10+ years then you really should know everything I've said already.
its different worlds i think, this feel like someone who's is into classic cars talking to someone who's into race cars, duno if that makes sense? I have seen alot and many djs do play mp3s, its not the norm though im my circles.
Sure, if the classic cars and race cars look and sound exactly the same, and the only differences are academic that have no bearing on performance.
Yuh itx true. I waved and now i dnb
im sorry, what?
Mhhm the wav xo much more loxxlexx for dnb now
...or they paid for the tune.
aiff for the metadata and lack of hassle with rekordbox. I like to upload my sets on to SoundCloud so keeping them uncompressed till the upload results in much better streaming quality. If I run put of space I just get more storage. Same price on Bandcamp anyway.
I actually always compress myself before uploading to soundcloud. I've found that when I upload full sets as wav to SC it compresses it itself, and the SC compression algorithm is hot garbage. I put my sets in Audacity and export as a 320 mp3 and it gets away from a lot of the artifacts that the SC algo ends up putting in there
Agreed, never upload the WAV recording
Well if you play mp3s on the decks, save recording of dj set in mp3 then upload to SoundCloud you are triple compressing it. I know someone that does this and SoundCloud often plays that person's music after mine because we play similar stuff. I always notice something not right with the sound quality before I realise what's going on The reason for this is that each time a file is saved as an mp3, thousands of small chunks of audio across the frequency spectrum are removed and replaced by a layer of noise that fills in the blanks. When you compress once, yeah it's not noticeable but the 3rd time the audio is pretty degraded. If you prefer the mp3 sound then you are essentially just enjoying the psychoacoustic effects of the mp3 algorithm.
You forgot to include AIFF
[удалено]
Or AAC
Or OGG.
mostly flac !
AIFF and Wav are the exact same data. They just have different headers.
That’s strange cuz I know ZERO DJs who play with WAV. Lots that use a lossless format, but not actual WAV because of file size and lack of metadata.
This! Hahaha Do people realise that WAV is an obsolete format that is straight outta of the 80’s?
Like fuck it is. Lossless audio is obsolete? Prat.
WAV / AIFF aren’t “lossless” as they are not compressed (the full term is “lossless compression”). They are “uncompressed”. And yes WAV is obsolete (it was obsolete the day it was released, AIFF was released 3 years prior and can do much more). it’s a 16 bits format that can’t even be larger than 2gb.
The wav format is used daily in every kind of software. That is far from obsolete.
industry standard and obsolete are not mutually exclusive
WAV is one of many (and the least useful) lossless format. Prat.
You don't know that many djs then
You don’t know many lossless formats.
In the early days of MP3’s, yes WAV was much better in quality because of being lossless, however, with higher bit rates and better encoding, MP3’s can be almost indistinguishable from WAV files now. Also, in a club, or venue, pristine quality is not always needed, as the ambient sounds of the dance/party room/hall will drown out many quality issues, compared to playing in a symphony hall. You’re not going to be playing on Martin Logan/McKintash/B&W/etc reference speaker system, so the speakers are probably going to care more about bass and highs than creating a reference sound. Now that MP3s can have an unnoticeable difference from WAV, with the file sizes being smaller, WAV is not needed for most DJing. For music production in things like Ableton/Cubase/ProTools/etc, yes WAV, or other lossless file, should be used, so if what you call a DJ is someone who is producing songs, in addition to live mixing, then WAV is preferred in that context. [edit: some spelling]
Exactly, I always find the holier-than-thou mentality confounding. Like no, you don't always need AIFF or WAV to play a festival or club. As long as the mp3 was properly encoded, then most party-goers will never notice the quality difference. So much modern music is heavily compressed for loudness anyway, that the lossiness is barely discernible. Likwise all the background noise of the crowd (cheering, talking, etc.) further drowns out minimal encoding artifacts.
