sry, double post, look below :/

___________________
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])

Last edited by PutBoy on Feb-06-2009 at 00:17

for the record, I wasn't talking about the radio show, I was talking about the CDs. I wasn't aware he had a radioshow by the same name.

And, from what I've heard, he does a lot of serious live-remixing, so I wouldn't doubt it if he did it for the radioshow as well. But, as I said, I've no clue about that.

Ninja-Edit:

And no, you can't unconvert mp3's. It's are a lossy format meaning you acctually lose information while converting. There was a thread about it a few weeks ago where that was explained. Sorry for the off topic.

___________________
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])

Last edited by PutBoy on Feb-06-2009 at 00:34

Up converting does nothing apart from make them take up more space - you will have no increase in quality from the original.

AS for you studio mixes, you should record them at 44.1, 24bit (good balance of quality and size), then convert them as little times as possible (i.e. once).

Why do I notice more clarity in files I have upconverted then? It's not snall things either I notice fairly big differences...?

quote:

Originally posted by mfitterer1 Why do I notice more clarity in files I have upconverted then? It's not snall things either I notice fairly big differences...?

quote:

Originally posted by mfitterer1 Why do I notice more clarity in files I have upconverted then? It's not snall things either I notice fairly big differences...?

Multi compression is like aging, your cells dont split into exact duplicates, they have minor changes every time they split which is why we look older as we get older.

Its kind of interesting when you notice more clarity. When you upconvert it should actually have a lower quality.

wav > 192 > 320

Basically, youre recompressing the 2nd copy for no reason. Unless the software you use artificially puts the missing bits cut out. Kind of like studio magic where they auto tune the singers voice. Possibility of why your track sounds different?

___________________
facebook.com/dj4ttf

quote:

Originally posted by mfitterer1 I thought compressing was able to be undone. Its just a compression algorithm. So what you take away should be able to be uncompressed. In fact I am nearly certain because all of my albums that I bought pre djing before I started buying digitally were first ripped at 192kbps and then upconverted to 320kbps. Im pretty sure you're wrong about that statement but if you aren't my apologies in advance.

You must be thinking in terms of a FLAC file vs a WAV file which is indeed a lossless COMPRESSION. When u convert a WAV to an MP3, u are removing a lot of frequencies that we cannot hear but can feel, and also some we can hear of course. You cannot replace what has been taken away when u convert to mp3. All you are doing is spreading out the data, not creating or adding back to it. This is why you would never want to play an mp3 less than 320 on a big system or it would sound tinny or metallic, and the bass would be weak and distorted...in other words it sounds like absolute shit.

quote:

Originally posted by mfitterer1 There was also very little tonal difference between the kicks from different songs.

Perhaps it's just good set programming?

___________________

My Set Archive - MY BLOG

If the mix was done in ableton, then there's a good chance that a warmer or tube amp was applied to the master channel. These devices color the sound in a distinctive way, and can be used to homogenize the dynamics and feel of a mix. VSTs like the PSP vintage warmer and the BBE sonic maximizer have a distinctive sound, and are used to compensate for ableton smearing the transients with complex (key lock) mode.

This isn't really mastering unless the eq'ing is automated, but its still a step up in sound quality (in my opinion) from a lot of mixes. That's not to say you can't achieve the same quality with good eq'ing and level control though, as mastering basically comes down to those two things when mastering dj mixes. Its best to avoid compressing/widening/exciting mixes too much (if you have to do it at all), as dance music is so compressed already. Also, the never ending "loudness war" has destroyed the dynamic range (having both soft and loud elements) of a lot of music.

Anyway, when it comes to mastering to dj mixes, less is usually more.

___________________
-> mixes & more @ maxwelldub.net : .
-> professional analog mastering @ deliverance-mastering.com : .

"A studio environment is there to be exploited. I don't really hold with these 'all live on 2 decks mixes'. If you want that, go to the gig." - Ben Watt