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.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Dirk W. People in Dallas aren't *ssholes. Just look at me, I live in Dallas.

Meat is Murder...tasty, tasty murder.

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 ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

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...

___________________
last minute disco dot net

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".

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Dirk W. People in Dallas aren't *ssholes. Just look at me, I live in Dallas.

Meat is Murder...tasty, tasty murder.

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.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike Social outcasts are often of the opinion that they must have a drink before being able to loosen up with their inhibitions, thus being able to have a good time. There's a word that sums up this sort of behaviour, and that word is 'reject.'

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.

___________________
stereoshift.org - Unifying people through musical celebrations; generating a moving and inspirational synergy.

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

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Dirk W. People in Dallas aren't *ssholes. Just look at me, I live in Dallas.

Meat is Murder...tasty, tasty murder.

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?

___________________