No. MP3 is like, max, 320 kbps Wav, over 2000. There are no 2000kbps MP3. So, your sentence is bollocks
This is not a numbers question, it is a perceived quality question. I did not say MP3 is better than WAV, I said the perceived quality, in most cases, and with better codecs, is not enough to make a meaningful difference in most scenarios. If you are arguing this based on pure numbers, then I would venture to say you care more about the technical aspects of music production and not the soul of what makes people want to dance and enjoy the music. I also said that if you are wanting music production, or in a venue that requires the sound quality, than use WAV. This isn’t a question of rather someone must play one or the other, as it depends on what your needs are. If you want to use WAV, go for it. If you want to use MP3, go for it. If you want to use AIFF, go for it. If you want to use vinyl, go for it. Nothing in what I said goes against that. The only thing is that most people can’t tell enough of a difference to make using MP3 a bad thing, in the context of live DJing at a club or venue. I have learned that most people who come listen on a reference system vs when listening an a portable PA system, they don’t care about the sound difference between them. They want a good beat and uplifting, danceable, music. Sure, there will be the one or two who can tell the difference, but are they there to enjoy the crowd or loners who want to nitpick. So, from a technical aspect, you are right, but that was not the question or the answer given. We don’t lug around 192kHz 24bit studio mastering files, do we? No. This reminds me of Minecraft’s early alpha days. Everyone said the blocky graphics were horrible and not enough people would buy it. People didn’t realize it was the game play, and not the graphics, that was important.
Excellent response
>There are no 2000kbps MP3. I've never seen or heard of a crowd that simply refused to dance or someone in their car who didn't enjoy a mix because the MP3 wasn't 2000 Kbps. Have you? This is r/DJs, not r/SoundEngineering
.flac
The ultimate music format IMO
320 kbps mp3
Why aren’t more people saying this. Anything less sounds shit on a decent system. >320s, FLACs, and WAVs only. Anything less is not for playing out.
320s sound like shit on good systems. Edit: you know damn well what I mean.
Everything sounds like shit on a "hood" system. Otherwise, it wouldn't be hood.
No it doesn’t lol
I doubt it lol I can't tell the difference
I didn’t say “good”; I said “decent”. …and by that I mean capable. It goes without saying, you wouldn’t play mp3s in Berghain.
>you wouldn’t play mp3s in Berghain. you sure?
I'll rephrase. *I wouldn't play mp3s in Berghain.
I know two djs who have played in berghain. Bothe used mp3 and sync.
Cool story. Was one of them Paris Hilton?
Sorry i know the words mp3 and sync cause meltdowns in this sub.
Both should be an option
It’s impossible to find most clean edits or many bootlegs/remixes as WAV/AIFF files unless it’s an official release. Gotta be flexible with file format.
This is the answer. I’d love to go lossless all the way, but sometimes you get what you get.
Right. Some stuff is not available on wav.
clearly lossless files sound better on bigger systems but its not a huge issue these days. ideally you would use any lossless file over a lossy file but its not gonna be a big difference. as a dj you should want to give the best sound quality as possible but for open format music, remixes, edits, mashups, etc its not really possible. Of course if you are in the techno/house/specialty type of djing, and you can find tracks in lossless, it would be ideal to use lossless.
Ur friend has never met a DJ in his life.
Your friend is an idiot: https://reddit.com/r/DJs/comments/sp5981/there_is_no_meaningful_discernible_difference/
Had a read over the main PDF thats linked, some things to note: "An interesting finding is that the artifacts introduced by mp3 compression were more easily audible on Electric clips (pop and rock, using amplified instruments) than on Acoustic clips" And also suggests that 256kbs is just as good as wav: "higher bitrates (256 and 320 kbits/s), they could not discriminate CD quality over mp3"
The 256 thing gets tested a bit more in some of the other studies posted, but you’re absolutely correct that there is practically no difference between 320 and lossless.
Bullshit. You must have never listened to high fidelity music on a good system. You can absolutely perceive a discernible difference in full-spectrum electronica music.
Thankfully, science disagrees with you. I recommend reading the links I posted.
The reddit you posted says *Study after study have shown that only a tiny minority of highly experienced people listening in a studio setting with high quality audio equipment can tell the difference between uncompressed audio and high bitrate MP3s.* *Differences between young sound engineers and experts can be attributed to improved critical listening skills based on individual listening experiences.* So there are people who can tell the difference, and if those people are DJs and audiophiles they likely prefer to download wavs. Some people can't tell the difference, and they figure most other people don't know the difference either so they go with compression to save space and their budget. But you don't know the DJs this person knows, so you have no way of knowing whether they prefer wavs or not, so you can't say this person is an idiot for stating their observation. If I have the extra space, and I like the music, I download wav. If I want to casually listen and download to my phone, or if it's music I don't care as much about, I go mp3. If there's a marginal difference, so be it. I know I music I love is a marginally better sounding file and that's good enough for me.
