WAV OR MP3 FOR YOUR DJ MUSIC COLLECTION www.getinthemix.com www.whybuynew.com Nothing in this video is given as legal evidence, it is provided for information purposes only.
Great analogy Jonathan BUT lets be totally honest here at a gig NOBODY will or CAN tell the difference esp when you add alcohol into the equation. I use only mp3 and I've NEVER had anyone complain about the quality. Far more important is the quality of the Artist/song than the quality...
Never get WAV... always get AIFF since it has identical sound quality to WAV, but it also has metadata like the album art, artist, genre, release date, remixer, etc... WAV can't hold that information. Also, AIFF works on even the oldest gear
I’ve been downloading everything in WAV so that I have the full quality and then can convert it if I need to. I’ve heard of AIFF but hadn’t made the jump. Tagging WAV is a bitch. Might look into AIFF but my question is, can I convert my existing WAV files to AIFF for easier tagging?
@@BasswobbleFattronix true but if you watch flac music on an analyser there is no loss in frequencies or volume at least thats what i found out, FLAC is like ZIP compression for Audio and thats why it is so nice and the best of both worlds
Loved this knowledge because i was in the process of downloading all my tracks again in wav… this was the wisdom i needed thank you legend!! Always great videos
Agree, no need for mp3 for the last 10 years. flac is lossless yet smaller than wav and also carries metadata, so I would suggest is the best option, although may not supported on very old gear.
The main issue for me is there are some exclusive tracks or bootlegs that an artist releases but they release them in mp3 320 kbps through hypeddit and we're never made available in wav. Would it still be okay to play these live?
Only reason I use MP3 over .wav is because of metadata. AIFF is pretty good alternative with metadata if higher sound quality is needed and you have a system that will accept those files (most will now).
@@Dj-Jon-E-C Yeah, I think AIFF is just Apples' branding of WAV. Windows makes AIFF compatible by just naming it AIF. WAV is Windows Audio File iirc. FLAC is a bit less quality but still comparable to MP3 and may be better in some instances, but is half the quality of a CD whereas CD quality can be achieved with WAV and AIFF
actually, I had it wrong. FLAC is just compressed but WAV is not, so editing can be better with WAV but FLAC can be better for storage while maintaining quality.
@@ElDJReturn Flac I think sound is the same as wav but from what I know it packs it up in like a suitcase then unpacks it when it's played which requires fast decoder. Bit like how zip works where it can make something smaller in size but then has to be unpacked for it to work. bit like folding clothes up to fit in suitcase and then unpack it. I may be wrong but think it's how it works. If so, then when you edit it the actual sound quality is same as wav but may take little longer to unpack it. Having said that it can be reduced quality depending how it was encoded but you can have exact same as wav with it at high quality decoding.
@@Dj-Jon-E-C Yeah, that's kind of the conclusion I came to after reading up on it more. You definitely explained it better than I probably could have though. Considering everything I do is on a 2009 Macbook Pro, I usually don't notice the difference on audio file type until after I start playing my files on my standalone system or listening back on a set recording. I do like WAV files but with MP3 and a good ear / quick EQ response I feel I'm starting to be able to get my MP3's to sound just as good when playing live, but notice the difference now. I haven't played with FLAC yet but it sounds interesting and I think given the opportunity I might try them out. Sadly most outlets I get my music from don't offer them though.
Quick information for old CDJ users. 320mb/s mp3 tracks are loaded into player faster on disc than data of WAV. I highly recommend to load the next track fast on the same deck quickly as possible to do not lose your time while DJing But when you using WAV it takes me 3-5 second to load it but on mp3 it loads in 1 sec
Ive always used vinyls but been using CDjs recently its a question ive wanted to know for years. As far as listening to music on my phone or MP3 I always use WMA to get as much music onto 4gb but when it comes to music that I use for mixing ive never known the best format ive tried recording music in WAV at the highest rate and then on MP3 personally i cant tell the difference even with good studio speakers
It's quite surprising how much mp3 there is in circulation... It's like being rich with few Ferraris and Lamborghinis in your garage and instead drive a bus everywhere. Everyone produces uncompressed wav, flac etc and we don't have storage problems and high quality DACs are inexpensive. I personally still prefer mixing vinyl 😃
I followed you're channel 2yrs ago mate. Thanks for benefits everyone from you're professional advice's 🙏.. Any plans to post special edition for (Mastering). Thank you
Yeah I try to stick with wav and flac as no loss in quality even though mp3 320kbps is pretty good and I can't tell the difference. wav or flac is also good if you're editing you don't lose anything. Flac is my big fav as it's no loss in sound and also can have other data added to it along with the sound and smaller if I remember right. it still keeps all the details the same as Wav. There is a format out there not sure if it's Dsd that can contain even more detail than even wav, but it gets to point where wav is so great anyway it's not worth the extra cost and also the format can't be edited etc like wav and flac etc. Plus not much music done in dsd format and older recordings would not benefit. Maybe in the future it get to point where wav is losing out on details when an even better format can capture even more, I guess in a way all formats can only contain so much detail but mp3 is one that does loose an amount that can be noticed by golden ears. Vinyl even has loss in quality as well as added noise though with that it kind of has it's own sound that a lot of people love even though some of it is not what was there originally.
