Funktion One’s Tony Andrews knows more than most what it takes to get digital sound as sweet as possible, and he’s going to help us come up with the definitive guide for digital DJs to get sound quality right.
Have you ever DJed after a CD or vinyl DJ and not been able to get the same sound quality out of your digital gear? Been forced to play “in the red”, sounding awful in the process? Bought a tune that sounded OK on your PC but crap in the club? Got confused over which audio format sounds best?
Digital sound is far harder to get right than analogue, and one man who knows that pretty much better than anyone is Tony Andrews of Funktion One.
Tony is on a crusade to educate about the benefits of proper sound, and has been for over 40 years. So we figured if he couldn’t help us explain to digital DJs – from bedroom guys to superstars – why great sound is so important, nobody could.
We’re excited to be working with Tony on the digital DJ’s definitive guide to getting the best sound quality possible.
And what’s more, we thought, who better to help us draft out some simple steps to make sure our digital DJ sets sound as good as possible?
Tony has generously agreed to help, and so we’re excited to be working with him on the digital DJ’s definitive guide to getting the best sound quality possible. It’s coming soon! (Update: Here’s Tony’s 7 Rules For Great DJ Sound Quality article.)
Meanwhile, as a prelude to that guide, Tony took ten minutes out of the busy BPM Show 2012, to chat with us in the car park (read: smoking room) at the back of the hall about what the problem is with digital sound, and why we should care. Here’s that interview.
Video
Have you found your DJ sets tend to sound worse sometimes that CD or vinyl guys? Is there anything you’d particularly like us to address in the article or articles to follow? Please share in the comments.
Now go to:
What Every DJ Needs To Know About Music File Formats
Over To You: How Can I Make My Controller Louder?
Controller Clinic #5: The VU Meters On My S4 Aren’t Good Enough!
Want to escape the bedroom and play in public - fast?
Our 1000s-selling How To Digital DJ Fast video course shows you how.
Learn to DJ Free - email course plus bonus PDF book
Sign up for our weekly email course for beginners now...
Trouble choosing a controller? Visit the web's #1 guide!
DJ Controllers: The Ultimate Buyer’s Guide 2013.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
.wav files and 320 kbps MP3s, that’s the key. Spin those and the only other real variables are the speakers, soundcard, and computer.
[ link ]I just watched the video.
Phil, how do you dare to publish such utter falsehoods?
To give just one example, Tony’s statement that you need 96kHz to adequately “satisfy the brilliance of human hearing” is ludicrous. Scientific studies (cf. for example Meyer and Moran, 2007; link: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195) have shown that people do not notice when you pass high resolution audio through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz bottleneck.
And it’s not surprising why that is. The Nyquist theorem tells us that with a 44.1kHz sampling rate, frequencies below 22.05kHz can be reconstructed *perfectly*. Given that the range of human hearing is around 20Hz – 20kHz, a sampling rate of 44.1kHz is big enough.
[ link ]Thanks for your feedback – we will be exploring much more than just lossless vs lossy audio in this debate, and looking at all sides of the argument, in a practical way for DJs to apply to their music collections quickly. Let us do the articles first please.
[ link ]A 96khz sampling rate has absolutely nothing to do with the nyquist frequency, or frequency reproduction, it deals with the anti-aliasing filtering at the end of the output chain. The higher the output sample rate, the more relaxed the AA filter can be. This is why DJMs exclusively use 96khz sampling rates, due to their position as the end digital output bus.
[ link ]Its also pointless to use 96khz to play a music piece which has been mastered and finalised on 44.1khz.
Shishdisma, the anti-aliasing filtering is exactly a practical result of the nyquist frequency theory.
The theorem explicitely explains why aliasing cannot be introduced to anything lower than the half of the sampling frequency – in 44.1 that means we are safe (do not have aliasing) in the range up to 22.050.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
[ link ]You still have to use an AA filter to restrict the sample rate down to 44.1khz. Using a 96khz output rate allows the AA filter to relax, at the expense of processing power. Even the most powerful of practical AA filters allow some aliasing to occur, thus, upsampling is the only practically realizable way to prevent aliasing. AA filters also eat headroom, and relaxing them typically improves an outputs headroom limit.
