best file types for DJ's to use.....

[djdubc]

I need the opinion of the DJ's who own the mixvibes software.....In your opinion what is the best file format and why would you want to use it?..This should be very interesting.. Im gonna start and say MP3 format 320 KBPS 44,100 Hz 32-bit, the reason for this is because of space to save more tracks, better quality even though its an MP3 lossy file, sounds excellent when playing on a powered system, the majority of my files i resample to the said format and suprisingly they ACTUALLY come out better

[DJ Vintage]

Obviously if disk space is not an option, then WAV is the preferred format imho.

If you want lossy formats, 320MP3 and 256AAC are the best alternatives.

Any of the lossless formats like APE, OGG, FLAC all run the risk of non-support. Even if your DJ software supports them (if you use iTunes for playlisting you are already severely limited by the supported formats there), if you ever have to play on club gear and use the export to RekordBox option, you might find that the club players don't support the format you picked.

My advice would be to pick a format you want and then stick with it, rather than mixing various formats in one collection.

Finally, you say you re-samples your tracks to a certain format. If you did this with lower quality tracks (i.e. reformat 128MP3 or 192MP3 to 320MP3), there is no way that they sound better. There is a very simple reason for that. What isn't there (and compressed audio files exist by virtue of removing stuff) can't be reconstructed by resampling. All that happens is that the computer "guesses" what was there between point A and point B.

General idea here is to purchase tracks in the highest possible quality from trusted sources. Just because a track is 320MP3 when you buy it unfortunately doesn't always mean it is a TRUE 320 kbps track. Hence trusted sources. Buy lossless if available. Do any and all work (like Platinum Notes for example) on a copy of the lossless original if available. Only when all the work is done use a good software to then make 320MP3s or 256AAC out of the tracks. Keep the original files locked and backed-up. This is your capital!

Just my 2 cents.

[djdubc]

i was just asking if the owners of the software what file types and why they use them sir.......my 2 cents....i already know about the resampling issues..i dont experience those issues when i do sir

[RoJeC]

I pretty much rely on the quality levels that Cross uses by the smileys in the collection. As these are based on compression standards that are defined. As Vintage mentioned most 'bad' sounds with high bitrate are upsampled. Often due to software that claims to be able to upsample. Whereas missing low and high frequencies seldom return. Same for harmonics of instruments when below a compressing volume threshold.

Higher sample frequencies are always better, as the sound can be manipulated in smaller steps.

In the end it is not so much on what is best, but how you want to use it and what you can afford. You need to have equipment and software capable of handling 'better', just as the purpose of your gig determines the relevant parts of your setup. Just as the accoustics of the influence the difference between your studio monitoring and how it is experienced in the 'room'/on the floor/..

In my opinion around 192 is a bare minimum when using decent equipment. 44.100 is most universal accepted by most software and drivers without being resampled by the driver/software on the fly.

Just my 2 cents.
Please let me know if my answer fits your criteria.

[DJ Vintage]

My Cross smileys are all green these days

[djdubc]

I pretty much rely on the quality levels that Cross uses by the smileys in the collection. As these are based on compression standards that are defined. As Vintage mentioned most 'bad' sounds with high bitrate are upsampled. Often due to software that claims to be able to upsample. Whereas missing low and high frequencies seldom return. Same for harmonics of instruments when below a compressing volume threshold.

Higher sample frequencies are always better, as the sound can be manipulated in smaller steps.

In the end it is not so much on what is best, but how you want to use it and what you can afford. You need to have equipment and software capable of handling 'better', just as the purpose of your gig determines the relevant parts of your setup. Just as the accoustics of the influence the difference between your studio monitoring and how it is experienced in the 'room'/on the floor/..

In my opinion around 192 is a bare minimum when using decent equipment. 44.100 is most universal accepted by most software and drivers without being resampled by the driver/software on the fly.

Just my 2 cents.
Please let me know if my answer fits your criteria.

i can except that, but it seems the point is being missed, im not expressing the science of the file types, etc. but im just seeing what file types everyone is using and why WOULD YOU, THE USER, USE THAT FILE TYPE....ITS NOT HARD, im not here to overthink the question....its simple, thats it......

[RoJeC]

My response is ment to be a common sense answer. If you go below appx 190kbs convertion type becomes noticable. If you are above it is more specific to circumstances.

The less surround influences (echo, reverb, wind, crowd) the better quality becomes more important.
At 256-320 your good with any file type. What will be the best compression ratio mostly depends on the track content versus the 'removal' algorithm. Some are more audible frequency driven, other more volume threshold/frequency.

If you want to use tracks to be 'stretched' a lot, meaning slow down playback, you might want to use even higher rates.

For live recording in studio setting 1440kbs @92000 is pretty normal as this can be manipulated a lot without losing original sound during the mastering.

My experience, since I have some decent monitors, is that when you have music on e.g. in autoplay you instantly hear when you have a 'bad' quality track. It is somewhat like switching from FM to AM.

So my advice/way of working is to get best Q for both audio as video-audio. Spending time to reduce file size is hardly worth the time given the price of hdd.
When copying to a smartdevice I always convert down to mp3 192, as I don't want to have to check which file types are supported nor have the experience that better Q results in better sound from these devices. But just like 10 years ago 128 was 'the best' for any i-device, this may change in time...

[DJ Vintage]

Answer to your question:

I use WAV-files as source, do all my prep work, then convert to 320MP3 which is what I load into Cross.

[djdubc]

Answer to your question:

I use WAV-files as source, do all my prep work, then convert to 320MP3 which is what I load into Cross.

thats what i was looking for ty! not too hard wasnt it lol

[djdubc]

My response is ment to be a common sense answer. If you go below appx 190kbs convertion type becomes noticable. If you are above it is more specific to circumstances.

The less surround influences (echo, reverb, wind, crowd) the better quality becomes more important.
At 256-320 your good with any file type. What will be the best compression ratio mostly depends on the track content versus the 'removal' algorithm. Some are more audible frequency driven, other more volume threshold/frequency.

If you want to use tracks to be 'stretched' a lot, meaning slow down playback, you might want to use even higher rates.

For live recording in studio setting 1440kbs @92000 is pretty normal as this can be manipulated a lot without losing original sound during the mastering.

My experience, since I have some decent monitors, is that when you have music on e.g. in autoplay you instantly hear when you have a 'bad' quality track. It is somewhat like switching from FM to AM.

So my advice/way of working is to get best Q for both audio as video-audio. Spending time to reduce file size is hardly worth the time given the price of hdd.
When copying to a smartdevice I always convert down to mp3 192, as I don't want to have to check which file types are supported nor have the experience that better Q results in better sound from these devices. But just like 10 years ago 128 was 'the best' for any i-device, this may change in time...

i understand where u r coming from, i guess im gonna have to make another thread on the comparisons of different file types....u sir will start it off since u have a vast knowledge of the file types sir! i nominate u!!!!!!!!!!