Interesting content thanks! I could change my mind in the futur but I currently use only mp3 320k because I find the quality excellent and tracks load faster on cdjs or serato.
In my experience on a small ish club system you can’t spot a 320 mp3 from a wav. I store everything as and mostly play MP3 ‘s but if I’m going to play on a big rig I re download my set in wav. Saves on storage. Oh and also there are a lot of bad wav’s out there. Just because the bit rate is high it doesn’t mean the file is good. Check your tracks before playing out people!!!!
I downloaded a wav and a mp3 320kbps and the difference was that the wav sounded a bit more powerfull.. like the signal was stronger so i didn't have to turn up the volume that much to hear everything better. But in the quality itself it is verry hard to notice if specifick parts of the songs sounded better or not.. it was noticable on the display of the laptop that the wave lines were bigger on wav but thats only it... i have to say if you download mp3 below 320kbps then you will hear a really big difference. So i like mp3 320 and it works fine everything below that will be noticable.. some recordpools don't have wav.
The problem is that depending on where you download it from it can be a wav created from an mp3. In that case it will just take up more space but it won't improve on sound quality
Sure, non compressed is obviously better than compressed if you have all the space in the world. But sample rate is more important than either. More dots on that waveform will give you more dynamic range.
Another thing in the last few decades is that people seem to be allergic to raising the volume. They want loud loud and loud so they are compressing even on cds to get that loudness effect. That's why at first cds had prefect sound but not now
How is it possible to hear the difference between WAV and MP3, when mp3 cuts all frequencies above 20kHz and the human ear cant hear sounds above 20kHZ?
No, it's not that specific frequencies are cut, it is the overall intensity of the volume is pure and loud in a .wav where in comparison to the same track in .mp3, it isn't going to have the same power to it even though we are getting the same frequencies through both tracks. When you are djing live to a crowd and you mix a .mp3 to a .wav you're going to amplify the .mp3 because it is noticeably quiet.
All my music files are 320 MP3's, sacrilege I know, but it saves on space, and you get more on the drive. All my Video's are Uncompressed CD quality sound replaced by me. Also I have thousands of Vinyl Rips that are as CD quality as I can get them, and not many can tell they are from records.
I am bedroom DJ, played only in very small private gigs... my approach is: I download all my tracks in mp3 (320kbs, 44.1 khz, 16 bit stereo) for a few reasons : it's cheaper, if I upload my mix to mixcloud it will be compressed anyway, all meta data (que points and loops) is saved into the file, so it's neat. but! if I play it live (not online streaming), I take my sets and crates, decide what I will play, create a tracklist, and buy a wav versions. And copy/clone cue points from mp3. this is aswell a good practice for preparing yourself for a gig, because you'll go through every track you planning to play twice. but i think people won't notice it, because on the party they all drunk, or other, and acoustics of the room affecting the sound so much that you hear the same track differently in different spots of the room. And because audio specs of wav are the same in mp3 (44,1 khz, 16 bit stereo). But after saying that, I need to explain that: "Missing bits" of data in compressed mp3 is very noticeable if will use Pitch'n'time, and lower the pitch of the track quite a bit. Then you will hear more "shredding", because your software have less data to work with (4 times less). Chopped track will have larger samples, and you will notice every chop repeating. Hard to explain. But that's another big topic... Another thing to consider is your controller. It have soundcard inside with limited specs. For example Numark NV2 have 44.1 kHz 16bits. So hardware of controller will reduce any audio file to this specs. So there is no benefit to buy 48.0Khz 24 Bit if your controller will reduce it to 44.1khz 16 bit... (pioneer ddjs are giving 32 bit sound on master output)... i will say- if it's for streaming services like mixcloud, UA-cam, Discord, bedroom, then just go with mp3. Because it's not gonna be a wav on the other end (listener laptop). But when people are listening directly from a dicent soundsystem, get a wav version of your tracklist. oh yeah, another thing to consider is music like Psy, Trance, Dub, Chill and such, often created for 5.1 surround sound. so it's more than a stereo. If you got this setup, mp3 is a no-no... In addition : with the age and when hearing a loud sound, our frequency range that we hear is shrinking. So scientifically, a person who work in a construction site, or going to dance next to the huge speaker every weekend, he doesn't hear high freqs that we can have only in 48.0khz 24 bit audio file. Most people don't hear it, or hear it very vaguely.