[ link ]@sameold. Your AES link about (44.1 KHz as sufficient for soundwave’s retrieval) comes from one of the best sources. However at recording studios (and at HiFicircles) 96Khz 24 bits is the accepted retrieval standard.
[ link ]Audiophile’s set up reveal the difference and Audio Engineers know that the recordings could be effected later and applying any DSP to a signal is better done on higher resolution until the mastering process.
DJs we are in the middle of those, because we do apply pitch correction and EQ and effects, so ideally we could be aiming for that, with practical LISTEN-ABLE results.
Some Live-acts and a few small Dj communities have already started.
.
//Luckily at 2012, some consensus has been achieved in the HIFI circles and yes, 96 Khz (24bit) is the recommended high resolution format. However broadband and storing capacities barely permit consumers to handle 44.1KHz 16bit, and so compressed formats still reign. We Djs have to FAST learn better.
Not exactly true. Just because our ears can’t hear them doesn’t mean our bodies do not sense them. Have you ever turned off your cable box but left the TV on? While in a whole other room you still “sensed” the TV was on in the living room even though the TV had a blank screen. This is because your TV was transmitting frequencies as high as 50k and guess what – your body knew it (felt it)! The biggest lie that was told to consumers when CDs came out was it was lossless. So believe your body not just your ears. Have you ever heard a song that you used to love but it doesn’t make you “feel” the way it used to? That is all the high frequencies missing that used to make you feel that way or just high frequency hearing loss from being a DJ listening to music too loud lol….
And by the way Vinyl cannot reproduce frequencies much higher that 20k and begin to get lower each time you play it. So why is vinyl so much smoother sounding? Lots of opinions there but that is not the current topic.
[ link ]ummm… OLD tube TV’s that is if you are old enough to remember those hahahaha
[ link ]plz plz plz tell me what job you do cau you are putting down one of the masters of sound… he has created simply the best speakers on planet earth? awaiting ure reply…
[ link ]@maximlee Don’t wonder to hear and read plenty of dissenting voice in this matter. This is a VERY complex subject with many variables. Take the sampling issue; there are so many arguments stating that 44.1 KHz are (or not) sufficient for soundwave’s retrieval. Theoretically, yes they are, but only without accounting for the delicate processes that transfer that info into the electrical voltage that finally drives your speakers. The anti-aliasing filter mentioned above, is just one of the factors in this.
[ link ]//Luckily at 2012, some consensus has been achieved in the HIFI circles and yes, 96 Khz (24bit) is the recommended high resolution format. However broadband and storing capacities barely permit consumers to handle 44.1KHz 16bit, and so compressed formats still reign. We Djs have to FAST learn better.
I’m still skeptical. I still use MP3 because it’s convenient. Wav files are big and take up loads of space.
[ link ]Me too! So I’m as skeptical as you. Will be an interesting piece.
[ link ]MP3s sound like garbage on big systems. The low frequencies lack punch and the high frequencies are brittle and harsh. Hard drives are cheap these days.
[ link ]im more a clubber than a dj and have been to many gigs were there has been a digital dj after a vinyl dj…. it not just a small difference it fcukin huge huge…its as if the body has went out of the sound. Personal speaking if you are proffessional you should be playing wav… in my opinion… but it leads to another topic… how many djs really love sound or can hear the difference… not many.
I think its an insult to a funktion one sound system to play anything less than wav
[ link ]Great move Phil, I would love to hear more from Tony.
[ link ]I would like to get Tony’s opinion regarding Platinum Notes, if it does worse to the audio files rather than fixing them. Hopefully you could forward this to him.
Thanks.
[ link ]It’s a good question.
[ link ]I had nor a single good result using Platinum Notes.
[ link ]I’m in the same boat. Sold my licence super cheap to get rid of it.