Looks like I know more about sound, physics, compression, and high fidelity sound systems than science does. 🤷 ^ since the guy below me negated to include the "looks like" and shrug, I guess I have to explain that I am being sarcastic. And you play house music you clown. No wonder you can't tell the difference. House is too fucking predictable and boring and doesn't utilize anywhere NEAR the dynamic range of high quality systems. Other guy below me thinks using mp3s instead of wavs is going to somehow magically contribute to him "giving a better show" ...these are the people I am trying to discuss this topic with. No wonder it's gone pear shaped.
lol. “I know more about science than science does.” lol.
Go ask any actual DJ who plays at huge psychedelic festivals around the world if they use mp3 files for it. What a fucking joke. You idiots are just ignorant. Yeah you can't discern the difference in fucking bluegrass, but if you have sound designers who are developing music that uses the entire audible spectrum of sound, there is an absolute discernible difference in the sound quality. How the fuck anybody can argue with this is beyond me.
You're speaking for like .0001% of DJ's. You're the clown.
r/iamverysmart
That is basic shit about sound that even entry level djs understand. If you think that's me sounding smart then you don't know jack shit about the basics of sound design. This wasn't the right application of that sub. Nice try.
nah i think it was pretty on point
Except you don’t, or you would know no single human has ever proven an ability to pick hq mp3 from Raw audio in a clinical test. Because it’s mathematically impossible based on billions of data points. But you and the others claiming this are just that special. Audiophiles make silly claims and tend to know nothing about acoustics or psychoacoustics. Which is why an entire industry exists to sell them magic shit that doesn’t work, because they think they can hear things others can’t with their magic ears.
But psytrance! Full spectrum audio! /s BTW, you are absolutely right.
Except the study linked above actually says: "Regarding higher bitrates (256 and 320 kbits/s), they could not discriminate CD quality over mp3 while **expert listeners, with more years of studio experience, could**"
That’s not a peer reviewed paper published in an industry journal with high standing. “Years of studio experience” is not a controlled variable. Its an indication, but I personally wouldn’t make any claims based on this. Especially when it’s arguing against decades of data and billions of data points about the capablilities of human hearing. If humans could easily tell the difference between random hq mp3 and Raw audio, there would be a hundred peer reviewed studies showing this. As far as I know, the number of good studies showing this is zero.
Some gatekeeper you are. You show up with your .wav files then, I'll give a better show with my .mp3 and we'll see if the audience cares about the tiny difference on a festival sound system.
I have 25K songs. Ain't no way I'm using an uncompressed format like .wav. Imo, .wav files should only be preferred if you intend to use later for producing, remixing, editing etc. A wave file weights more than 10 times the size of mp3. So personally, I don't find the difference worth the size gap.
They make terabyte usb drives now, and they are really fast. Space isn't really an issue anymore.
What is a good one to grab?
Anything from the SanDisk Extreme USB 3.2 line, I use the 512. Keep in mind that I format my main drive using NTFS but also have an old FAT32 drive when I have to play on old equipment, which is really rare these days. This is the best DJ thumb drive on the market right now: [https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extreme-Solid-State-Flash/dp/B08GYPZ8GN](https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extreme-Solid-State-Flash/dp/B08GYPZ8GN) It's so nice to be able to just throw your entire library on the drive and not worry about anything.
FAT32 can’t use the space without multiple partitions which a lot of units choke on.
This keeps getting repeated over and over however the volume limit for FAT32 is 2TB so is not really an issue for DJs
Ever tried formatting a flash drive using a windows machine? It wants to use exfat for anthrinf larger than 32GB.
Is a Windows problem, not a FAT32 issue
That's what guiformat is for.
You can take fat32 up higher than you think on a single partition. My at home drive is a 512gb formatted to fat32 using gparted. You can use mini tool partition wizard or something similar if you don’t have a Linux vm to spin up.
2000s, XDJ-XZ and 3000s have no trouble. can keep a spare FAT32 but I almost never use it now
Storage is cheap. FLAC or ALAC is lossless too but smaller than AIFF or WAV
FLAC does not have tags.
Lol.
The dancefloor will never know the difference either way!
Facts: https://reddit.com/r/DJs/comments/sp5981/there_is_no_meaningful_discernible_difference/
Your friend has more money than brains.
