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

___________________

My Set Archive - MY BLOG

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.

___________________
http://www.monoversemusic.com

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.

___________________
BeatEvolution.be

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.

___________________
Cmay - November Promo Mix [Prog/Deep/Tech/Electro House]
Cmay - March Promo Mix [Prog/Tech/Electro House + Breaks]
Track ID needed (Luke Fair Sweet Chili)
Track ID needed (James Zabiela Vision Chicago)
Track ID needed (Magda Live @ DC-10)
ID Needed - 90's Deep House Track
Track ID needed (Move D Compost Black Label Party)

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.

___________________

My Set Archive - MY BLOG

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.

___________________
Cmay - November Promo Mix [Prog/Deep/Tech/Electro House]
Cmay - March Promo Mix [Prog/Tech/Electro House + Breaks]
Track ID needed (Luke Fair Sweet Chili)
Track ID needed (James Zabiela Vision Chicago)
Track ID needed (Magda Live @ DC-10)
ID Needed - 90's Deep House Track
Track ID needed (Move D Compost Black Label Party)

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.

___________________
Cmay - November Promo Mix [Prog/Deep/Tech/Electro House]
Cmay - March Promo Mix [Prog/Tech/Electro House + Breaks]
Track ID needed (Luke Fair Sweet Chili)
Track ID needed (James Zabiela Vision Chicago)
Track ID needed (Magda Live @ DC-10)
ID Needed - 90's Deep House Track
Track ID needed (Move D Compost Black Label Party)

Last edited by cmay119 on Dec-11-2008 at 20:40

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.

___________________

My Set Archive - MY BLOG

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 - November Promo Mix [Prog/Deep/Tech/Electro House]
Cmay - March Promo Mix [Prog/Tech/Electro House + Breaks]
Track ID needed (Luke Fair Sweet Chili)
Track ID needed (James Zabiela Vision Chicago)
Track ID needed (Magda Live @ DC-10)
ID Needed - 90's Deep House Track
Track ID needed (Move D Compost Black Label Party)

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

___________________
My Soundcloud Page | The Free Soundcloud Stuff Thread

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Levels is...decent...damn better than a lot of the shite dominating the charts at the moment. It sounds absolutely nothing like...a billion and one similar tracks in this big-room style. I always had a soft spot.

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.

___________________
Check out Crossfade Collective
Sebastian Zander - Hotel Chaplin
Sebastian Zander - Set Two [Electro/Tech House and Trance of some sort]
Paulo Da Costa - AVGN [Prog. House](128kbps])