[ link ]So if im following you correctly, I should stop prchasing mp3s and start purchasing .WAV files? And if this is true, my next questions would be, what am i supposed to do with my already purchased MP3s? I can’t afford to repurchase them all as .WAVs and I definately can’t afford to part with them or never play them out
[ link ]No, not necessarily. I don’t use WAVs for instance, for reasons of my own deciding (mainly, I like having my whole DJ collection on all my devices). I find 320 MP3s fine. Tony doesn’t. But the thing is, we’re going to go through the whole area of sound quality in order to help those who aren’t initiated with the factors that contribute to great to make informed decisions on this stuff.
[ link ]I’m really tired of all the discussion on lossless vs lossy compression. On djtechtools there was also a similar discussion a couple of weeks ago.
The fact is that they are approaching the problem in such a simple way. Using bitrate as a way of quantising quality is very short-sighted and just wrong(at least if comparing different compression formats like wav and mp3). The facts that he describes when comparing digital to analog is also quite questionable. He starts about his foobar media player makes it even more rediculous, most media players just sound the same (when the eq is not used).
I should really write an article on it based on scientific facts. The problem is that any actual quality difference above a certain level, which is mostly considered as 192 mp3 kbps(this is what experimental, is not really hearable. The thing is that the brain has a big influence on the sound quality then. It will sound better for yourself if you know it is the file with the better quality.
Here is a good presentation that handles some parts of audio quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
And just to conclude, I understand vinyl is charming, it always nice to take it out of a beautiful sleeve and indeed the the cracks can be charming, but it is technically inferiour to a cd or wav file.
[ link ]“So if im following you correctly, I should stop purchasing mp3s and start purchasing .WAV files?”
YES, they both barely cost the same and whatever opinion you -so far- have about your perceived sound, you’ll be better prepared for the future.
About your already purchased low rez files, try to keep some purchasing proof. I foresee some united voice in this matter. Actually we as DigitalDjTips, DjTechtools and the other main DJ voices should gather unite to advocate for some way of upgrading resolution with reduced fees for DJs.
[ link ]Labels and DJs would be interested, we just need to get together a big voice in this.
Nice clip. I rarely have problems at 128. Yet, lower than that? I can tell the difference. Unless there’s a more convenient way to gain better sound, MP3s are here for awhile.
[ link ]128?
[ link ]128 IMO sounds absolutely horrendous. So dull and lifeless. 192 is my absolute lowest bitrate I will play but even then I will only buy that if its the only option which isn’t really a common problem these days.
[ link ]Not for mono 60s pop, though – just sayin’
[ link ]There’s a good side to this (mess): In fact with small sound systems, small low wattage speakers, portable speakers, most of the head/ear-phones, etc… compressed files… I don’t want to say this… actually sound better!!!
[ link ]Yes, those speakers can’t actually handle of those many low, mid and high frequencies and then benefit from the load reduction.
You played those low rez files and suddenly your mom’s radio sounds great!
This has been one of the reasons why MP3s have been easily adopted.
128 kbs, you’ve got to be kiddin’!?
[ link ]Yep, I said it. When iTunes convert my CDs, they automatically go 128. Lifeless? Dull? Whatever. I still get the gigs.
[ link ]You can set this in your advanced settings. I ripped a whole lot of stuff to 128 back in the day, I’ve slowly replaced it all with 320 but to be honest, I can’t tell the difference above 256 or even 192 sometimes.
[ link ]I posted this comment on the youtube video, thought I might elaborate a bit on it here:
As a person who has been in many discussions about digital audio formats, I have many objections to this video that I’m hoping I might see at least some acknowledgment of from so-called “experts”.
First of all; No, you can’t “certainly” tell the difference between lossless formats and 320 mp3s. In fact, most people can’t. Until you get onto really expensive audio setups that are even capable of rendering the absolute minute details that you lose by 320 kbps compression you -might- hear it in a double blind setting if you have good ears. There is a lot more placebo involved than one might suspect. Double blind testing is crucial to rule out any bias one might have.