A lot of people don't get the difference because they are not very critical about sound and because they are using a $20 Bluetooth speaker or the car stereo in most cases. If you play it for them in a good quality sound system and tell them to pay attention they will get the difference. I use mp3 in my car and in my phone with cheap earphones but at home I use wav or real records.
Iorana, by my own experience I use almost exclusively in Mp3. For the bitrate....the debate can during hours, some prefer only in constant others in variable bitrate. Most of my music is in 256kbps and 320kbps, but I DJing too with lot of tracks in 192kbps and the audio rendering is the same with the 320kbps even on big sound system. All that to say it's not really the bitrate or the audio format the important stuff, it's the source.
All my personally ripped files are WAV's. The difference between WAV and MP3 on my pa is clearly sonically obvious. NB, I lolled when you compared an escort with a porche cos I knew what cars you were gonna use as examples before you mentioned them.
This is completely misinformed. Audio file compression diminishes quality in 2 possible ways. Firstly and most importantly, it lowers the maximum frequency ceilling. 48000 audio allows for sonic information of up to 24khz to be preserved. Most people can't hear frequencies above 16khz, and those who can, it's largely unimportant information as the audio was likely not engineered with much attention to those frequencies. Simply put, most people's ears simply cannot hear the extra frequencies provided by lossless audio. The second consideration is that file compression can occasionally cause some artefacts due to problems with interpolating waveform phase in high frequencies, though most interpolation in modern compression algorithms accounts for this. When you have super low quality files (lower than 320) these issues become more of an issue. So for the most part, if you're sticking with 320mp3 and not using shitty compression software, only your dog can tell the difference. I'd rather be able to keep a small usb on me than an ssd for such a meaningless difference in quality.
Very similar in quality to a 320kbps mp3, which is honestly perfectly fine. You'll probably hear a 10% difference between these higher bitrate lossy options and lossless options on a high end sound system if you're really paying attention.
I opened and played some mp3s that I downloaded from limewire and all the other downloading sites from back in the day. My God the quality on that stuff was pure shit.
![Simple Guide To Music File Formats [For DJs] 🔊](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4dFgg69RKtc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Simple Guide To Music File Formats [For DJs] 🔊](/img/tr.png)
Great analogy Jonathan BUT lets be totally honest here at a gig NOBODY will or CAN tell the difference esp when you add alcohol into the equation. I use only mp3 and I've NEVER had anyone complain about the quality. Far more important is the quality of the Artist/song than the quality...
Never get WAV... always get AIFF since it has identical sound quality to WAV, but it also has metadata like the album art, artist, genre, release date, remixer, etc... WAV can't hold that information. Also, AIFF works on even the oldest gear
same for FLAC format
Amen brother.
@@MrSmeezer yet flac is slightly compressed, RIP.
I’ve been downloading everything in WAV so that I have the full quality and then can convert it if I need to. I’ve heard of AIFF but hadn’t made the jump. Tagging WAV is a bitch. Might look into AIFF but my question is, can I convert my existing WAV files to AIFF for easier tagging?
@@BasswobbleFattronix true but if you watch flac music on an analyser there is no loss in frequencies or volume at least thats what i found out, FLAC is like ZIP compression for Audio and thats why it is so nice and the best of both worlds
Loved this knowledge because i was in the process of downloading all my tracks again in wav… this was the wisdom i needed thank you legend!! Always great videos
Same here, when u have downloaded the wav is it ok to delete the mp3 version? To free up space
@@mollymurphy999 yes
Agree, no need for mp3 for the last 10 years. flac is lossless yet smaller than wav and also carries metadata, so I would suggest is the best option, although may not supported on very old gear.
