TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- would you play a 192KB track if you had to??
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

would you play a 192KB track if you had to??

I have run into a problem when trying to gather up classic tracks. Old tracks from 1998 from artists like quicksilver are hard to find...but i can find them digitally but only at 192kb.

How bad is 192 played in the club? If you had no choice...would you play the track or just find a different track in better quality?

You have no choice
play it

if you ar ento so sure about it, play another track in 192 kbps and 320 kbps
and you will hardly notice the difference.

192 works, but it's for sure not preferred... but, when I need to, yes, I will play 192kbps tracks out in a club.

Is there really that much of a noticable difference between 192 and 320? All my tracks are encoded to 192kbps, and I've never had any problems playing them loud.

Yeah, why not? Chances are the club you will be playing at has a crap system anyways (As the majority of clubs do) and it won't matter at all.

Re: would you play a 192KB track if you had to??

quote:

Originally posted by xstalkrx I have run into a problem when trying to gather up classic tracks. Old tracks from 1998 from artists like quicksilver are hard to find...but i can find them digitally but only at 192kb. How bad is 192 played in the club? If you had no choice...would you play the track or just find a different track in better quality?

+1
the same!!!

I would argue I could tell the difference between 192 and 320, but I'd also agree that most others couldn't... For whatever it's worth...

you can tell a difference imo, it just sounds nicer... crisper.. the highs more defined. but i say, play it out ******

To me what suffers the most between 192 and 320, is the low end...you lose soo much bass frequencies on a 192 compared to a 320. 320 makes that sub come out nicely...

id play it if i knew the track would go off i nthe club and i didnt have anything better.

but that being said i wouldnt wanna bring anything that was less then 320, 192 just isnt the same

I can tell the difference between 192k and 320k but, like most other people who can, I can only tell the difference when I hear the same track at 192k and 320k consecutively.

In a club, mixing from a quite probably badly mastered track in 320k into a different track in 192k and you're not going to get people saying "ooh the sound quality's just dropped", even the proper audiophiles. The odd person may notice a very slight loss of bottom end frequencies, but that could just as easily be due to mastering - there isn't even a standard volume of bass frequencies or anything, so has the track with more bass got too much or as the track with less bass got too little?

Fucking play it. I'd play a 128k if it was a tune I really wanted to play and only had in 128k for whatever reason (although I don't think that has happened yet).

i'd beef the 192 up in your application of choice (audacity,soundforge,audition, etc.), surely you can't magicly make the lost frequency appear again but you can by equalizing, compressing and other stuff make it almost good.

I would play the 192 only till I could find a better copy. Also, I would play it live only and not put it on a studio-mixed set.

According to this graph of frequency response the difference is the 192 kbps MP3 is missing content from 16 Khz to 21 Khz that is present in a 320 kps file. All the MP3s, even 320 kbps, are missing some signal above 18 Khz.

Those frequencies are very high pitch sounds and I doubt there is very much in the typical track. It would be from the high end of cymbals for example.

There could be other differences, like phase, that this graph does not show.

I've downloaded promo tracks of house music from various places and some are only 128 kbps but still sound excellent, that's probably because a lot of house is primarily drums and voice and doesn't have the high frequencies that are lost at low MP3 bitrates. And let's face it, house is not the most subtle form of music, we're not listening to the nuances of Mozart violinists here. Trance has more high frequency sounds so some tracks would require a higher bitrate.

I'd play out 192k no problem if it was a good rip, like direct from a CD or the producer. Even 128k for some house. Although naturally I'd get at least a 320 for everything if possible.

quote:

Originally posted by tvmann According to this graph of frequency response the difference is the 192 kbps MP3 is missing content from 16 Khz to 21 Khz that is present in a 320 kps file. All the MP3s, even 320 kbps, are missing some signal above 18 Khz. Those frequencies are very high pitch sounds and I doubt there is very much in the typical track. It would be from the high end of cymbals for example. There could be other differences, like phase, that this graph does not show. I've downloaded promo tracks of house music from various places and some are only 128 kbps but still sound excellent, that's probably because a lot of house is primarily drums and voice and doesn't have the high frequencies that are lost at low MP3 bitrates. And let's face it, house is not the most subtle form of music, we're not listening to the nuances of Mozart violinists here. Trance has more high frequency sounds so some tracks would require a higher bitrate. I'd play out 192k no problem if it was a good rip, like direct from a CD or the producer. Even 128k for some house. Although naturally I'd get at least a 320 for everything if possible.

Depend swhat kind of house yer talkin about buddy. That is a cool graph.


I love 320/wav.

quote:

Originally posted by montana i'd beef the 192 up in your application of choice (audacity,soundforge,audition, etc.), surely you can't magicly make the lost frequency appear again but you can by equalizing, compressing and other stuff make it almost good.

The 10 Band EQ in Sound Studio works great for this...