Modern lossy encoders like the LAME MP3 Encoder have very sophisticated psycho-acoustic models. As with all lossy encoders, yes, data is actually -removed- in order to minimize file size, but that data is 99.9% inaudible anyway. Again, double blind testing will easily determine whether you can tell what information is missing. You can look at data graphs and spectrometers all you want, but that doesn’t necessarily affect how it actually sounds.
That being said, I think 320 kbps mp3s should be a minimum for DJs. We play our music very loudly, usually through quite potent systems, so you do want to minimize loss of quality. As long as you don’t inflict distortion by setting your gains too high, and the DAC on your controller or your mixer is of decent quality, 320 mp3s should sound just fine.
We aren’t quite at the point yet where storage is cheap enough that we can go lossless for everything. Not to mention that lossless is, for some inexplicable reason, more expensive. Until such time that I am convinced I actually -need- lossless for my gigs to sound acceptable, I will stick with 320.
Also, about 24bit/96khz: In a listening setting, it’s not needed at all. That kind of resolution is simply a waste as – again – we can’t tell the difference. It’s useful for production purposes, just like working with higher resolution images is preferable for photographers, but for the regular viewer it hardly means anything.
[ link ]Lossless is more expensive to buy, because you need to cover the additional storage space and bandwidth needed to host and transfer the files to the customer. Think of it as additional “shipping weight” for downloading these formats. But a few websites, like Bandcamp, are generous enough to choose a flat price for all formats.
[ link ]@Yrjan Lund. Your argument favoring 320Khz has been often heard and still comes outin this talk, but not on HiFi circles which is something you also explain.
However, HiFI technologies are actually trickling down. A couple of days ago ASUS improved their top line consumer level soundcard allowing for 120dB S/N and Creative, through their E-Mu line, has been doing this for years and has just released a revamped consumer level with their best technology.
Add the PRO Audio manufacturers going this route for some years already. Denon and Pioneer at the DJ area.
All going up in resolution and actually getting mid priced sosund systems able to finally REVEAL what so far has been the privilege of a few.
We DJs (at least many of us) stay in this for life, so we better prepare in the best way for the future.
[ link ]Ok, at some far point, sound would be “touchable” and processors might automatically guess that from nothing (shitty files), but my take is to gather the best attainable sound quality files now and follow the HiFi lead route. There are second hand gear not-so-expenssive, DIY and price-conciouss HiFi lessons that we may apply to our DJing TODAY, will hear-able results and so some of us are pointing this way. It is great to get into great sounding parties, clubs, pubs, terraces, etc. Why not=
I use both Aiff and mp3(320) and recently changed to only Aiff. There is defintely a difference in sound quality between lossy and lossless with lossless(wav and aiff)being the better quality.
But I also admit that it also depends a LOT on the soundsystem you will be playing on..if you play on a rubbish system, both formats will sound rubbish. Then on the other hand you defintely can hear the difference on a great system.
However, most great systems normally have a great sound board and engineers filtering and tweaking your music anyway…in this case, good quality mp3′s do just fine too…yup, true story
I still use both formats and I chose aiff over wav because of the tagging ability. I also rip most of my lossless files from original cd’s that I buy online. In some cases this is even cheaper than buying lossless from Beatport plus I have a cd for backup
I’m no audiophile but can I tell the difference between mp3′s and wav/aiff files on my home setup. Playing out and about it’s difficult to tell unless you purposely monitor the music, which to me is no fun when you’re clubbing
Great interview! I like people who are passionate about their expertise and Tony sure knows his stuff…
[ link ]Many years ago I studied (read) Electronic Engineering at University. Analogue (vinyl) is continuous. Digital is discrete. What this means is that the higher the sampling rate, up to a point, the more accurately the analogue sound is captured (nearly said reproduced there). The quality of the played back sound depends on many factors. In a club where other DJ’s sound better I’d say your limiting factors are:
The lowest sampling rate between the original analogue recording and your track – as mentioned in the video if buying online you don’t know what you’re getting
The quality of your Digital to Analogue Converter (Soundcard)
Plus it’s been long acknowledged that Digital distortion sounds worst than analogue. Analogue distortion is warm but Digital is harsh. I presume this is due to the fact that digital has straight lines and sharp edges that analogue doesn’t.
