TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Question for DJ's about Lossless vs. MP3?

Question for DJ's about Lossless vs. MP3?

Do you guys use music in FLAC/WAV/ Lossless format when making mixes or do you just use regular mp3's? Does it make much of a difference?
I guess my question is, can you record mixes using mp3's or does it just sound horrible?


PS: This is my first post here. I've been listening to trance since 1999. i'm just trying to get into mixing.
On a side note: I'm going to see Tiesto at Ruby Skye in San Francisco on the 18th, anyone else going to that show?

I use mp3s @ 320kbps bought from Beatport and other digital stores and the sound quality is fine. Not even close to "horrible".

check out mine and richard clairemont's feedback on the t.nu forum

and the way i see it, why pay for compressed audio? might as well buy the wav for a little bit more and have it in the best form possible even if it's not that noticable for you.

Re: Question for DJ's about Lossless vs. MP3?

quote:

Originally posted by saami343 Does it make much of a difference? I guess my question is, can you record mixes using mp3's or does it just sound horrible?

No.
Yes you can, sounds great.

Make sure to use 320kbps MP3's and you should be fine. I wouldn't suggest mixing with 128's.

Also, if you record a mix from MP3's and then convert the recorded mix into an MP3. It will be more 'lossy' than what you've converted the mix MP3 to.

For example. Let's say you're using 320kbps MP3's and then record your mix @ 320kbps. The mix will not sound as good as the original 320 tracks you were using before, because you've essentially double compressed the tracks. If I were to venture a guess, the mix @ 320kbps would probably sound as good as a 192kbps track recorded from source (possibly lower/higher).

Hope that helps.

quote:

Originally posted by cmay119 Make sure to use 320kbps MP3's and you should be fine. I wouldn't suggest mixing with 128's. Also, if you record a mix from MP3's and then convert the recorded mix into an MP3. It will be more 'lossy' than what you've converted the mix MP3 to. For example. Let's say you're using 320kbps MP3's and then record your mix @ 320kbps. The mix will not sound as good as the original 320 tracks you were using before, because you've essentially double compressed the tracks. If I were to venture a guess, the mix @ 320kbps would probably sound as good as a 192kbps track recorded from source (possibly lower/higher). Hope that helps.

The best way it to record it to a wav (Traktor does this by default, for example) and then compress it. I usually do so @ 256kbps.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar The best way it to record it to a wav (Traktor does this by default, for example) and then compress it. I usually do so @ 256kbps.

It still doesn't matter though. If you record a WAV file from a 320kbps MP3, that WAV file will not sound any better than the 320.

So even if you do a MP3>WAV>MP3 it's equal to doing MP3>MP3. It's still a double compression in the end.

EDIT: The only way to keep the recording as good as the original music files in terms of audio quality is to record in .WAV and keep it as such, or record to some sort of other lossless audio file.

Here's a better way to show you what I mean. I took the track Emjae - Hold Me Down (Original Mix), which I purchased from Beatport as a 320kbps MP3. I then recorded roughly a 20 second sample of the track in 320kbps and labeled it "Hold Me Down 1", I then took the "Hold Me Down 1" sample and recorded from it for roughly the same amount of time (each sample is a tiny bit shorter than the one before, because I couldn't hit record instantly after hitting play), and labeled that "Hold Me Down 2" and so forth until I got to "Hold Me Down 5". So that's 5 levels of compression on the original 320kbps MP3. Note that I rerecorded all of these as 320kbps MP3's at the same volume level, using the same recorder.

Here's the results of that:

"Hold Me Down 1":
http://www.zshare.net/audio/52594782e0208aac/

"Hold Me Down 2":
http://www.zshare.net/audio/5259496509a5c6e8/

"Hold Me Down 3":
http://www.zshare.net/audio/525949949653111d/

"Hold Me Down 4":
http://www.zshare.net/audio/5259503194925b0e/

"Hold Me Down 5":
http://www.zshare.net/audio/52595059edc77f1f/


And finally here's a recording in .WAV of the original MP3 file for the control of this test. Recording in .WAV here keeps all integrity of the original 320 MP3 that was purchased.

"Hold Me Down Integrity/Control":
http://www.zshare.net/audio/525951900009447a/

As you can see (or should I say hear?), recording in MP3 from an MP3 will degrade the audio quality at each level of recording.

To answer the original posters question, level 1 recording isn't too detrimental, and is still very listenable. My ears aren't the greatest anymore so I can't hear all the little nuances others might be able to in "Hold Me Down 2", but by "Hold Me Down 3" the lacking audio quality really becomes apparent. I also conclude that both "Hold me down 4" & "Hold me down 5" are damn near unlistenable.

I hope that makes it clearer for everyone to understand.

Damn Chris, you went through a lot of work!

Yeah, when you compress an already compressed mp3 the quality will decrease each time. And I'm not quite an audiophile but I can tell you that I can still hear the difference between 1 and 2. The bass begins to get slightly distorted. By the time you get to the 5th sample it's just fucking horrible!

What I meant on my post above was that the best way to retain as much integrity of the original mp3 as possible is to record your set as WAV and then compress it, not record it straight to mp3. At least that's what I think.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar What I meant on my post above was that the best way to retain as much integrity of the original mp3 as possible is to record your set as WAV and then compress it, not record it straight to mp3. At least that's what I think.

Now that I think depends on the program. Some may handle straight recordings to MP3 better than others.

cmay you would get my vote for most helpful post in TA!