And good point montana... I generally do this to any 192 I have prior to burning, and sometimes it doesn't make that big of a difference, but other times it can take a 192 and make it sound a lot better than it's original form...

what's wrong w/buying the record, purchasing the wav/320, or buying a cd? if a 192 is available for purchase, then something better is available from the same shop.

i don't see a reason to disrespect yourself, and your crowd by playing a 192k. if you don't have a quality recording (vinyl/wav/320) then you shouldn't be playing it. -curses on your mustashe if you're considering playing a 192k because that's the best you were able to find on kazza or some other P2P.

for me it's an issue of integrity, and coming correct. the fact that most people will not be able to hear the difference in mediums (cd or vinyl), much less the difference between 320k, and 192 on a crappy, or even so-so sound system doesn't even cross my mind.

even if you did buy the 192's -tricks are kids, seriously.

in a nutshell, i wouldn't play a 192k out in public. my collection of music is big enough do just fine w/out the 192k's and less.

quote:

Originally posted by sr126 what's wrong w/buying the record, purchasing the wav/320, or buying a cd? if a 192 is available for purchase, then something better is available from the same shop. i don't see a reason to disrespect yourself, and your crowd by playing a 192k. if you don't have a quality recording (vinyl/wav/320) then you shouldn't be playing it. -curses on your mustashe if you're considering playing a 192k because that's the best you were able to find on kazza or some other P2P. for me it's an issue of integrity, and coming correct. the fact that most people will not be able to hear the difference in mediums (cd or vinyl), much less the difference between 320k, and 192 on a crappy, or even so-so sound system doesn't even cross my mind. even if you did buy the 192's -tricks are kids, seriously. in a nutshell, i wouldn't play a 192k out in public. my collection of music is big enough do just fine w/out the 192k's and less.

That's all fine and dandy if you have the resources to attain those tracks, but as hard as it is to believe there ARE guys struggling to get their hands on new tracks. Why deny your crowd that one corker because a few frequency bands are lacking?

Sounds like the "haves" finding ways to look down on the "have nots".

There is no way a normal clubber is going to be a) be able to tell the difference or b) acutally give a toss about the track

192kbps CBR is absolutely fine for any sounds system. I've even done it with 128kbps and it sounds fine. 192 will be absolutely fine for whatever you want to do. I'm sick with all this VBR, 320/FLAC crap that everyone seems to think is the only thing that is acceptable.

amen!

128 i have only ever used in a cheesy wedding dj scenario for some raver friends of mine, but for any big party 192kbps sounds just fine, in fact better than most records with everything taken into account.

1. 320 is way better than 192 - FACT!

2. most club sound systems are crap! so 192-CD no big diff

3. my all-time favorites come from 160-320 and i will dance my arse off when i hear that one song even on a 128 shitty mp3

4. its about the music, not the bitrate etc.

5. when i save some money, ill try to buy everything i have thought some EDM online store, all 320 cause the sound is CRAZY!!! think beatport or audiojelly.

quote:

Originally posted by blacknoizybox 1. 320 is way better than 192 - FACT!

The HELL you say!!!

Next thing you're gonna tell me is that bpm 140 is faster than bpm 135...

/sarcastic

The diff between pressings on vinyl is a lot more than you'd ever notice with a 192k mp3 compared to a .wav

I've got a lot of shitty pressed 12's here

i never would.

im not saying i can tell which frequency sounds crap and whats missing blah blah blah, but i can hear that awful scritchy-scratchy sound 192s make. sure, most people wont be able to tell, but most people cant hear a trainwreck, does that mean you shouldnt be good at beatmatching?

quote:

Originally posted by davemolina That's all fine and dandy if you have the resources to attain those tracks, but as hard as it is to believe there ARE guys struggling to get their hands on new tracks. Why deny your crowd that one corker because a few frequency bands are lacking? Sounds like the "haves" finding ways to look down on the "have nots".

don't make the mistake of assuming that represent the "haves".

no one died and left me a bunch of money. my mom didn't buy me a xone v6 for xmas, i don't think my dad will hook up those cdj's for my birthday either.

i work for a living. i know what's it like to like to deal w/limited funds, and making compromises, and setting priorities.

other peoples struggles is not my problem, it's not the crowds problem either. why should it be? no one cares about me, or how i make mine anyways, because that's my problem. i do this for me, and me only. if poeple happen to like it, fine, if no one does, that's fine too. if i'm not happy with it then i'll do something else w/my time.

i'm saying that i wouldn't do it because i take what i do very seriously, no matter how casual the event is. i don't care about what the crowd can or can hear, or what the will or will not notice. i care about MY experience. playing a subpar file/vinyl would bother me to the point that it will negativaly impact MY experience, and take away from MY pleasure. being able to hear the difference bothers ME.

anyways, that quicksilver track from 1998 wasn't the only good song to come out in 1998, or in they last 8yrs. being flexible, and being able to adapt is part of being a dj. trust me, there's at least 1 song that came out w/in the past 10yrs that you can sub for the quicksilver song, and not leave the the crowd moaning and groaning about how much better your set would be if you played the quicksilver song, or you fucked the night/week/month or year by not playing that one quicksilver form 1998 on so and so records, remixed by who ever (not the remix by what ever, even tho it's more popular) -refer to discogs catalog #123456

i've been in the situation before too. i want to play a song, but the vinyl has seen one outdoor party to many is too crackly for me to present/enjoy. if i can't source another copy, then i play something else. so far i haven't seen any cry about me deviating from a setlist that only existed inside my head.


if you insist on playing it, go ahead be my guest.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.