Therefore I’d suggest:
[ link ]Buy highest quality digital files you can
Get a renowned Soundcard
Don’t go into the red
that’s why I use an acoustic spectrum analyzer to ck every song from online retailer or cd’s, they get analyze,
[ link ]” Analogue (vinyl) is continuous. Digital is discrete. What this means is that the higher the sampling rate, up to a point, the more accurately the analogue sound is captured”
This is a very VERY widespread misconception about the difference between Analogue and Digital.
Both systems are a mere representation of the music soundwave. A child drawing an uninterrupted line of what he feels from music, ALSO makes a continuous way of representing the music, still his draw is far from been a High Resolution format or better than a discrete digital retrieval…
The same way, a very thick (high sampling) discrete representation of music, may easily outplace a vinyl recording if given enough resolution.
If you want it visually; the digital steps are so small than they look more continuous than whatever the finer capacity the machine that carves the vinyl can achieve.
That is what happens when you actually take Forty four thousand pictures (samples) PER SECOND from the soundwave. Those “steps” look far from dots to the ears and very “liquid” if you allow me the metaphor.
[ link ]@Dave Smith, On 2nd read we might be saying the same, then, take my answer as an extension of your ideas. Just wanted to vent that out
[ link ]Huge respect for what Tony Andrews has achieved with his speakers, some of the best Systems I have heard consisted of Funktion-One.
But sometimes I have a feeling that he might be taking his crusade too far. I remember an interview where he argued that air is basically not a good enough medium for transmitting the real sound coming out of his speakers.
In a perfect world there may be some influence, even though there are enough scientific studies that think otherwise. In the venues where most of the DJs on this site (myself included) play, there are factors with a far greater impact on sound quality than the difference between 320kbps MP3s and WAV files. Think speaker system, gain staging, signal chain or room acoustics (!). Even the difference between decently and badly mastered tracks normally makes a bigger difference in my opinion. So thank you for mentioning that in the video, Phil.
Once you have optimized these steps and are still not happy with the sound, it may be worth to think about WAV files.
Still thank you for getting an interview with someone who is a legend in the industry. Considering how his voice sounds I’m not surprised you met him in the “smoking room” of the show.
[ link ]He’s a bit like a sonic philosopher really. Brilliant theoretical insights, but unfortunately there are many other factors to consider in reality
[ link ]What are you saying, Miec and caspar? That in practical terms this lossless/Lossy talk is useless??
[ link ]Well, then you need to check the actual gear specs that Pioneer and Denon have been putting out for years now and then add what Mackie, Asus, Creative and other not-so-top-of-line manufacturers are nowadays releasing… c’mon even Behringer with their Klark-Teknik and Midas acquisition is bringing a new audio level to the table.
My take is that, -even been practical- we are late when we say to far too many DJs, that they should consider upgrading the audio quality of the files they are buying today, because sometimes their DJ set is already sounding different by this very choice and increasingly so at fast rates.
DJ files is not something you buy for disposable consumption, hopefully you carry it many years and so not having this is mind is bad planning, basically.
First of all, even though I know how Phil seperates CD-DJs from laptop DJs by referring to the latter as “digital”, it sounds as if CDs are not digital – which there are. I know Phil knows, Im just saying…
[ link ]So the real question put here is not a comparison between analogue-digital to begin with: its a comparison between formats (CDA-wav vs. mp3)
Secondly, Phil hits the nail on the head by mentioning the home-studio parameter and lots of other variables that have changed the last decades, besides moving from analogue to digital sound, but for some reason many choose to blame only this transition.
