why do we still insist on Mp3 format?
Ok high quality 320kbps is arguably as good enough and has a small file size but why 192 and sometimes even lower option from online shops.
we should be all using wav now, Mp3 was really only because internet speeds were slow and Hard disk space was limited and lower than 320 isn’t really any good for a club system so why do these shops sell them.
Nearly all of my tracks are 320kbps Mp3 and for what reason i really don’t know lol.
Well one reason that stopped me from buying the majority of my tunes from Beatport as .wav, was the extra €1 .wav “handling fee”.
I only paid the extra quid if I thought it was worth it, or if afterwards I wanted to take a hit out of something.
mp3 has a smaller footprint, so is cheaper to store & transfer.
wav - you pay extra.
[quote]ICN (16/08/2010)[hr]Well one reason that stopped me from buying the majority of my tunes from Beatport as .wav, was the extra €1 .wav “handling fee”.
I only paid the extra quid if I thought it was worth it, or if afterwards I wanted to take a hit out of something.
mp3 has a smaller footprint, so is cheaper to store & transfer.
wav - you pay extra.[/quote]
320 mp3’s always used to sound good when i played them on club systems and beatport charged more for wav’s and i’m to tight to pay extra so thats why i stuck with mp3’s…
suppose they still offer lower bit rates for people who are not dj’s just music lovers and dont want the music they buy/listen to to take up to much room on there iphones ipods or mp3 players…
Nice Avatar Chris!
Yeah… tbh Man, I cannot tell the diff between 320 & wav’s that I have. The 192 or whatever ones - deffo.
[quote]ICN (16/08/2010)[hr]Nice Avatar Chris!
Yeah… tbh Man, I cannot tell the diff between 320 & wav’s that I have. The 192 or whatever ones - deffo.[/quote]
i borrowed a tune off a friend once and it was a 192 mp3 luckily i tried it before the club opened cause it sounded absolutly dire and the system was not even on loud…
There is a big difference between .wav and 320k, but 320 is still good enough for a club system.
The reason I don’t use .wav as much is simply because i am yet to get my 1TB hard drive lol, plus the fact that still many labels and promos i get sent are only sent in 320k.
More and more of them these days do give .wav option as well, but it’s not 100% yet. Things get a bit weird mixing .wav to 320k, it’s too noticable so i steer away from it till i can be 100% .wav.
Also like what has been mentioned already here, in a lot of digital stores, you have to pay so much more for .wav, what the f*ck is that all about??
Just a BS excuse to charge more out of people really when there is no need.
I do agree though, we don’t need less than 320. But then for the average listener, they’re quite happy listening to tunes on their ipod at 192k.
To be fair my podcast is only streamed at 192k, the reason for this is down to the fact that even though broadband speeds are high these days, it still takes a while to download / stream 320k mixes. People are naturally impatient so most wouldn’t bother waiting for their stream to buffer or download to finish downloading.
Wav for sampling
mp3 for playing
Thats all I want to say on the matter 
I think space is an issue… I have a 1TB of hard drive space on my desktop and only 18gig free space! If all my tune where in wav i’d have a problem… + my laptop which use traktor on only has 120gig space as my external HD got stolen at a club so MP3 for space saving. When it comes to production and samples I preffer to use wav I must say.
- I’m guessing most online shops will now be utilizing cloud computing meaning the more they store the more the pay = less profit, so its make sense they charge more for larger files. And it will use more bandwith when downloading/uploading which also has a cost, so I can understand why they charge more.
Anyway I’m off to buy another 1TB hard drive for my desk top right now as I just went to install something with a large sound library and dont have enough space!!
LOL - I remember wetting myself when I bought a 100meg drive and thought I would be future proof
[quote]slender (16/08/2010)[hr]LOL - I remember wetting myself when I bought a 100meg drive and thought I would be future proof[/quote]
You just reminded me of when I done my 1st upgrade from a 486 sx to a 486dx2, upped from 2mb ram to 4! wow! lol… didnt last long! lol, I cant even remember how big the hard was but seeing as windows only took 8mb back then it couldnt have been big!
[quote]gofunk (16/08/2010)[hr][quote]slender (16/08/2010)[hr]LOL - I remember wetting myself when I bought a 100meg drive and thought I would be future proof[/quote]
You just reminded me of when I done my 1st upgrade from a 486 sx to a 486dx2, upped from 2mb ram to 4! wow! lol… didnt last long! lol, I cant even remember how big the hard was but seeing as windows only took 8mb back then it couldnt have been big![/quote]
…and the sad thing is I probably spent the same amount of cash on my first PC build as the one I just built a couple of months ago - in fact even sadder I stll have bits and peces n a box somewhere
Its all about the size brotha. Is there anything that is that small and that crisp in sound?
i might be able to tell a difference in a club, but barely. if you didnt know what to listen for, you would never know. now if you were A/B testing, you might be able to tell, but that would even be difficult. Plus at our age, we cant hear 20khz anymore, so why would it matter…
I sincerely dont get wav file because most of people cant tell the difference!! plus all Digital stores charge you extra for wav handling wich i think it is ver Abusive .
one of the reason that there is so many Pirates Djs out there is because Digital labels just want to charge you extra for anything . IMO times changed and with all the possibilities to download tracks on the internet for free.
the Digital labels should lower down the prices of the tracks plus free wav handling IMO .
[quote]gofunk (16/08/2010)[hr][quote]slender (16/08/2010)[hr]LOL - I remember wetting myself when I bought a 100meg drive and thought I would be future proof[/quote]
You just reminded me of when I done my 1st upgrade from a 486 sx to a 486dx2, upped from 2mb ram to 4! wow! lol… didnt last long! lol, I cant even remember how big the hard was but seeing as windows only took 8mb back then it couldnt have been big![/quote]
My first PC’s didn’t even have a hard drive
Fond memories of my 12inch green screen IBM XT and PS2
I’ve never been a fan of mp3 it like listening to old cassettes all the time
I’ve only ever bought wav to mix. On Juno a 4 track import 12" is £8 and if you buy each track as a separate wav there £2 each. Same difference but without the crackle.
i don’t really think you can hear much of a difference between a good quality 320 mp3 and a wav file. i remember when future music (i think it was) did the blind test with wav and mp3 and none of the pro engineers wanted to bet on which one was which.
however i won’t grab a kick from a mp3 but i will from a wav or vinyl because i still think that the higher the bitrate the more you can mess with the sample before it turns to ****.
anyway my argument is with the lower kbps version more than anything, when you go on some of the artist own sites they are selling only 192 version of their tracks and don’t go any higher and even then some are selling 192 at £2 a time.
Totally - 192 is wack!
Crazy going to the trouble to make the tune in the 1st place -then mix / master it, only then to reduce it to 192.
[quote]ICN (17/08/2010)[hr]Totally - 192 is wack!
Crazy going tothe trouble to make the tune in the 1st place -thenmix / master it, only thento reduce it to 192.[/quote]
yep i’m sure these artist aren’t playing 192 version of their own music in clubs and if its about space i don’t see what the problem is there it doesn’t cost much for webspace these days and no record label is going to have that many tracks that they need huge amounts of space.
even labels like the mighty toolroom can really swallow more than a couple of gig for the catalog, maybe 10-15 gig if you were to include full wav versions of all their albums too.
its a complete joke
There is a difference between .wav and .mp3, try getting two of the same track, one in wav and one in mp3, take a listen yourself. The .wav is more ‘full’ sounding.