Playing Less Than 320kps Quality Tracks Live?

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Playing Less Than 320kps Quality Tracks Live?

Posted by nsamadi on Jul-10-2008 06:13:

Playing Less Than 320kps Quality Tracks Live?

I have a few mp3's that are less than 320kps in quality. I would buy them off beatport, but they're either rarities, bootlegs or rips in lower quality (I don't have much of a choice). They're around 192-260 kps in quality. I was wondering if it would be okay to play live as an exception? and do you guys sometimes do it? Is there a noticeable difference?

I did a search on this topic and couldn't find too much.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jul-10-2008 06:56:

no.

Posted by Storyteller on Jul-10-2008 08:36:

Re: Playing Less Than 320kps Quality Tracks Live?

quote:
Originally posted by nsamadi
I have a few mp3's that are less than 320kps in quality. I would buy them off beatport, but they're either rarities, bootlegs or rips in lower quality (I don't have much of a choice). They're around 192-260 kps in quality. I was wondering if it would be okay to play live as an exception? and do you guys sometimes do it? Is there a noticeable difference?

I did a search on this topic and couldn't find too much.

Thanks in advance.

The better the sound system of a club the better you can hear it's a low quality track. Luckily a lot of clubs have systems which go loud, but aren't accurate at all. In a proper studio with a good set of ears you should be able to hear a difference between 320kbpos mp3 and WAV format.

Posted by Domesticated on Jul-10-2008 12:16:

We've had this thread before.

The consensus is thus:

Most club systems are built to be loud, not accurate.

Most clubs are designed for looks and thoroughfare, not harmonics.

Crowds are noisy.

People are drunk.

All these add up to a surprising amount of leeway when it comes to low quality mp3s. I've heard stories of jocks playing 128kbps files to crowds of 5000 with no complaints.

It depends on the club really, though in most cases, 192kbps will be fine; all but the most well-trained ears will be oblivious.

What makes things most noticeable is not the quality of the track you're playing, but the ones either side of it! Try mixing a wave file in/out of a 192 kbps track and you will see what I mean.

The difference is only noticeable when people's ears have something to compare it to at that very second.

Posted by miamitranceman on Jul-10-2008 13:42:

Posted by Stu Cox on Jul-10-2008 13:57:

My rule is: get the highest quality I can, never play lower than 192k.

If it's an awesome tune, people aren't going to mind if it's lacking a little bit of top or bottom end. If I've only got it in 192k for whatever reason then I won't let that stop me playing it if I really wanna play it, but I always get WAV if I can and if not 320k, so it's pretty rare for me to have a track in 192k now.

As the dude above said, you only notice it if the track before it is of substantially better quality - you'll just notice a slight reduction in the bass and the higher frequencies (which can happen anyway if tracks are mastered differently) and if the systems particularly good you might notice a bit of distortion, but there's a lot of distortion on tracks nowadays so at 192k you don't tend to notice much of it on a club system.

Posted by Rememberence_ on Jul-10-2008 14:36:

Posted by RJT on Jul-10-2008 15:14:

quote:
Originally posted by Beat Blog
We've had this thread before.

The consensus is thus:

Most club systems are built to be loud, not accurate.

Most clubs are designed for looks and thoroughfare, not harmonics.

Crowds are noisy.

People are drunk.

All these add up to a surprising amount of leeway when it comes to low quality mp3s. I've heard stories of jocks playing 128kbps files to crowds of 5000 with no complaints.

It depends on the club really, though in most cases, 192kbps will be fine; all but the most well-trained ears will be oblivious.

What makes things most noticeable is not the quality of the track you're playing, but the ones either side of it! Try mixing a wave file in/out of a 192 kbps track and you will see what I mean.

The difference is only noticeable when people's ears have something to compare it to at that very second.

Thank you for nipping this thread right in the bud. Well stated.

Only other thing I'd add is that I would always also consider the tune itself - I have a few 320's purchased from Beatport that were either just made on a shitty rig or flat out not mastered, and though it's a bit rare, there are 320's I have that I think sound immensely more shit than a lot of 192's I have.

Now, would anyone hate me if I said "Playing 192kbps MP3's is subjective"?

Posted by Polt on Jul-10-2008 18:47:

quote:
Originally posted by RJT
Only other thing I'd add is that I would always also consider the tune itself - I have a few 320's purchased from Beatport that were either just made on a shitty rig or flat out not mastered, and though it's a bit rare, there are 320's I have that I think sound immensely more shit than a lot of 192's I have.

Now, would anyone hate me if I said "Playing 192kbps MP3's is subjective"?

Excellent point here. Just because it is encoded with a higher bitrate doesn't mean the track itself is better. I don't think it is so much to say that "Playing 192kbps MP3's is subjective", but rather, playing poorly done tracks vs well done tracks.

Posted by Tony Morello on Jul-10-2008 19:22:

also, if you have a track lacking in top and bottom end, there's a wonderful eq right there at your fingertips

Posted by djkoolaide on Jul-10-2008 19:32:

Try to stay 320 or lossless if at all possible, but you can go 192 as long as it's a good encode (meaning DIRECT from source, not an mp3 re-encoded to another mp3) and it will sound just fine.

Posted by Omega_Blue on Jul-10-2008 22:16:

i think most of us can at least agree that anything less than 192 is audibly worse than a well-encoded 192-320-lossless whatever. i wouldn't go anywhere near 128 playing out.

Posted by Neo95gt on Jul-11-2008 00:51:

I have some 200-300kps "VBR" tunes. Are VBR the same quality as regular mp3s at the same bitrate? For example, does a 250kbs VBR song sound the same as a 250kps mp3??

Posted by Clovis on Jul-11-2008 01:10:

I don't get any tracks that are less than 320 so its not really an issue for me.

Posted by Storyteller on Jul-11-2008 08:41:

quote:
Originally posted by Neo95gt
I have some 200-300kps "VBR" tunes. Are VBR the same quality as regular mp3s at the same bitrate? For example, does a 250kbs VBR song sound the same as a 250kps mp3??

No. The mp3 encoder calculates which bitrate is necessary to reproduce the sound as accurate as possible within the limits given by the user.

250kbps would be the average bitrate in case of a VBR mp3. It means there are parts with a lower bitrate where possible and higher bitrates where necessary. So some parts can actually sound a lot better then other parts in the same track because of the changing ammount of kbps.

Posted by Domesticated on Jul-12-2008 02:06:

quote:
Originally posted by Tony Morello
also, if you have a track lacking in top and bottom end, there's a wonderful eq right there at your fingertips

Hardly.

If a tune is lacking top and bottom end, you're most likely going to make it worse by fiddling with a woeful 3 band EQ on a club mixer.

Chances are, the frequencies that are lacking are going to be so specific that the only way to remedy them would be to enter a studio and use a proper mixer intended for that purpose.