What is your Standard Audio Quality?

[Jiggles]

True audiophools using really high end 'audiophool' equipment maybe, but not your average 'DJ' Joe and his equipment.

Corrected for you.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

In a way I wish I hadn't bought a really decent sound system because I was happy with MP3's before I did, but now the difference is like night & day!

What have you bought that makes so much difference then?

[katman]

If the difference is night and day he must have bought some speakers with built in floodlights

[Steve the DJ]

What have you bought that makes so much difference then?

The DragonSpirit stuff, digital amps and Soundweb.

If I play an MP3 copy of a song in one deck and a WAV of the same song in another the difference is clear (well it is to me!).

Actually what stands out most is the depth of a WAV file compared to an MP3.

[supersound]

I agree with Steve,I use WAV where possible(I keep Richard Lee in beer)and the depth of the song is v noticeable,You can even see the depth and less clipping spikes in the Waveform timeline on Tractor.
One BIG factor that no one has mentioned is the quality of the original track.Some 50s and 60s tracks are recorded in Mono and sound v tinny.Early Northern soul tracks too sound terrible too.I find it better to go for a digitally remastered track that sounds miles better.

Paul

[Steve the DJ]

I agree with Steve,I use WAV where possible(I keep Richard Lee in beer)and the depth of the song is v noticeable,You can even see the depth and less clipping spikes in the Waveform timeline on Tractor.

I noticed that to in OtsAV!

I'll get my anorak...

One BIG factor that no one has mentioned is the quality of the original track.Some 50s and 60s tracks are recorded in Mono and sound v tinny.Early Northern soul tracks too sound terrible too.I find it better to go for a digitally remastered track that sounds miles better.

I think it was some Motown stuff that started me off listening more closely to what I was putting out.

[Andy Collins]

A well produced track in MP3 will sound better than a poorly produced track in WAV format.

[leelive]

Just got the book that was recommended on another thread. "How to DJ properly"

.... any of you read page 97 in the latest edition?

It seriously warns against using MP3s for the dire quality.

Lee

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Seriously Lee, you talk about using wavs, but are you using a 10K sound system or are you using a £1500 pair of K12s with the rather poor K Subs?

Let's be realistic.

[Andy Collins]

There's no right or wrong format to use, again it's personal preference. But in all seriousness I use mp3 and I've never had anyone say to me your audio sounds dire.

Unless you use some serious - and I really do mean serious kit and top valve amps. You can't tell any difference.

In my experience the only people that bang on about mp3 being dire and sub standard for any use is mainly real top end manufactures that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and especially the guys at function one go on about it alot. But saying that function one say the minimum should be 24bit sound. Well good luck finding that at hmv.

Studio mastering has alot to answer for also, because in any format the end audio is only as good as the amount of mastering put in.

The bottom line, does a room full of punters care if you're using wav or mp3?? No! Has anyone ever not booked you because you use mp3 and not wav?? I guess not.

Using wav will not improve your sound without changing the whole chain. Mixer, speakers, cables, cd players, media players, sound cards etc etc.