AndyTraxx Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Hello all,Im sure this topic has been touched on before but my question is related to burning music and how others do it. I typically i use Nero to burn most "Audio" disk but wonder what others use out there? I typically download tracks at .wav and then downgrade convert them to MP3 320kbps due to majority of my music being 320kbps (those hard to find tracks are always in .mp3 format...arghhhhh).So in saying that, i usually find that tracks are never the same quality regardless of what there bitrate tag is (Even with .wav format tracks with sound, pitch and bass etc).How does everyone else overcome this issue or is everyone doing sort of the same thing with standardising all music to the 320kbps and then burning them as an "audio" cd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skank Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 good post man i once took all my cds to a gig and they didnt work cause for some fuckin reason they were wma i used nero but didnt click it to mp3 lets just say thats a gig im happy not to think about, but thank you serato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tubby Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 I always burn as audio cd's sure 90% of decks these days will play mp3's but it's painful to navigate menus and there's always the chance of a cdj1000mk2 or the like that won't play them at all.No idea why you would downgrade the quality of your music even slighlty. Especially when you are then burning in cda/wav format, so not like you are saving space by converting to mp3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBG Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 .mp3 320kbs is fine. always burn as an audio cd imo, be safe.y dl in wav and convert after, wats the point? ur just wasting dl cap.u need gd quality monitors to notice difference between .wav/aiff and mp3 320. wav are broader, specifically in the lower end Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyTraxx Posted July 13, 2010 Author Share Posted July 13, 2010 I down grade the tracks to try to normalise the audio as best as i can - so all my music is at the same quality level. When you burn .wav and .mp3 in mixed compilations as good as nero or other audio burning programs are, they still tend to struggle normalising all audio tracks.So i figured, keep it all the same and 320kbps the lot! Still keep the .wav files on hand but i rather have all the same than some at great quality and some not so great.Hope that kind'a explains my ways... Crazy to do so? probably..but at least it is all normalised so the crowd wont know the difference anyways! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck_Choi Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 just on burning make sure you burn at a low speed =D less chance of stuffing up the cd and what not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBG Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 but as i said, the crowd wont notice difference between wav and mp3 anyway. its part of the producers job to ensure the track is mastered and its the djs job to adjust the levels (freq and volume) accordingly.every track u dl should b 320 or better anyway, unless you're stealing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyTraxx Posted July 13, 2010 Author Share Posted July 13, 2010 Ive actually found that you can tell the difference if you listen close enough...or if your a music guru / nerd.As we all know 1440kbps vs. 320kbps is a pretty big difference. I just find the tracks to be more crisp and clear when playing .wav files compiled to audio. But then again, MP3 VBR 320kbps tracks are again another topic in itself with clarity etc - why cant we just have everything at .wav! would make life easier for djs thats for sure!!!!!But im only a newbie so im sure there are some hectick crazy equalisers and midi stuff out there that can disguise it all so you wont really know the difference. i guess the only reason "we" can tell is because we are mixing the tracks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck_Choi Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 if your playing at a club no one will know =p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBG Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Dude, I honestly think you're over thinking things.I'm a producer, I know what you mean with wav and mp3 sounding different. I hate compressing my tracks to mp3.But you seriously cannot tell when playing live and thats what really matters.wav arent mainstreams because the .wav range from 35mb to 900mb.. or more!They're just too big, in the future they will be common, I have no doubt. Not now though.And yeah, if you do happen to notice an imperfection in a track when DJing, it's your job to counteract it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tubby Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I usually by wav's. download quotas aren't really a concern, we're talking a difference of 50mb a track over an mp3, out of what? 10? 30, 50 Gb allowance.the extra dollar beatport charges can add up though, and the time it takes to download if you are in a hurry.and in a club no-one will notice. they aren't high fidelity systems to start with, and when you add in people, noise, average accoustics, noone will notice the small difference between wav and 320 mp3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck_Choi Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I usually by wav's. download quotas aren't really a concern, we're talking a difference of 50mb a track over an mp3, out of what? 10? 30, 50 Gb allowance.the extra dollar beatport charges can add up though, and the time it takes to download if you are in a hurry.and in a club no-one will notice. they aren't high fidelity systems to start with, and when you add in people, noise, average accoustics, noone will notice the small difference between wav and 320 mp3.true that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seffo Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I usually by wav's. download quotas aren't really a concern, we're talking a difference of 50mb a track over an mp3, out of what? 10? 30, 50 Gb allowance.the extra dollar beatport charges can add up though, and the time it takes to download if you are in a hurry.and in a club no-one will notice. they aren't high fidelity systems to start with, and when you add in people, noise, average accoustics, noone will notice the small difference between wav and 320 mp3.what about the difference between 320kbps and songs below like 190kbps or wateva? i havn't come across anything in these forums on the subject but i've heard different opinions on whats acceptable in a club. Some say nothing under 200, some say 320 and nothing else, others say it doesn't matter to much as long as its consistent? what u guys reckon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBG Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 for me its nothing less than 320. you have to stay professional, if you cant get a decent version of the song (you're a tight arse because you obviously arent buying it) dont play it. yo But to answer the question, you can get away with 190... maybe. I dunno, never tried it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cupe Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 punters probably wouldn't know the differencedrunk fucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tubby Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 depends to some extent on the track, what kind of sounds it has, and how well it is encoded. You can still get wav's that sound crap.as a general rule though, a 192 would not be great on a large system. 256 if you must, 320 is fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyTraxx Posted July 14, 2010 Author Share Posted July 14, 2010 Im the same as CBG... 320 should be the minimum! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seffo Posted July 15, 2010 Share Posted July 15, 2010 ive got bout 60gigs of tunes ive gotten from anywhere i can blogs/torrents/beatport/cds. most of the tunes id play would be the beatport ones id say so all good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dapimp Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 i buy my tunes at 320 and burn them as wave.my cdj 800s read wav way faster than mp3. not sure about the 1000s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FabDJ Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 Interesting article I saw regarding the dumbing down of music quality.Once vinyl LPs and magnetic cartridges were the norm for music listening and then came along the casette deck that allowed you to copy /steal other peoples music .For the sake of convenience people now had a portable music device they could take and play at parties and in cars.They were not fussed that the casettes even with dolby, sounded awful.Next came CDs with less quality than vinyl but again easier to swap cds and store and carry around. With I pods the standard is again compromised for storage convenience and todays norm is 128kbps. Is anyone prepared to forgo compression and have 100 tracks in real time on an Ipod when they can have 3000 in ok quality?People are now happy to listen to average/poor quality music weather at home or at parties /clubs as long as it is passable. I put away my Stax electrostatic headphones, a long time ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seffo Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 vinyl is better quality then cds? i didnt know that hey...Also the only people ive ever heard talk about the sound quality of clubs/peoples sets etc r my dj or sound engineer mates. no one else I know really seems to notice unless their ears are trained to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tubby Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 vinyl can sound better, when you have new records, good needles etc. but then they wear, needles wear etc. keep in mind as well that the warmth that people like in vinyl is actually distortion, just distortion that happens to be pleasant to the ear. cd will never hit the same heights of sound as a good vinyl setup, but it is easider to get and keep good sound with cd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBG Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 Yep, they have not been able to replicate the sound quality of vinyl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tubby Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 even the head of sony said the super audio CD was only getting close to vinyl, still not as good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seffo Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 just outa curiosity... what if u burn ur records to ur harddrive with a vinyl converter or wateva? im guessin heaps of the quality would get lost or? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.