Finally, Im sick tired of people who know absolutely nothing about sound as a science yet they always seem to have a very strong opinion of what format sounds “good” forgetting that, scientifically “good” is “accurate” – its not what YOU like, its what reproduces the recorded sound more accurately! Think about that next time you listen to that “warm”, noisy, scratchy, favourite vinyl of yours!
typo: *they are*
[ link ]I have to agree with you. Many a time things are sounding poor because of the production, lack of a good mix (balance, reverb, pre-delay (or lack of), and dynamics), and the failure to send for professional mastering. Not always but it is becoming much more common with home studio set-ups and straight to pressing.
[ link ]FLAC is a good format if you can play it. It’s the quality of WAV (it’s basically compressed WAV, a bit like a zip file) but a size comparable to MP3.
The interviewer skirts around the idea of remastering your collection to WAV, which is a complete misnomer really as it suggests just format shifting what you already have. Format shifting never gains fidelity and almost always looses more. To have the fidelity you need it in the first place, from CD or download it should be WAV or some other lossless format (FLAC, I think OGG have one too, not sure about others) unless you are getting new files or re-ripping CD’s then you won’t gain anything. EAC combined with a Lite-on cd drive is the most accurate setup I have found for ripping CD’s.
The quality of the recording in the first place is a vital point, completely agree.
It’s also worth noting that the quality of CD’s has in some cases dropped too. I’m told (and I don’t know this to be true but it seems to tally) that some CD manufacturers (CD Pool for example) receive 320 MP3′s (which have lost a little fidelity during encoding in the labels studio) press them to CD (possibly loosing some more fidelity, possibly not) and then a DJ will then re-rip to MP3 – loosing even more quality. I am sure that this happens with a lot of CD manufacturers. If you have inferior quality sound before it goes through your software and hardware then it’s already lost quality and you’re already at a disadvantage.
[ link ]I use a mix of both Mp3′s and WAV files. As someone stated above, maybe our ears cant hear it, but there is a clear feel of emptyness in a mp3 compared to the same wav audio file. In my opinion, this is more noticeable in some genres as for example, Deep House or Hip Hop, as in mp3 I think they sound kind of empty compared to Wav.
[ link ]Other genres like acoustic, indie, alternative rock, in my opinion there is no real difference between the two formats.
It also depends on the equipment, if you are playing in really high tier speakers the difference is more noticeable than in for example, common computer speakers.
Well, the lossless algorithms mostly rip out material that supposedly is overlapping or has little perception. Some even filter out anything below 30Hz.
The less data points, the more chance is that the digital to analog conversion will not be be smooth and digital distortion is introduced. WIth crappy systems few hear that, with good and powerful systems you might hear it, usually as annoying buzz distortion. 320K MP3s are less prone to this, but whoever us DJ:ing ripped 128k YouTube streams should be forced to listen to those streams over and over with headphones glued to their head.
[ link ]For the record, you can go past 128 on YouTube rips. Still, I wouldn’t recommend using YouTube rips in the first place.
[ link ]Financial issues make this very simplistic
• In 2012, you cannot purchase digital music higher than 16 bit.
People are not producing music in these superior res/bit/format/etc.
It’s a moot point, for now.
• Even if it were available, 2012-tech is too expensive.
A 200gb library of mp3s is astronomically big at 24-bit WAV.
And, let’s not forget the recent shift to SSDs, which makes it more $$$.
• Mr. Andrews makes a bunch of good points, but the entire debate for DJs is completely moot until the following happens:
1) people start producing music at 96khz/24bit WAV
2) digital distributors start selling music at 96khz/24bit WAV
3) DJs can run out and buy an 8TB SSD £100 or something…
~ will be interesting to see how things change in the future!
[ link ]It’s clear to us that there’s a need to come up with a “best practices” guide for DJs that is pragmatic, not prescriptive.
[ link ]Don’t forget 1-44.1kHz is the sampling rate of cd’s and of 2- # bits per sample.
[ link ]Example if sampling at 8 bits per sample, and 44.1kHz (44100 times a second 8 bits are extracted) the effective bps (bits per second) would be 44.1 x 1000 sample/ second x 8bit/ sample = 352,800 bits/ second ~ 324kbps so called good quality mp3!!