The main issue for me is there are some exclusive tracks or bootlegs that an artist releases but they release them in mp3 320 kbps through hypeddit and we're never made available in wav. Would it still be okay to play these live?
Hey man. I hope you're doing well!!! I remember watching you back in 2008!!! Bought my first record turntable to dj
Only reason I use MP3 over .wav is because of metadata. AIFF is pretty good alternative with metadata if higher sound quality is needed and you have a system that will accept those files (most will now).
Flac is good one too it uses metadata but is the same quality as Wav. I think AIFF is pretty much like Flac.
@@Dj-Jon-E-C Yeah, I think AIFF is just Apples' branding of WAV. Windows makes AIFF compatible by just naming it AIF. WAV is Windows Audio File iirc. FLAC is a bit less quality but still comparable to MP3 and may be better in some instances, but is half the quality of a CD whereas CD quality can be achieved with WAV and AIFF
actually, I had it wrong. FLAC is just compressed but WAV is not, so editing can be better with WAV but FLAC can be better for storage while maintaining quality.
@@ElDJReturn Flac I think sound is the same as wav but from what I know it packs it up in like a suitcase then unpacks it when it's played which requires fast decoder. Bit like how zip works where it can make something smaller in size but then has to be unpacked for it to work. bit like folding clothes up to fit in suitcase and then unpack it. I may be wrong but think it's how it works. If so, then when you edit it the actual sound quality is same as wav but may take little longer to unpack it. Having said that it can be reduced quality depending how it was encoded but you can have exact same as wav with it at high quality decoding.
@@Dj-Jon-E-C Yeah, that's kind of the conclusion I came to after reading up on it more. You definitely explained it better than I probably could have though. Considering everything I do is on a 2009 Macbook Pro, I usually don't notice the difference on audio file type until after I start playing my files on my standalone system or listening back on a set recording. I do like WAV files but with MP3 and a good ear / quick EQ response I feel I'm starting to be able to get my MP3's to sound just as good when playing live, but notice the difference now. I haven't played with FLAC yet but it sounds interesting and I think given the opportunity I might try them out. Sadly most outlets I get my music from don't offer them though.
Quick information for old CDJ users. 320mb/s mp3 tracks are loaded into player faster on disc than data of WAV. I highly recommend to load the next track fast on the same deck quickly as possible to do not lose your time while DJing
But when you using WAV it takes me 3-5 second to load it but on mp3 it loads in 1 sec
Perfect analogies brother. Especially between the Porsche/Ford comparisons.
Ive always used vinyls but been using CDjs recently its a question ive wanted to know for years.
As far as listening to music on my phone or MP3 I always use WMA to get as much music onto 4gb but when it comes to music that I use for mixing ive never known the best format ive tried recording music in WAV at the highest rate and then on MP3 personally i cant tell the difference even with good studio speakers
i would use FLAC for Djing, not as huge files as wav therefor not su much stress on the cpu, and i cannot hear a diffrence betwenn FLAC and wave
@@MrSmeezer I believe Flac and wav are both the exact same quality sound
what about mik platinum notes,would this improve any mp3 files?how does this actually work?next video perhaps ?
It's quite surprising how much mp3 there is in circulation... It's like being rich with few Ferraris and Lamborghinis in your garage and instead drive a bus everywhere.
Everyone produces uncompressed wav, flac etc and we don't have storage problems and high quality DACs are inexpensive.
I personally still prefer mixing vinyl 😃
i've been lossless-only since 2010. feels good man.
I followed you're channel 2yrs ago mate. Thanks for benefits everyone from you're professional advice's 🙏.. Any plans to post special edition for (Mastering). Thank you
Yeah I try to stick with wav and flac as no loss in quality even though mp3 320kbps is pretty good and I can't tell the difference. wav or flac is also good if you're editing you don't lose anything. Flac is my big fav as it's no loss in sound and also can have other data added to it along with the sound and smaller if I remember right. it still keeps all the details the same as Wav. There is a format out there not sure if it's Dsd that can contain even more detail than even wav, but it gets to point where wav is so great anyway it's not worth the extra cost and also the format can't be edited etc like wav and flac etc. Plus not much music done in dsd format and older recordings would not benefit. Maybe in the future it get to point where wav is losing out on details when an even better format can capture even more, I guess in a way all formats can only contain so much detail but mp3 is one that does loose an amount that can be noticed by golden ears. Vinyl even has loss in quality as well as added noise though with that it kind of has it's own sound that a lot of people love even though some of it is not what was there originally.
