Hi all,

I was just wondering why there is a charge for purchasing tracks as a WAV file?

I currently use CDJs and buy tracks as MP3s. The software I use converts these MP3s to something called a 'Red book Audio' or 'CD audio file' when burning to CD, however I intend to start using Traktor and would like to have premium quality sound from my laptop when playing out.

Could I not continue to buy MP3 and 'convert' them to WAV myself using some kind of converter and save the charge? Ball ache I know, but......

My most educated guess is that Beatport would have to deal with the cost of the extra use of bandwidth on their servers.

From everything I've read trying to "convert" MP3 files into WAV or into a bit rate larger than it is the quality of that file is degraded even further. You can't really add extra bits to a media file.

i dont like tht charge

Just get the MP3's. I'll probbo get caned for that by all the geeks but believe, no one will notice or care! And if they do you can be safe in the knowledge that they will never get a girl in their whole lives while you are pimpin it up coz your the DJ!

Cheers guys!

Beatport charges extra for WAVs because they're much larger than MP3s. It's a bandwidth issue.

Also, MP3 is a lossy compression format: when you convert the original WAV source file to MP3, you lose audio data. If you convert the MP3 back to WAV, you'll have the same audio data as the MP3. So, original WAV source files (what Beatport offers) are better than WAVs converted from MP3s.

In contrast, FLAC is a lossless compression format: when you convert the original WAV source file to FLAC, you lose no audio data. If you convert the FLAC back to WAV, you'll have the same audio data as the FLAC and the original WAV source file.

I personally only buy WAVs, for the simple reason that I often like to make edits and so if I start off with a lossy format than I will either have to render as a WAV to prevent further degradation of the file, or accept that my "320" will actually be some way below that as it has been MP3 encoded twice or more.

I understand that there has to be a premium on larger files, but with the Beatport WAV handling charge it is rather high. And besides which, what about really long MP3 tracks vs really short WAV tracks? The recent DJ Hell - The DJ mixes spring to mind for example.

I usually end up waiting until tracks are available on Juno or Trackitdown and illegally downloading an MP3 in the interim, as I just can't bring myself to pay £3 for a collection of 1's and 0's and no actual physical copy.

why is there no wav in 24 bits too? The space on harddrives is really cheap now. the web bandwith too.

Why pay for MP3s? CD quality should be the minimum standard.

Anyway, Juno's prices are a bit better so you can always search over there if you tire of Beatport's price gouging.

This charge really irkes me as well.

irkes me three.

"irk" is a horrible word. should b banned

I agree

All masters / final tracks are made in 16 bit.

CD quality is less than 320 MP3's and burning WAV's to CD negates the purpose of having a WAV in the first place.

Most Big DJ's that DJ on Laptops via Traktor etc would play 320 MP3's. On large sound systems you can tell no difference and a lot of the time the bits that are lost are incomprehensible to the human ear.

A charge for WAV's is still cheaper than buying the vinyl so its quids in really and what you get from Beatport in terms of depth of music and the speed at which new tunes are available to download surely outweigh any cost you pay.

I just buy 320 MP3s. The difference in quality is minimal, a lot depends on the mastering of the track too.

Nobody is gonna know the difference between 320 mp3 and WAV when playing out! the sound system should carry the 320 sound perfectly! too expensive anyway

Does anyone know if the artist gets any consideration (money) from this charge? I need to know how much more I hate Beatport than I already do.

Bandwidth is the answer.

WAV is by far much better that MP3. This is not a mystery and the difference between the two audible if you play your music on a good sound system.

If you're a highly competitive DJ that wants high respect from other accomplished DJ's you better be playing WAV. Because especially on big bass systems, the veterano jocks will be able to tell the difference between MP3 bass and WAV bass. MP3 bass is amateur hour shit, it simply doesnt carry the bass all the way through ... WAV is for the atomic bomb droppers that afterwards have everyone going 'holy shit Johnny X's bass drops were fucking eargasmic!!' You guys choose, be a really good bedroom DJ with a decent sound with MP3, or be one of the big boys in the clubs that everyone in the scene is in awe of with WAV.

You are wrong, very very wrong and people make this mistake, listen to a guy who knows more than any of us.

www.redbullmusicacademy.com/lectures/tony-andrews-keep-the-signal-chain

Saatchi - nice post some great vids on there man.