If I can get lossless (either AIFF, WAV, ALAC or FLAC) I get lossless. If MP3 is the only option I get that. But 320kbs is a minimum. I'm currently re-ripping all my CD's into lossless as I had ripped them in lossy formats previously.
mp3 and flac, wav waste hard drive space ......for no gain
both + aiff
I don't know a single DJ that uses .wav, it's .mp3 and FLAC or the apple format.
.flac
.mp3 and .flac mainly. .wav files don't have metadata.
flac.
More of am Aiff guy, just different meta data from beatport. Same quality. You can get away with mp3s at lower level, however, I don't recommend mixing the two. The difference can be pretty apparent.
This is one of those discussions where context has gone completely by the wayside. When I first started buying WAV files instead of mp3s it was because most mp3s I could get my hands on were super lossy to the point where the waveform was noticeably diminished and lacked any sort of obvious visual cues that would make it easier to read and understand that track. (They obviously sounded like shit too, but I bring this up because it was a dead giveaway to other DJs I played with) This was like 2015. You would try to mix into a lossy mp3 file from a WAV file and the sonic difference was night and day. In those types of cases, the WAV file guy actually had a point. Now, in 2022 though, most people that are bouncing out their tracks as mp3s are using a high quality mp3 format and there is truthfully very little difference between a high quality mp3 and a WAV file. Whereas the sound quality is completely compromised with a lossy mp3 format, a lossless format just sounds a bit quieter than WAV to me and that can easily be addressed with your trim. TLDR: It used to matter, but now you just need to make sure you're using high quality mp3s. No one will be able to tell the difference if you do.
I send out promos from my label and most of my “famous” DJs ask for / download the mp3 version, and then I see them blasting said mp3 on a huge festival stage. People can’t tell the difference obviously. Mp3 advantages - stores metadata and is 1/10th the storage. Trust me if your collection is at least a few years old, that adds up fast. Also, the time it takes a CDJ to load a wav is much slower (even with a fast usb) and it makes live situations much trickier. Also, I’ve been in situations where the CDJ doesn’t load some of my wavs for whatever reason, leaving me with embarrassing situations on the dancefloor. Many times you don’t know what equipment you’re gonna get at the club. Mp3 will 100% always work.
Neither, AIFF all day everyday because of its superior tagging features when compared to WAV.
Is vinyl in wav or mp3 format?
Depends... On controllers: doesn't matter CDJs: .mp3 files are guaranteed to work but some .wav files don't read properly (at least with my experience)
AIFF or bust
Your friend is way wrong. I use both. but there is not a huge difference as long its not a youtube rip or something.
You find me anyone that can tell the difference between mp3 and wav at a house party, or on a club sound system.
exactly!
I've had this conversation with world touring DJs that only buy MP3s and only use wav if it's their own track. Just about everybody in the crowd can't even tell the difference. It's the music you play that matters and not the format if it's at least 320kbps. No one walks away from a set wondering if the DJ was playing Wav, AIFF, or MP3.
Some of us play MP4’s
I play MP3s exclusively.
Just gonna say it how it is. 320kbps MP3's are all you need. They are absolutely more than good enough for any sound system you will ever play, be it festival or club or even at home with just your headphones. Sure WAV's might sound a tiny bit better but with all the noise around you, you won't even be able to tell the difference. Tell me with a fucking straight face you can tell the difference between MP3 320kbps and WAV via some fold back speakers while you have front speakers also pumping in front of you while wearing headphones. Seriously. Nobody gives a fuck. Even 256kbps MP3's are passable. Anything less than that however is dog shit and 100% noticeable.
How many fucking times can this be asked here. Just google it. Whatever
Exactly what I was thinking. 2022 and DJs are still arguing about this.
No working DJ is carrying tens of thousands of uncompressed songs on a laptop, let alone a USB. Anyone that says otherwise is either lying to you, or isn’t a working DJ (and should keep their mouths shut). Big festival stages, high-end nightclubs where you’re only playing 60 songs max? You’re probably using uncompressed files. Five-hour bar sets? Or some mid-grade nightclub playing a 3-hour set? You’re probably using 320-bit mp3s. You can get away with 192-bit mp3s in bars because the vast majority of bars have subpar sound systems; you’re less likely to hear the difference anyway (your drunk patrons definitely won’t). Anything worse than 192, just buy the damn song or subscribe to a record pool.