Glad you mentioned FLAC at the end, FLAC is a decent format as well .
Interesting content thanks! I could change my mind in the futur but I currently use only mp3 320k because I find the quality excellent and tracks load faster on cdjs or serato.
In my experience on a small ish club system you can’t spot a 320 mp3 from a wav. I store everything as and mostly play MP3 ‘s but if I’m going to play on a big rig I re download my set in wav. Saves on storage. Oh and also there are a lot of bad wav’s out there. Just because the bit rate is high it doesn’t mean the file is good. Check your tracks before playing out people!!!!
I downloaded a wav and a mp3 320kbps and the difference was that the wav sounded a bit more powerfull.. like the signal was stronger so i didn't have to turn up the volume that much to hear everything better. But in the quality itself it is verry hard to notice if specifick parts of the songs sounded better or not.. it was noticable on the display of the laptop that the wave lines were bigger on wav but thats only it... i have to say if you download mp3 below 320kbps then you will hear a really big difference. So i like mp3 320 and it works fine everything below that will be noticable.. some recordpools don't have wav.
The problem is that depending on where you download it from it can be a wav created from an mp3. In that case it will just take up more space but it won't improve on sound quality
Thank you!!
using wav since 15 years and FLAC since 10 years
the right choice is VINYL
I use AIFF because metadata is useful for sorting in rekordbox, more efficient for organising digital crates
Sure, non compressed is obviously better than compressed if you have all the space in the world. But sample rate is more important than either. More dots on that waveform will give you more dynamic range.
Another thing in the last few decades is that people seem to be allergic to raising the volume. They want loud loud and loud so they are compressing even on cds to get that loudness effect.
That's why at first cds had prefect sound but not now
How is it possible to hear the difference between WAV and MP3, when mp3 cuts all frequencies above 20kHz and the human ear cant hear sounds above 20kHZ?
No, it's not that specific frequencies are cut, it is the overall intensity of the volume is pure and loud in a .wav where in comparison to the same track in .mp3, it isn't going to have the same power to it even though we are getting the same frequencies through both tracks. When you are djing live to a crowd and you mix a .mp3 to a .wav you're going to amplify the .mp3 because it is noticeably quiet.
All my music files are 320 MP3's, sacrilege I know, but it saves on space, and you get more on the drive. All my Video's are Uncompressed CD quality sound replaced by me. Also I have thousands of Vinyl Rips that are as CD quality as I can get them, and not many can tell they are from records.
I am bedroom DJ, played only in very small private gigs... my approach is:
I download all my tracks in mp3 (320kbs, 44.1 khz, 16 bit stereo) for a few reasons : it's cheaper, if I upload my mix to mixcloud it will be compressed anyway, all meta data (que points and loops) is saved into the file, so it's neat.
but!
if I play it live (not online streaming), I take my sets and crates, decide what I will play, create a tracklist, and buy a wav versions. And copy/clone cue points from mp3.
this is aswell a good practice for preparing yourself for a gig, because you'll go through every track you planning to play twice.
but i think people won't notice it, because on the party they all drunk, or other, and acoustics of the room affecting the sound so much that you hear the same track differently in different spots of the room.
And because audio specs of wav are the same in mp3 (44,1 khz, 16 bit stereo).
But after saying that, I need to explain that:
"Missing bits" of data in compressed mp3 is very noticeable if will use Pitch'n'time, and lower the pitch of the track quite a bit. Then you will hear more "shredding", because your software have less data to work with (4 times less). Chopped track will have larger samples, and you will notice every chop repeating. Hard to explain. But that's another big topic...
