When will we .wav? · Jul 10, 10:28 AM

How did we end up with MP3 as the standard format for digital music, and not something better? It’s a question that’s been troubling Neil Young, who told the FT last week that he’s been talking with record companies about “licensing an alternative digital platform — something, he claimed, of far higher quality that could provide an alternative to the download world and perhaps even a new business model for music.”

Neil’s not alone in his disappointment with the audio quality of digital music. Sound pioneer Peter Gabriel has described MP3 as “a giant step backwards. Whereas in television now most of us are getting used to wide screen or high definition, and that’s gone forwards in terms of quality, music has certainly gone back.”

While MP3’s small size was crucial in the early days of digital music, today, cheaper storage and higher bandwidth make file size less and less of an issue. Alternative, higher quality formats are available; .WAV, FLAC and AIFF are all lossless (that is, they produce an identical sound to the original), so why aren’t we using them?

Well, actually some people are; putting his money where his mouth is, Peter Gabriel is working on Lossless Sound, a sort of monthly club, which releases a new album every month on Apple Lossless and FLAC files, which “are identical to…what the artist wanted you to hear.” And a fair few stores in the dance music sector offer .WAV as well as MP3 for at least part of their catalogue, including Beatport, BeatsDigitial and Trackitdown. UK stores Boomkat and Bleep both sell some of their catalogues in FLAC too.

But the big digital download stores are still only offering digital music as MP3, or in other protected lossy formats, like AAC for iTunes, or Microsoft’s WMA. And until recently the standard size of a track available through the major players was a measly 128 kbps. Amazon and iTunes have now upgraded the quality of their download tracks, but only to 256 kbps, which still loses a lot of information. For digital DJs 320kbps is a good enough format for most venues (but some say that won’t sound as good as vinyl or CD – or lossless digital.)

Coming back to Peter Gabriel’s argument, why aren’t consumers being offered HD downloads, when we’re being offered HDTV? Is the problem that only artists, DJs and men who frequent hi-fi shops care? That’s what idolator thinks; the blog responded to the Neil Young news by arguing that the majority of consumers care way more about price than sound quality (seriously, who cares about fidelity any more?).

If consumers aren’t interested in better quality downloads (and that’s up for debate), what about further up the music supply chain? Are DJs and reviewers bothered about getting tracks which sound ‘identical to…what the artist wanted you to hear’? From the companies that we work with it seems that MP3 is far and away the favourite format for digital promos. 92% of the people we work with host MP3s only on FATdrop and 8% host MP3 and .WAVs, so it looks like it’s still early days for lossless promos.

Simple Records were the first of our clients to start sending .WAVs to DJs, so we thought it would be great to get their take on things. Will Saul, is the producer and DJ behind Simple Records and Aus Music. Not only a show-stealing DJ, A&R and producer, Will’s a digital pioneer, and has been with FATdrop from the very start.

Hello Will…so, why .WAV promos instead of MP3?
A better sound quality. As we are sending to DJ’s that are playing on serious sound systems. They like to play with the highest quality sound files. We want our music to sound as good as possible when the best DJs are playing the releases before they come out as this is a key promo tool. Clubbers ask the DJ what they are playing/see a play list and go and buy the record/download the track.

What do you think about the argument that “the majority of consumers couldn’t care less about the specifics of how their music sounds. The first thing they are concerned about is price”?
I think it depends. If you compare anything lower than a 196kbps MP3 with a .WAV then there is a noticeable difference on a halfway decent set of speakers. Anything lower than 128kbps and the sound really starts to deteriorate. I guess the majority of consumers are listening on their Ipod ear phones in which case they really will not pick up a small difference of quality – certainly not between 320 MP3s and .WAVs which are the primary file format options when buying dance music.

I guess the bottom line is that we want the DJs playing our releases and in turn promoting our music to have the highest quality files possible because they’re playing on the best systems known to man. Most of these systems take no prisoners….which is why we send out .WAVs. For the customer buying music to listen to at home or play out in bars then I don’t think the difference between 320 MP3s and .WAVs is that huge. But this is open to debate and opinion of course…

You sell MP3 format in the Simple store. Why not .WAV?
The Simple site is brand new and we are road testing the response before offering .WAVs

What’s the reaction to .WAV from DJs/reviewers receiving your promos?
DJ’s love to get .WAVs and as we were the first people to use FATdrop at the time it was seen as cutting edge and the response was superb.

Do you think a .WAV track will outperform an MP3 when played on a bloody great big soundsystem?
Yes. Although to be honest I play out 320kbps MP3s as well and they can still sound great. It depends on the quality of the original production. Not only sonically but ideas wise as well. If the hook of the track is brilliant then this can mask a tiny bit of sound quality.

It’s also worth remembering that the majority of clubbers will not notice the difference with most tracks – they just want to hear good music DJ’ed well…..it’s mostly the DJs/record labels that are anal about it as we care deeply about what we do.

What are the greatest concerns for DJs in terms of audio formats?
For me just that they sound crisp clear and true to what was produced at high volume on quality systems.

Why do you think the majority of labels service their promos as MP3? Costs? Acceptability, file size, piracy concerns? DJs prefer it?
A combination of costs (when paying for bandwidth used) and file size (in terms of downloadability).

Do you think MP3s days are numbered?
Not in the slightest…..

So it seems like the majority of consumers are happy with MP3s, but DJs need something a bit better. Maybe the higher quality on offer at dance stores will start to create demand in the mainstream stores too. It would make sense that as storage and bandwidth become cheaper, we can cope with bigger and better files. Maybe lossless formats like .WAV and FLAC, or maybe Neil Young’s secret new super-format, will become the new standard. Or at the very least maybe the trend in improving MP3 quality will continue and Amazon and iTunes will start offering 360kpbs instead of 256kbps. What do other people think?

Is anyone seeing a demand for higher quality downloads? Can anyone tell the difference between 320kbps and .WAV? Let us know…

— Kate

Comments

1. Kate, on any decent set of monitors or a decent club system the difference between mp3 and .wav is noticible … maybe more so to audiophiles and studio geeks :)

   Things like bass and highs clarity is most noticible.

   — Henry · Jul 17, 12:02 PM · #

   ---

2. this article from Wired – Wrong! 5 Reasons Lossless Formats Will Not Destroy MP3 is a good read for anyone interested in digital music formats – whether they’re an audiophile, studio geek or not :-)

   Eliot Van Buskirk argues mp3s won’t get bumped off until we have a digital format that sounds better than CDs…

   — Kate FATdrop · Jul 28, 11:46 AM · #

   ---

3. Big fan of the wav format myself, recently played a track on a big function one sound system and the extra detail I could hear was incredible, I thought i’d played the wrong track it sounded so different!

   — Henry · Dec 4, 05:10 PM · #

   ---

Add a comment