I'm still curious about whether the artists get any of the surcharge, or whether Beatport and similarly structured services keep the money. My Google-fu did not yield an answer.

Again, watch that video i posted, and i can tell the difference on my set up at home. Another thing, you think WAV is too expensive? Were you around when you could only buy vinyl for £8-£9? No, then think yourself lucky

I doubt they get any profit from it. but definitely a bandwith issue.

I'd guess that form some styles the dynamic range of the music doesn't really justify this though I guess it would be great for people wanting to do edits or some other kind of creative re-use. All of the extra information that you'd have in a 24 bit version of a file compared to the 16 bit ones on CD / MP3 is quieter than the quietest sound you can hear on a conventional CD so most people just aren't bothered. The classical music and soundtrack markets are the natural place for it because that music often has plenty of dynamic range. If you look there are plenty of 24bit wavs out there already. ;-)

I don't know if posting here constitutes thread necroing, but in any case current Google searches still point here, so i'll post my thoughts on the topic.

There are plenty of sites (like Bandcamp) who offer buyers the choice of format (mp3, flac, wav) at NO EXTRA COST. The mark up on Beatport is INSANE. I doubt it is due to 'bandwidth issue' as realistically only a niche selection of people are downloading music in lossless formats anyway.

A little de-bunking of myths:

does CD quality > mp3 quality by much?

Is the difference noticeable? Depends. Modern mp3 encoders such as LAME are very efficient, 256kbps and .wav are almost identical sounding to 99.9% of people. Older mp3 encoders like the early Vorbis ones are rubbish which is why most early mp3s sounded so awful - and worryingly, a lot of these older encoders are still in use today.

If you're noticing the difference, download better mp3s. Or do what I do which is buy the CD and rip it into .flac and .mp3 on your computer. If you do want to download mp3, Amazon, google and itunes offer 256kbps which is indistinguishable.

I must add that one poster in this thread actually claimed that mp3 320kbps is better quality than CD's. This is such, such false information. The indisputable truth is it is IMPOSSIBLE (despite what some posters say) for mp3 to be 'of higher quality' than CDs on the mere basis that mp3s reach such a small file size by CHOPPING information out of songs (the frequencies most people don't hear AKA <20hz and >22khz. We call this 'lossy compression'.

This loss of information cannot be undone. Converting an mp3 to a .wav will NOT somehow magic the lost bits of data back into existence. .wav intrinsically contains more data than .mp3 so how is it, pray tell me, lesser quality?

Saatchi, there is no good reason for a DJ not to play 320kbps mp3, though personally I think 256kbps VBR is a better choice. If anyone here can tell the difference between 256 vbr and 320 cbr, they have 'golden ears' indeed. If you can tell the difference, imagine doing that in a noisy club environment. Ergo, .FLAC or .WAV is an UTTER waste of space for a DJ. I don't care how cheap 2tb hard drives are, it's still a waste of space.

make tune cost 20p a look how fast piracy disappear

Totally agree , Even down to Burning CD's from WAV you can hear the difference, the quality of Music is much better, all about the Music , regardless of if the crowd do not know you are not playing the highest quality , you will still know . Me personally AS A mUSIC mAN I can the difference between MP3 and Wav and its makes my ears wanna cry

Not sure this would help. a) piracy will never go away and b) this completlely devalues the artist and label.

Beatport have recently reduced the WAV handling fee as far as I am aware.

Otherwise trackitdown and juno don't add so much for WAV

I only play WAV. A properly setup club system and you will 'feel' the difference in the bass if nothing else.

WAV's over MP3's goes without saying but also I often refer to the artwork to quickly find a track I'm looking for so MP3's are generally more accessible.

And once again enter the psychic. The day I decided to shut it down & close my accnt on beatport. Deep deep inside I felt something that told me I was making that small change for a better cause.
Now to each of his or her own, your choice in format is yours & yours only
As a matter of fact only the music expert can enlighten those seeking to be

Apparently AIFF is lossless too and supports tags and artwork

Best of both. Thanks, wasn't aware of this

I HATE BEATPORT

FLAC, AIFF or WAVS are the best options by far... I have come to realize this when I have been doing my show for years. Producers will notice this when I am playing their music on the show. That is why they send it to me in a wav format.