Too few samples and you will miss short and high frequency sound (becomes square wave) and too low a bit rate you loose subtleties (whispers vs sonic bang!)
Cause these 8 bits are spread evenly across the dynamic range, (the amplitude of the sine wave, highest volume vs. lowest.)
For argument sake, let’s assume a perfect sine swing from -1 to 1 Volt, this is a 2 volt range spread out over for 8 bits, (0000 0000 for -1 and 1111 1111 for + 1 volt), each 0.25 V adding another bit.
This is not a lot as it would not capture any sounds < 0.25 volts.
Solutions:
A) increase # bits per sample 12, 14, 20, 24 or 48 are 'usual values.'
Downside: at 12 bits per sample at 44.1 kHz sampling rate = 529,200 bits per second or 516 Kbps!
2- other solution you place more samples around the 0 Volts range (called compressed dynamic ranges, pardon me if this is not the exact term) leveraging that a loud 0.75 and V are both perceive by the human hear as really loud, allow us to set a bit for a 0.25 V, 2 bits for a +/- 0.25 V sine wave!
Using, variable bit rate (not always 44.1kHz, sampling rate) help maintain files smaller!
I consider the issue of sound/track quality to be rather moot, as part of the DJs job is to bring quality to a venue; good quality should be synonymous with the practice. Conversely the format debate really starts to seem like a endless cycle of nitpicking, and really makes one wonder whether the differences can actually be heard or are there because people simply believe them to be.
320′s and FLAC are my go-to formats.
[ link ]Has anyone plugged into an analog DJ mixer lately?? The warmth feel will be back. Example: where I am playing we recently had to send our Pioneer DJM for servicing. We swapped out with a $200 Behringer. Would you believe me if I said the Behringer sounded “better” to me on the initial change as opposed to the $1500 800 mixer! BUT Pioneer “industry standard” – whatever -
[ link ]Pioneer sound quality’s not the best despite it’s the standard, why do you think A&H is even more expensive? Try one and you won’t look back.
[ link ]In the office, I see people listening to and circulating a 40kbs/22kHz mp3 with no complaints whatsoever. That is just sad. The average clubber (2 or 3 times a month) will not notice a jump in formats or sample rate, unless it is a obvious one like 320 to 40kbs. They are (hopefully) way too busy jiving, ogling or drinking to hear or care about such. Personally, I like working mp3 at 320s but there is an odd 128 or 256 in there somewhere. The big plus for me is that I can play these mp3s in my ride while commuting to/from a gig… (o_O)
[ link ]I had a debate a couple of months ago with “digital audiophiles” because ALAC and FLAC sounded somehow different to WAV. Was not sure if it was just my imagination (you know, if you’re told beforehand you’re listening to a “superior” format, psychologically you tend to search for proof of that superiority)…
… until I asked one of the guys working at our technical university to perform a spectral analysis on the soundcard’s output (using more or less the same hard/software configuration I did). I mean, if anything could detect the differences, it would be a machine, not human ear (because it cannot hear every frequency and the interpretation by the brain is very subjective and dependent on the situation). He connected a device to soundcard’s output and played various waveforms through it. It turned out, that there was a difference in form of some added/modified frequencies throughout the entire spectrum.
The reason for that was the codec. Basically, ANY format that requires pre-processing (unpacking to raw data), instead of sending the waveform directly to soundcard’s buffer, slightly alters the output sound (unless it’s a dedicated device with no multitasking nor other functions) because there is no absolute 100% guarantee that the buffer will be filled synchronously (in an average computer, there are many other processes occupying the CPU, I/O, …). At low volumes, this might not be that noticeable. At high volumes things may change.
And that’s why the formats which use raw data (AIFF, WAV) have the best potential to sound as the content was intended to, with minimal alterations in the output.
[ link ]Best info on this whole debate here and it really does make sense, good to know, thanks.
[ link ]Well, buffers are a factor when levels of jitter start to increase. Data compression and de-compression results should not be buffer-dependent because these systems always rely on bit-to-bit checks.
