320 Mp3 vs. Wav vs. FLAC

S

Sick Boy

All about pride and egos
My question is, does it truly make a fuckin difference to the average ear?
I've decided to save a bit of money by curbing my vinyl expenses and trying to buy up more releases digitally. 320 Mp3 format is the most available format, though Boomkat offer FLAC downloads as well.

I know two things about FLACs:

1) They are mentioned occasionally by people who DJ digitally
2) They are a buck more than Mp3s

I use Serato Scratch Live. Suggestions?

Thanks!
 
nomos

nomos

Administrator
Scientifically, I don't know but I'm in the same boat as you (using Ableton). I'm figuring that if producers and DJs are sending each other 320s, playing them out, cutting dubs, etc. then it's good enough for me. Half of the time, if I can buy an AIF/WAV, I will but I haven't noticed a difference.

The only thing I have really noticed is that my vinyl rips tend to be easier on the ear than the digital stuff I buy which can be a bit harsh.
 
Amplesamples

Amplesamples

Well-known member
I would tend to stick with mp3 or wav personally. You might want to listen to those files on a Walkman type thing and FLAC isn't supported by a lot of devices. With wavs you still have the choice to change them later if you want
 
C

Client Eastwood

Well-known member
FLAC produces smaller file sizes the 320 wavs but in the age of mass storage this isn't an issue. The sound quality of 320 is said to be better than FLACS.

Ive ripped all my CD music at VBR and am wondering if its worth re doing them at 320 but I doubt if Id be able to hear the difference even on some decent headphones.
 
D

droid

Guest
FLAC is lossless. You don't lose any information when converting from WAV and you get a smaller file size, so the advantage is obvious.

320 CBR best quality MP3s are pretty good, but you're still losing audio information. FLAC is definitely a better option.
 
Amplesamples

Amplesamples

Well-known member
Yeah but what if you want to play your music in itunes or something else that doesn't use flac?

FLAC is a minority format, like ogg and although I have absolutely no proof this (so excuse me if I'm saying something stupid), but it doesn't seem as future-proofed as other formats like mp3 or wav.

Storage isn't an issue, as memory is getting cheaper all the time. So why not just get the uncompressed 'full' version of your file in a wav? If you really feel the urge to compress to FLAC, then you can do so later.
 
D

droid

Guest
I don't really buy this 'storage is not an issue' line TBH, everytime I upgrade my externals I have to buy twice as much memory as I need to backup, so the cost factor is still there.

I could see FLAC becoming more popular. Its certainly gained ground over the last couple of years, and lossless compression of 50/60% of the original WAV size isn't something to be sniffed at. As an archive format its perfect...
 
G

gumdrops

Well-known member
depends what youre playing it back on too i think. if youre playing flac files on PC speakers, its not gonna make a difference to if they were 320 mp3s.
 
S

Sick Boy

All about pride and egos
gumdrops said:
depends what youre playing it back on too i think. if youre playing flac files on PC speakers, its not gonna make a difference to if they were 320 mp3s.
Click to expand...

Well the assumption here is that they are going to be played on club systems.
 
nomos

nomos

Administrator
Amplesamples said:
With wavs you still have the choice to change them later if you want
Click to expand...
That's a good point. If I think I might want to do a custom edit then I'll get the WAV. If I have to cut up a 320 then it has to be saved as WAV/AIF or it's going to start sounding bad.
 
D

Dunninger

-
With flac you basically get the wav, it's just encoded (without losing data like mp3 encoding). You can easily convert from flac to wav, and the result is the original file. It's like a zip or rar, completely lossless, but the compression algorithm works better with audio data than these. And you could make mp3s for your portable player from that. So technically flac is the better option.
 
A

Ach!

Turd on the Run
Dunninger said:
With flac you basically get the wav, it's just encoded (without losing data like mp3 encoding). You can easily convert from flac to wav, and the result is the original file. It's like a zip or rar, completely lossless, but the compression algorithm works better with audio data than these. And you could make mp3s for your portable player from that. So technically flac is the better option.
Click to expand...

What that man said. For the extra buck you essentially get access to the actual wav file. Takes about 20secs to de-code the FLAC back to wav. On good quality audio equipment there is a noticeable difference between 320mp3 and FLAC - FLAC is CD audio quality, not compromised in any way.
 
S

Sick Boy

All about pride and egos
Ach! said:
What that man said. For the extra buck you essentially get access to the actual wav file. Takes about 20secs to de-code the FLAC back to wav. On good quality audio equipment there is a noticeable difference between 320mp3 and FLAC - FLAC is CD audio quality, not compromised in any way.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that Serato can't play FLACs, so I suppose the real question is whether on good quality audio equipment if there is a noticeable difference between 320 mp3 and wav.
 
T

Tanadan

likes things
Sick Boy said:
I've noticed that Serato can't play FLACs, so I suppose the real question is whether on good quality audio equipment if there is a noticeable difference between 320 mp3 and wav.
Click to expand...

Yeah, easily - just try it and see! (say in a hi-fi shop, if you can't find anything better)
 
nomos

nomos

Administrator
OK, I have two questions then. It's my understanding that a lot of producers send tracks to DJs as 320s and that those files often get cut to dub and played at places like Plastic People.

So, on that system (or comparable), is there a noticeable difference between dubs cut from 320s and dubs cut from WAV/AIF? Can anyone say they've noticed?

Second, most digital DJs will likely play a mix of 320 and WAV/AIF in the course of a set. Again, is the transition between formats noticeable in practice?

Partly I'm wondering how if Hi Fi isn't the best gauge of what sound does in a club, even on a very nice system.
 
hint

hint

party record with a siren
Sick Boy said:
I've noticed that Serato can't play FLACs, so I suppose the real question is whether on good quality audio equipment if there is a noticeable difference between 320 mp3 and wav.
Click to expand...

In the context of club music, not really.

In the grand scheme of things, the quality of the D>A converters in the Serato box has much more of an effect on the sound quality, regardless of the format of the file being played.

I rip and archive vinyl as AIFFs, but convert to 320 MP3s for playing out and about in Serato.
 
D

DJ PIMP

Well-known member
The engineering/mastering is a much greater differential in audio quality than 320 vs FLAC vs WAV.
 
E

ether

Well-known member
320's do sound a bit quiet on a rig in my experience, so its something to bear in mind when moving between vinyl and mp3's, they are a compromise, but if its a choice between not playing an mp3 because the tunes a stupidlyrare/unrealeased/or you dont have a spare 30 quid to cut a track to dub and it wear out after 30 plays I'd wouldnt hesitate to opt for the mp3 option.

interestingly ive heard few people say recently they prefer the sound of cdj's, to vinyl over a big system, as it sound alot crisper and clear.
 
Grievous Angel

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
You can tell low bit rate mp3s a mile off on a club system.

Well encoded mp3s from beatport or boomkat etc do sound very good indeed. I got Joker's hollybrook park as a 320 and it sounds fantastic.

But they don't sound quite as crisp as WAVs or AIFFs on a big system or decent monitors or hifi - especially when mixing in ableton or serato, where they go through extra DSPing.

So if possible get FLAC and convert to WAV.

I think my iTunes can do FLAC, with a plug in...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top