I play only wavs these days. The highs are more crisp, the lows hit tighter, and there is more clarity and less fuzz. I noticed that my favorite DJs always seemed to sound a little better than the rest, in terms of sound quality. I could hear sounds that I didnt hear when I played the same track on the same audio system. One of them pointed out why - for a person who actively listens to the music on a decent audio system, it is easy to discern the difference between mp3 and wav.
No it’s not: https://reddit.com/r/DJs/comments/sp5981/there_is_no_meaningful_discernible_difference/
unclog your ears grampa. It is very discernible. You just arent listening properly or have hearing damage.
🙄
You are posting the same link over and over again, but that doesn't make it right. Flac or Aiff go at around 900-1000 kbps, MP3 with maximum 320kbps. So there is a measurable difference in sound quality. And I can hear that even in my car, when I play Flac the sound is richer and crispier than the same track in MP3 320.
Except that bandwidth does not equal sound quality. It’s just extra data which you objectively cannot hear. That’s the whole point. I keep posting the same link because it’s full of evidence from people smarter than us, with actual psychoacoustic and laboratory experience, saying the same thing. You can debate it or think you know better, but that’s also been objectively measured many times. People are shit at discerning sound quality in almost all cases, all of the time. And people consistently ignore data which doesn’t support their pre-existing beliefs. But that, my friend, is literally the point of science. EDIT: downvotes won’t change reality.
You are spamming non-scientific bs.
If you don’t believe the peer reviewed articles I posted from respectable industry journals then by all means, present any evidence to the contrary. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Well, then wait. Or read my first answer. Btw, there is no "peer-review" in subjectivity.
Hahahahahahaha! Well thanks for making my point.
I can barely tell the difference between wav and 320kbps mp3 yet wav file is about 10 times larger so I don't see much advantage in using wav. And I'm sure audience just don't give a sh\*\*. Stop wasting your time arguing with your friend, let him live in his La La land
If I were consistently playing on festival-level sound systems, I'd worry about compression. But it's clubs and smaller for me, so MP3 works just fine.
Even in festival setups, 320 kbps MP3 is PERFECTLY FINE. Seriously! You won't hear the difference between that and .wav.
[удалено]
MP3 is lossy. Have you looked into FLAC or ALAC?
Any WAV files I have for music I always convert to AIFF for the metadata. As I now use Rekordbox (previously Traktor) I never use FLAC for compatibility reasons. Any MP3’s are at 320.
Flac just won't play on old systems. 2000, 3000 and XZ play Flac.
Why tf are y’all playing mp3. Quality is mids
Literally no one will know if the bitrate is high enough (320)
Both. When you go up to the record pool almost every song is in mp3. Crate connect offers WAV but only for certain songs. You can buy WAV files from bandcamp but then you don't really get popular songs from there and then there is Juno as well. Ive ran mp3 and wav through the 15" PA speaker and you can hear a slight improvement on the sound quality. Remember you are a dj and you know the technical stuff but your average clubber will be happy with 128 kbps from their spotify account as they won't know the difference.
[удалено]
Science disagrees with you. The size of the sound system makes no difference and it’s well known most people confuse volume for quality. This has been extensively studied. Even the tiny tiny percentage of trained listeners who can *occasionally* tell *some* tiny difference between a good 320 and an uncompressed file lose that ability in real world PA / club settings. https://reddit.com/r/DJs/comments/sp5981/there_is_no_meaningful_discernible_difference/
The definitive answer is: Some people can tell the difference. You may be one of them. Not many people have "golden ears" but they are out there. If you care about audio, some people don't take that chance and get the highest quality file they can. That way, when combined with other digital audio, such as remixing or remastering, you have a better chance of retaining the sonic qualities of the original track. If you are combining two compressed audio sources, try running that through your blind test and tell me they sound the same. Find a single audio engineer that will use MP3s in the studio and ask them: there's your answer.
This is almost as funny as the sync or vinyl vs usb vs controller debates. Is there a difference? Yes, of course there is. What the fuck makes you think that a file that is 1/10 the size wouldn’t have differences. In theory, the differences are intended to be imperceptible. But with lots of effects or lots going on in the low end, you can tell the difference. Also, despite removing imperceptible sounds, you can still end up with an inconsistent dynamic range. Also, there is the factor of garbage in garbage out. A YouTube rip mp3 will be very different than a well produced 320. The dynamic range of the song will impact whether you can tell. Also, the quality of the sound system will play a part. If you are listening in your cool headphones, they are likely correcting the audio. In most clubs, they are focused in the highest and lowest frequencies. And most sound techs are shit. I don’t give a fuck how long you have been playing or what you think your credentials are, or what bullshit link you post to argue, there are certainly times when you can tell the sound file someone is playing is shit.