[ link ]However transmission do have a role in sound differences. I would have made the test measuring the decompressed data inside the PC host and only then transmitted thru the soundcard…
I understand the point of DJing with FLAC files is to leave them as they are and just play and so your have a point with your test, however the problem does not lie on the compression process but on the associated transmission…
I would also try the same tests with different soundcards and even different laptops. I{d bet you would also measure differences.
//By the way, USB in itself is not the optimus transmission method, it does introduce jitter on the timings as you mention, but this is another subject in itself and quite secondary to the level we are discussing in this article.
I am jus wondering if you buy tunes at 192kbps and then run it through platinum notes at 320kbps. Will it be the same as buying a 320kbps tune then or jus a shit tune made sound a little better?
[ link ]No, you can’t “put back” what’s already been “removed”. It’d be like scaling a photo on your computer from 3000×2000 to 300×200, then back up again; by then, the damage is done.
[ link ]Ok thanks phil
[ link ]I thought the video got a bit cheesy near the end
[ link ]Why just be negative,? Take the time to explain what could have been improved if you’re going to go down that route please.
[ link ]I meant with the Dairylea joke at the end Phil… I was only kidding mate
…. Looking forward to the article when it lands.
[ link ]Ha ha, sorry – my bad! It’s ben a long week and it ain’t over yet.
Forgive my humourless Thursday afternoon.
[ link ]Ha ha, no worries
, nearly the weekend.
[ link ]I think more than just teaching DJs to use good quality audio files, these DJs need to also learn to better EQ things in a club.
[ link ]At the moment we’re looking at covering why it’s important, then moving on to sound cards/audio interfaces, gain staging, picking carefully to get good-sounding tunes in the first place, and yes, file formats.
[ link ]This was an awesome video and I definitely look forward to the follow up article! I find the debate of whether you can ‘hear’ the difference between lossy and lossless laughable. Even if you couldn’t hear a difference, which you can, why take the gamble? If you’re serious about DJing, then why sell yourself short on your music? You can only go downhill in quality from your initial song file. (Bad venue, speakers etc.)
If we spend thousands on a CDJ or laptop/ controller, and thousands on a great mixer, or thousands on a bad ass PA system, why skimp on a few bucks for the song files themselves? It just seems a paltry price to pay to know that you have the best quality file you can get.
[ link ]As for sound at 320, I bet some readers are just now finding that out. That’s the beauty of this site. Yet, I could have sworn I read you at LEAST have the mp3 at 128. I could have been wrong. Yet, I know how it is, bedroom DJs know more than the folks who actually get gigs.
[ link ]Ah ha, I knew I read right. Not to say you guys were wrong. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/04/are_itunes_premium_downloads_worth_it.html
[ link ]Nobody heard of OGG? It offers higher bitrates, better sound quality and best of all: it’s a free codec. I don’t know, why it isn’t implemented in audio software and audio players these days. Just because MP3 is common doesn’t mean it’s the best lossy codec available.
[ link ]I believe the goal is to ditch lossy, not find a better lossy codec.
[ link ]I think one major important thing that DJ’s on a whole should realise is that, when a low quality audio file on a loud system its going to cause some serious damage to the hearing of people actually on the dance floor. Not only that but I have been horrified when i turn up to a club and the DJ before me has all channels including the master solid in the red… Its just irresponsible.
I think as DJ’s we have to take responsibility for looking after the clubs sound system to ensure that people don’t develop tinnitus as a result of hearing the music.
Just buy the best quality you can and just give the party going public some loud, non distorted music to enjoy..
[ link ]Excellent point. Too loud music is bad in itself. Then bad quality sound (skreetching highs, and tiring mids) is worse.
One good rule of thumb i discovered from playing in small amplification rigs is that when you hear sound systems distort, they are many folds more likely to have the drivers burnt and fail, than when the music sounds good )though it still may be playing loud).
[ link ]I see no reason why ears should behave differently than speaker drivers…