Another thing to consider is your controller. It have soundcard inside with limited specs. For example Numark NV2 have 44.1 kHz 16bits. So hardware of controller will reduce any audio file to this specs. So there is no benefit to buy 48.0Khz 24 Bit if your controller will reduce it to 44.1khz 16 bit... (pioneer ddjs are giving 32 bit sound on master output)...
i will say- if it's for streaming services like mixcloud, UA-cam, Discord, bedroom, then just go with mp3. Because it's not gonna be a wav on the other end (listener laptop). But when people are listening directly from a dicent soundsystem, get a wav version of your tracklist.
oh yeah, another thing to consider is music like Psy, Trance, Dub, Chill and such, often created for 5.1 surround sound. so it's more than a stereo. If you got this setup, mp3 is a no-no...
In addition : with the age and when hearing a loud sound, our frequency range that we hear is shrinking. So scientifically, a person who work in a construction site, or going to dance next to the huge speaker every weekend, he doesn't hear high freqs that we can have only in 48.0khz 24 bit audio file. Most people don't hear it, or hear it very vaguely.
A lot of people don't get the difference because they are not very critical about sound and because they are using a $20 Bluetooth speaker or the car stereo in most cases. If you play it for them in a good quality sound system and tell them to pay attention they will get the difference. I use mp3 in my car and in my phone with cheap earphones but at home I use wav or real records.
Iorana, by my own experience I use almost exclusively in Mp3.
For the bitrate....the debate can during hours, some prefer only in constant others in variable bitrate.
Most of my music is in 256kbps and 320kbps, but I DJing too with lot of tracks in 192kbps and the audio rendering is the same with the 320kbps even on big sound system.
All that to say it's not really the bitrate or the audio format the important stuff, it's the source.
192kbps sounds awful!!
The only answer is vinyl.
Where do you guys get your music from? youtube rips?
Cdpool, zipdj
Moved from wav to mp3 simply because i got sick of my bandcamp wav downloads being at the wrong bitrate for cdjs.
@@sirtrancealot 24bit downloads from bandcamp, i think the error msg on the cdj comes up as wrong bitrate
Another way to look at it. The difference between watching the film on VHS then on blu-ray...
I wish I knew how impactful the difference was when I first started
If after decades of raving, you can tell the difference, I will give you a tenner
All my personally ripped files are WAV's. The difference between WAV and MP3 on my pa is clearly sonically obvious.
NB, I lolled when you compared an escort with a porche cos I knew what cars you were gonna use as examples before you mentioned them.
This is completely misinformed. Audio file compression diminishes quality in 2 possible ways.
Firstly and most importantly, it lowers the maximum frequency ceilling. 48000 audio allows for sonic information of up to 24khz to be preserved. Most people can't hear frequencies above 16khz, and those who can, it's largely unimportant information as the audio was likely not engineered with much attention to those frequencies. Simply put, most people's ears simply cannot hear the extra frequencies provided by lossless audio.
The second consideration is that file compression can occasionally cause some artefacts due to problems with interpolating waveform phase in high frequencies, though most interpolation in modern compression algorithms accounts for this. When you have super low quality files (lower than 320) these issues become more of an issue.
So for the most part, if you're sticking with 320mp3 and not using shitty compression software, only your dog can tell the difference.
I'd rather be able to keep a small usb on me than an ssd for such a meaningless difference in quality.
What about m4a from Itunes?
Very similar in quality to a 320kbps mp3, which is honestly perfectly fine. You'll probably hear a 10% difference between these higher bitrate lossy options and lossless options on a high end sound system if you're really paying attention.
I'll tell you the difference between WAV and mp3 according to beatport...WAV=£2.03p
mp3=£1.19p
MP3 @ 192 bit rate is adequate for most deaf people 🤠
sometimes mp3 is all you can get unfortunately
Wav for me
👍
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
I opened and played some mp3s that I downloaded from limewire and all the other downloading sites from back in the day. My God the quality on that stuff was pure shit.
You can get awful WAV and MP3. I can convert a low res MP3 to WAV
or AIFF, which is like WAV, but with all meta data. Thank me later ;)
320k MP3 every time. It’s indistinguishable, even on festival sound systems. WAV is audiophile nonsense
I’m sorry you don’t have the ears to tell the difference :)
@@lucmermans37
I’m sorry you are so pretentious that you think there is a difference 😂
@@DJFAmenHeavy There is a difference, not everyone can hear it
@@lucmermans37
It’s hardly a difference then, is it.
@@DJFAmenHeavy in my ears it’s a very big difference, it’s hard for me to understand not everyone can hear it
great video & suggestion
.aiff is the superior codec