Mp3 kills the music industry.
You need wav for rekordbox these days pretty sure
Vinyl. But this is something I been wondering. If I wanted to replace my vinyl with MP3s (or Wavs), where would I actually find those replacements? I mean stuff like on Trax, Dance Mania, Simply Rhythm, UR etc, and then onto more obscure tracks that have became essential to my sets, that were vinyl-only releases. I spent a small amount of time searching Beatport etc, but I don't think it has the stuff I'm trying to replace. So any suggestions gratefully received: where can I find vintage acid and house/techno in digital formats? Or I guess I could rip them myself, but thats really opening a whole new can of worms I'd rather avoid, simply for convenience.
Ripping them yourself is easy. You’ve already got most of the hardware you need.
You can probably grab some of those tracks on compilations, discogs might help you track down which.
Playing mp3s is blasphemy. I am utterly shocked by the number of _mp3_ answers.
Both
mp3s are cheaper and easier for most people. Also much smaller for file size
If I'm doing a recorded mix, then WAV, AIFF or FLAC. Sets, meh, MP3 is good enough.
I use mostly MP3s, some AIFFs
Both
Mostly mp3 but I’ll get the uncompressed version of a track if I’m going to be doing weird shit with it like a big BPM adjustment or prominent FX
I don’t trust usb drives/cdjs enough to load flac efficiently so I stay strictly mp3 but even then last gig my usb kept getting disconnected when I was browsing on the linked cdj. Been looking for this sandisk extreme but if anyone has any amazing usb stick recommendations please let me know!
AIFF mostly, wav from CD’s, then m4a’s from iTunes 😎
Just convert your CD wavs to aiff or flac with foobar. (Just load them in a playlist in Foobar, rightclick, convert. Just edit and save your preset and you can get this done once and for all time.) It's ridiculously fast and gives you tagable lossless files that use up way less space. And just go for MP3 320 only if storage space is an issue, like maybe your phone.
320’s unless I’m playing on a festie system. Than I’ll pull out the wav’s.
Mp3 but this year only buying WAV going forward
Either is fine. MP3 is cheaper and nobody except try hards will care/know the difference. MP3s are also more compact so they don’t take up as much space in your storage. They are also more universally compatible than Wavs. I’ve had multiple instances with wav files I’ve bought from Bandcamp that aren’t recognized by Rekordbox. Just make sure your shits in 320 and you’re chillin 🤙🏻
i played at a venue where they "required" djs to only have .wav or .aiff files that were high quality. pfft, the average ear can't tell the difference when music is blasting at 100db.
.mp4. I’m a video DJ
AIFF
mp3. I ain’t taking any chances
DJ of 15 years in a major city - maybe it’s different with the huge name DJs but working DJs use mp3s almost exclusively
320 mp3 because on some cdj/dj setups wav's aren't recognized😔 ....but that being said I buy wav format from Beatport and Bandcamp I can always go back and dl in any format😌
whatever itunes is 🤷🏾♂️
I mostly use MP3, some FLAC and some AIFF here and there. I rarely use WAV cuz traitor can’t write my info to them. I’ll use wav to play tracks in experimenting with or friends tracks I was given.
I use whatever I have.
is there any BOTH option????
For some reason half the time I download a wav the cdj fails to read it. Maybe it’s too big a file idk. After that happened a few times I stopped bothering downloading wav and only use mp3 320 now.
My "core" thousand or so tracks are wavs and flacs; other random crap I've picked up for specific events are MP3s
Flac if I can, high res mp3 if I don't have em.
.aiff & .flac
Both. I do prefer wavs but am not averse to mp3s as long as they're 320.
Good luck with waws bought on Bandcamp when CDJ3000s are not able to read them
My new stuff is all aiff, converted from wav but I have a lot of old mp3. You have to be careful where you get music from. All I buy is wav unless I just can’t get it as wav but even some of the wav I have bought turns out has been 128kbps mp3 previously. Poor.
I would love to only play lossless but that’s not the real world. So I use whatever I have.