I would like to put Cmay's post in perspective if I may.

Say you buy a track from beatport at 320 kbps. Now, you've only got CD decks that can play Audio CD's, so you burn the mp3 to the CD as an Audio CD (obv).

Now, say you're going to include it in a mix that you're posting on the internet. You record is as wav, save the wav-file and the you compress it to a 256 kbps mp3.

What you've basically done is gone through the steps that Cmay did.

This is why you should always use an as high a resolution as possible until the end product. You will always lose information, how little you lose depends on the format you use.

Although wav is a lossless format, it's still digital, and does have a resolution, so you do lose some information, even if it's a little. If you would've done what Cmay did with wav's instead of mp3's you would've had to do it a lot more times to get the same results, but you would get there.

So, depending on what you're doing, 320 mp3's might be all that you need, but again, it might not be enough.

quote:

Originally posted by PutBoy Although wav is a lossless format, it's still digital, and does have a resolution, so you do lose some information, even if it's a little. If you would've done what Cmay did with wav's instead of mp3's you would've had to do it a lot more times to get the same results, but you would get there.

Now this was a part that does intrigue me, and that I wasn't aware of. I guess it makes sense, however, I thought Digital Reproduction or exact copies were pretty much perfect. Are you sure there's a degradation? No, I'm not going to re-record one of my .WAV's 1000 times over to finally get to a point that's discernible between the original.

Either way, interesting to know.

There's a few things here though, the loss in quality is not down to just recording to mp3 or to wav....i would think the major cause is down to the D/A and A/D conversion (digital / analog and vice versa).

because cmay has re-recorded his recorded mp3 again and again, you lose a lot of quality through the source player (CDJ or whatever) and the mixer and the plugs. when you buy a song and are recording to a mix as putboy has said, you will never really go past step 2 of cmay's test. this will happen regardless of 320kbps mp3 or wav file. my guess would be that putting a 320kbps mp3 and a wav through a mixer and recording it, and repeating that process would result in a very similar (and severe) loss in quality. you wouldn't need to do it a lot of times.

good rule of thumb is always keep as high a resolution as you can, starting with the source file, and then as high a resolution sample rate while recording. key here being that there is no point compressing a 320mp3 to a wav, BUT there is a difference in sampling/recording that mp3 (through mixers) into a wav on your computer.

debate is then back to the 320kbps vs wav, which has been debated many times before. my stance is that there is no audible difference unless you are in a controlled environment and have very experienced ears.

no idea if that made sense or not. hopefully somebody understood it!

if you are just playing i would say that it is not a big deal (unless it is on a huge system where you do lose a bit on the lower end with mp3), but if you do edits, wav and flacc is way way better.

quote:

Originally posted by b i n k u n There's a few things here though, the loss in quality is not down to just recording to mp3 or to wav....i would think the major cause is down to the D/A and A/D conversion (digital / analog and vice versa). because cmay has re-recorded his recorded mp3 again and again, you lose a lot of quality through the source player (CDJ or whatever) and the mixer and the plugs. when you buy a song and are recording to a mix as putboy has said, you will never really go past step 2 of cmay's test. this will happen regardless of 320kbps mp3 or wav file. my guess would be that putting a 320kbps mp3 and a wav through a mixer and recording it, and repeating that process would result in a very similar (and severe) loss in quality. you wouldn't need to do it a lot of times. good rule of thumb is always keep as high a resolution as you can, starting with the source file, and then as high a resolution sample rate while recording. key here being that there is no point compressing a 320mp3 to a wav, BUT there is a difference in sampling/recording that mp3 (through mixers) into a wav on your computer. debate is then back to the 320kbps vs wav, which has been debated many times before. my stance is that there is no audible difference unless you are in a controlled environment and have very experienced ears. no idea if that made sense or not. hopefully somebody understood it!

There should have been NO D/A or A/D conversion in my test, because I was using a software recorder with my PC, with the file ON my PC. No CD to PC, or any such thing like that. There is no analog part of my test.

Though you are right. You should never be running your mix through recording after recording. I was just making an example that recording from a 320kbps track to another 320kbps track will lose audio quality, and not sustain the quality of the original 320's that were used in the mix. Recording to something less than 320 will degrade the audio quality even more on top of that.

EDIT: Actually, I may have misread your post. Yes, A/D and D/A conversions will happen when recording from Mixer or other external device. If that's what you meant, than nevermind my first statement, and yes there will be other variables involved that will degrade audio quality even more.

I started a thread on this a while back. I think if you search you can find it. I'll give you my input though. I personally always try to buy wavs, or cds from cdjshop. I don't care for beatport's wav handing fee. The sites I mainly shop are dancerecords.com and junodownload.

quote:

Originally posted by PutBoy Although wav is a lossless format, it's still digital, and does have a resolution, so you do lose some information, even if it's a little. If you would've done what Cmay did with wav's instead of mp3's you would've had to do it a lot more times to get the same results, but you would get there.

Wavs are based on a lossless algorithmn(up to a certain resolution)... wheras mp3's decide to lose less useable information and etc.

Think of it as if you took lossless screenshots... and then kept printscreening them again, your not going to lose any information each time you resave it. So no, converting from one lossless format to another does not lose ANY information at all (e.g. wav to wav, wav to flac). A lot less people would use flac if they thought that converting from wav to flac would not sound EXACTLY the same as the original.

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