soundwerks: Nope, a WAV file captures all frequencies. Any MP3 will still chop the inaudbile stuff regardless of bitrate. The 320kb/sec mp3 just has a high sample rate so the sound is smoother and more accurate for lack of a better terms.

wav would be the equivilant of about 1411kbps

___________________
Tony Morello Dot Com
Soundcloud
Facebook
Twitter
The Drunken Monkey Podcast
The Mixdown Podcast presented by Tony Morello

Well, that's at CD quality (16 bit, 44 khz). Like I've said before, WAV files can be recorded at an even higher bitrate.

There are two things here:

1. Digitization - when sound is converted from analog to digital, the waveform has to be sampled at a specfied rate and then converted into a number. The higher sample rate, the more accurate a sound you are recording. Studio quality audio is sample at 24bit, 96Khz. CD sound is only 16bit, 44Khz. This gets a bit sticky when you consider that nearly all of the music we listen to originates in digital form in any case, it's not as if you are recording an orchestra.

2. Compression - Taking digital audio, sampled as stated above, and then removing bits and pieces of it to make the file smaller. There ARE lossless compression algorithms, which do not lose any of the original data, but they also don't compress the files much.

So sure, 320Kbps MP3 sounds "pretty good". But we live in a world where high bandwidth connections are common. We've already taken a hit in sound quality just jumping to CD's from vinyl/analog tape (not cassettes, the really GOOD tape), why support MP3 anymore? If you really must have compressed audio, then maybe we should support AAC more (MPEG-4's audio format), AAC is an even better sounding compression format than MP3.

The real thing we should push for is 24bit/96 Khz downloads compressed using lossless compression, and players which support DVD-Audio or SACD (both 24/96 capable). That would put to rest all of these discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Tony Morello wav would be the equivilant of about 1411kbps

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 So sure, 320Kbps MP3 sounds "pretty good". But we live in a world where high bandwidth connections are common. We've already taken a hit in sound quality just jumping to CD's from vinyl/analog tape (not cassettes, the really GOOD tape), why support MP3 anymore? If you really must have compressed audio, then maybe we should support AAC more (MPEG-4's audio format), AAC is an even better sounding compression format than MP3.

Yeah AAC would be a better choice, however the files you get at Beatport...the 192 kbps MP4 files...comparing them to their 320 kbps MP3 files, there really is no difference in sound quality. Maybe it's a better compression technique, but it doesn't seem to make a difference. Perhaps if they had 320 kbps MP4s, or possibly higher than that, then you would hear a difference.

Well you think you can't hear a difference, but in the end any sort of compression artifacting can lead to sound fatigue on a big system.

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 Yeah AAC would be a better choice, however the files you get at Beatport...the 192 kbps MP4 files...comparing them to their 320 kbps MP3 files, there really is no difference in sound quality. Maybe it's a better compression technique, but it doesn't seem to make a difference. Perhaps if they had 320 kbps MP4s, or possibly higher than that, then you would hear a difference.

I've not had too much experiance of the really high bit rate (320 so on) MP3's.

***just for informtion really***

What I would say is that MP3 compression doesn't actually just cut (or even roll off) information at the ends of the frequency range (there are peaks and low points of persection it uses mid way through also).

What it does is change the sound into frequencies then asign a different number of bits (quantisation levels) to each frequency based on it's reduction method (using the peaks and low points of perception). Basicly at a low point of perception it'll use a lower bit rate for that frequency).

Also if you hear a loud noise in one frequency you can't hear other ones closer to that so well so it cuts the bit rates on that too.

BUT the model it uses is based not based upon large venues. So I would think it would have some form of effect (especially at lower bit rates). And I would think the less like the enviroment they used in the experiments to create the model the more pronunced the losses would be. You know with reverb all over the place and so on.

That said 320 is a pretty large data rate, so it's unlikey to have much effect. And if it's a big venue everyone will be off their faces anyway

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

quote:

Originally posted by Vero i've heard DJs play 320 mp3s on the alpha concepts dynachord system at space miami (best sound system in the world in 04) and the difference is barely noticeable. it certainly wont keep you from going nuts when you hear your favorite beat drop. i DL everthing at 320, just my preference.

I agree with you 100%, Even on a big system there realy is no difference in quality. I only download 320mp3 and have never had an issue with mp3,clubs i play at don't have systems as big as space maimi but big enough to give a true big club sound. Save your money just buy 320mp3s