Question about DJing

[carsonac]

are .wav's a must when it comes to buying digital music even if youre not using cdjs? ive heard that mp3s can cut off some frequencies but dont know if its true.
and just sound shittier on a big system

also, where can i find radio songs (or even stuff like Biggie) on the internet that are dj friendly?

any help with these 2 questions would be much appreciated!

[upstateface]

Mp3's are a lossy format. So anything less than 320 kbps should generally be avoided as quality can be drastically reduced.

[carsonac]

Mp3's are a lossy format. So anything less than 320 kbps should generally be avoided as quality can be drastically reduced.

ya but are 320's fine? or should i be using wavs?

[G31]

wavs are better
imo not quite essential but most definately better... i use wavs when i have them but some of the shops charge alot more for the priviledge

[G31]

as for radio songs, theres always bog standard house remixes of every big tune tacked onto their release these days
cant be hard to find them in the shops

[Mad_EP]

Personally, I will DJ 320's, but usually those are dubs directly from an artist. When I pay money, I always pay the little extra to always have full resolution.

[basicanarchy101]

The lower the filesize, the lower the quality. WAV is ideal, with 450k ogg behind that, and then 320k mp3... some will say otherwise, but, eh... I honestly feel like if it wasnt for loss through soundcard, WAV would theoretically be nicer then vinyl, as thier is NO loss between sample and render.

[sirsnaf]

320s a re acceptable... and 90% of ppl who send you music will send it as a 320 as sending wavs in emails is bit of a mare.

if im buying files on payday, i will pay for the wav.... but the rest of the month i skimp n get 320s

i will always have that ****** "aahh, shouldve not got that extra pint n got wavs instead" but tbh, this is only becuase i know i coulve got better, like anytime you sacrifice a bit of maybe-pointless-but-always-nicer quality to save a bit of cash!

one point id like to ask about - does anyone buy cds and then rip them?

for example, i got Hud Mohawakes album Butter on CD so i could rip it to serato. that way, i ahve the physical product and the wavs (i ripped it at .aiff, though i may convert it to wav for filespace...) for only a few pounds more (which imo, is worth it to have something physical)

ive often found albums for £10 to downlaod as a wav/320 on junod.load, then got the cd off amazon for £5... rip it at high quality and bingo, got teh wavs and the cd for less than getting the wavs alone!

[kejk]

320s a re acceptable... and 90% of ppl who send you music will send it as a 320 as sending wavs in emails is bit of a mare.

if im buying files on payday, i will pay for the wav.... but the rest of the month i skimp n get 320s

i will always have that ****** "aahh, shouldve not got that extra pint n got wavs instead" but tbh, this is only becuase i know i coulve got better, like anytime you sacrifice a bit of maybe-pointless-but-always-nicer quality to save a bit of cash!

one point id like to ask about - does anyone buy cds and then rip them?

for example, i got Hud Mohawakes album Butter on CD so i could rip it to serato. that way, i ahve the physical product and the wavs (i ripped it at .aiff, though i may convert it to wav for filespace...) for only a few pounds more (which imo, is worth it to have something physical)

ive often found albums for £10 to downlaod as a wav/320 on junod.load, then got the cd off amazon for £5... rip it at high quality and bingo, got teh wavs and the cd for less than getting the wavs alone!

If quality is lost > it can not be restored.

So ripping from a CD and converting to wav does not give the quality that an uncompressed wav file gives.

[lp]

Theres been so many threads about this shit over the years its nuts! Personally I don't think it actually matters as long as the tune has been mix'd n mastered well then u should get good sound .wav or 320. If you believe you can notice the difference then your fooling yourself unless you've got the £££££ equipment to notice the difference.

Also a big problem I've noticed it people seem to burn tunes to cd using the standard burning formats in windowms media etc etc that causes a loss in sound quality too.

[fiziks]

I buy 320's. If I'm paying a buck extra or whatever it is for a wav, I might as well buy it on wax. That's my take on it. 320's sound good to me. Then again, I've never done a side by side with a wav and a 320 of the same tune.

[carsonac]

will .wavs slow down my computer at all though when im djing??

[aesthetics]

The only people who will notice the difference in quality are audiophiles, producers and other quality DJ's who will probably be more judgmental of your mixing in general than the rest of the people in the club anyways... So I wouldn't worry too much if your playing out 320's the quality is still excellent IMO.

And WAV's could slow down your computer if it's borderline at handling 320's,
if you have a good rig it should be fine

[Okota]

despite all this, i've been out plenty of times and heard the dj play a very low bit rate mp3.... man, it makes you wince.
320s all the way I say, in a club environment with the sound of the room/bar etc only a mastering engineer could tell between wav/320 i reckons...

[frank grimes jr.]

Well I played out on Saturday night, and I tossed on really old 128 rip from a really old 7" and the floor shook so.... horses for courses I'd say.

[carsonac]

So its probably safe to say that 320's are fine as long as im not playing some huge show or anything. Im only a beginner and would only be playing house parties and whatnot

[frank grimes jr.]

Yes that is safe to say.