quote:

Originally posted by OMNIFEX I voted for 320 kbs mp3 I agree with most mixes are anywhere from 100 - 120 MB. It's been like that for years. I remember when I was on Dialup, it would take me 2 hours to download a 100 MB mix. Can't say how many people are downloading @ 5 kb anymore but, usually a file of that size equals to a over an hours worth of music. You can always make a 320 kbs, 128 kbs mp3 file for those that are complaining about it taking too long to download. I generally drop anywhere from 225 - 320 kbs mp3 mix, and a 96 kbs WMA mix for those still on dial up.

Ya but I don't know if you know but most people also don't have proper hosting for others to get quality speeds out of...

Many people host on rapidshare, megaupload ect. Which rates are usually shit for it even if you have a good connection.

yeh i think 192 is more than enough as well.

___________________
201

Thanks for your comments guys but I think I'm gonna go for 320kps for a number of reasons:

1 - it has the highest score on this poll

2 - they will be hosted on my own website (when it's finished), not slowshare or crappyupload

3 - I have 250Gb of web space so space is not an issue

Cheers

___________________
::::: DjTrig.Com :::::
Afterward - July 2009 Mix

quote:

Originally posted by jupiterone Ya but I don't know if you know but most people also don't have proper hosting for others to get quality speeds out of... Many people host on rapidshare, megaupload ect. Which rates are usually shit for it even if you have a good connection.

I've downloaded mixes that were uploaded on Megaupload 2 years ago.

Most free storage sites don't even bother deleting files of that size anymore (100 - 120 MB) They are just not an issue in this day in age.

For the record, I download continuous on Megaupload around 500 - 900KB a second. On Rapid share, I am looking at around 900 - 1200KB continuous. And I don't have a premium account on any hosting site.

There are places like Mediafire that offer faster downloads than Megaupload.

The issue is quality. If you read the original poster's past threads, he is seriously into showing off his work with the best quality possible. Not everyone here are bedroom DJs and soley ipod listeners.

___________________
OMNIFEX

Last edited by OMNIFEX on May-04-2007 at 20:01

quote:

Originally posted by OMNIFEX The issue is quality. If you read the original poster's past threads, he is seriously into showing off his work with the best quality possible. Not everyone here are bedroom DJs and soley ipod listeners.

i would say i'm surely not a bedroom dj

all mixes on my sites are in 192, i also have a buttload of server space and bandwidth, doesn't mean you have to use it all right away

i'm glad we didn't, we're now hosting 5 different sites on our server, plan ahead

it's about ease of use and how fast the user can download

in this day and age everyone has somewhere to go and somewhere to be, users want info NOW, not in half an hour, time is money (which is why the most clicked link on the internet is "skip intro")

the only people who are going to care about that sound quality are djs and sound professionals, people with trained ears

really, it doesn't matter... i'd rather a 192 mp3 on my mp3 player taking up less space than a 320, i'm not going to hear the difference with my earbuds or on my car stereo

in a club with a tuned sound rig, yes you'll hear a difference, not much, unnoticable to the untrained ear

for your purpose, 192 will be fine, like i said, there isn't noticable sound quality difference with the way the mixes will be listened

320 is overkill, like bringing a fire truck to a water fight

...but then again, what do i know

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

Last edited by Tony Morello on May-04-2007 at 21:54

Sure everyone isn't an iPod listener but who here exclusively downloads a mix at absolute max quality and goes to listen to it on a huge system that will actually make it sound anywhere different than 192?

Not all people get 300-1200kb download rates on RS and MU, I get about 30-50 and I'm running on a 1MB/s network.

As Tony mentioned, it's all about time. If you ask the casual listener/intermediate DJ if they can tell a difference between 192/320 on their home setup they probably won't have a response. Even the casual clubber doesn't notice the difference between a DJ playing a 192 mp3 against a 320 mp3 and thats where it actually counts/makes a difference; on a big system.

It's not my choice, do what you want, but, I render 192 because I doubt anyone plays my mixes on such a system that will draw a difference in fields. Plus, I'd rather have the people that download my stuff not have to wait that much time for something that isn't really noticeable in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by agentdansmith Thanks for your comments guys but I think I'm gonna go for 320kps for a number of reasons: 1 - it has the highest score on this poll 2 - they will be hosted on my own website (when it's finished), not slowshare or crappyupload 3 - I have 250Gb of web space so space is not an issue Cheers

so y ask ur question in the first place? :P - even with 250gb space, by making them all 320kb/s u are limiting urself to how many mixes u will get on there. maybe not now but a long time down the road...

i'm with Tony Morello on this one. i see no point at all to keep them at 320 kbps. so in this case 192 kbps definitely for the win!

___________________

Get Dropbox, with 250 MB extra space!

quote:

Originally posted by Spoonz so y ask ur question in the first place? :P - even with 250gb space, by making them all 320kb/s u are limiting urself to how many mixes u will get on there. maybe not now but a long time down the road...

The reason I asked in the first place is because I'd like a lot of people to download and listen to my mixes so that I can get some feedback, and the I didn't want to choose a format that might put a lot of people off.

Anyway, I have uploaded both 320k and 192k of my some of my mixes and I will probably just do the rest in 192k now that it looks like that doesn't bother anyone.

Or, I might just upload both for every mix anyway - if server space becomes an issue, I'll just delete the 320k ones

Cheers for all your opinions

___________________
::::: DjTrig.Com :::::
Afterward - July 2009 Mix

quote:

Originally posted by Tony Morello 320 is overkill, like bringing a fire truck to a water fight ...but then again, what do i know

Preference will be the deciding factor.

I would never consider 320 as overkill. But, I do carry my own system (Rave system) so, I know what my rig is supposed to sound like. Only if the upper frequencies are limited (by 16 Khz) based on the original recording is where I would settle for less.

There are some tracks in which you can get away and, some you cannot. The whole option of having two choices like video's High & Low Bandwidth is something that can be used. This is why I suggested offering two options.

My MP3s mixes are 48 Khz which, is higher than the standard 44 Khz. This is due to offering a broader bandwidth and better dynamics than 44 Khz. So, for me to post any mix using MP3, it's never under 225 kbps.

___________________
OMNIFEX

I dont think peeps are going to care, they can aways e-mail you and request a 320mix if they really want it.

256 kbps


/thread

___________________
"The only thing that interferes with my learning, is my education"
- A. Einstein