Hi everybody!
Me and some others got in an argument in a thread in the Amateur forum, and I think the topic deserves a little more attention...
Here is what happened so far:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RavingLunatic
Listening right now..

nice tracks, nice mixing!

but the bitrate could be a bit higher 96k just sounds like FM radio to me, when I'm used to 192k or at least 128k

*edit* done listening, nice! I like it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Paul Wilson:
"The average human ear cannot tell the difference between 96 kps and 192 kps!"


DJ Dawn:
"WHAT???

Are you serious about this statement? The difference is so obvious to me that I can't believe this. I cannot imagine anybody that is not deaf and can't hear the difference....
just my thought, though."


Paul Wilson:
"I am 100% serious. There is literally no difference in quality between 96 kps + MP3's. Once I had an MP3 in 96 kps and I changed the bitrate up to 192 kps and he never even noticed anyu difference. I rip all my MP3's to 96 kps simply because you get a small file size and almost no loss in quality. Perhaps your thinking of 64 kps MP3's where there is clearly a difference, but there is almost no difference between 96 kps plus and is something the average human ear could never tell. People are just led to believe there's a difference simply because it says "96 kps" when you play them."

DJ Pete:
"hahah... no Paul going from 96 kps to 192 kps is still the same as 96 quality kps, the quality will still sound the same as 96 even when you incode it back up to 196 or to what ever, when compressing from WAV to MP3 the quality is lost for ever.
there is a big difference between 128-96-64and even more at 44 and 22, but little difference from WAV-128"

Paul Wilson:
"You obviously didn't understand what I just said."

DJ Dawn:
"Well but DJ Pete is right....what you did will not make it sound better. If you have an "original" wav and convert it to 96 and 192 you will know the difference when comparing those files.

If this is not what you meant, please make yourself more clear. Also, I think we should start a seperate thread about this in the DJ Zone or Chill-out, because we are wasting space in No Name's thread...

Paul, have you ever been to www.r3mix.net ?
There are people out there who can hear the difference between two files that are 180 and 185 kbps and were encoded with Lame using two different command lines...now I'm NOT capable of that, but I hear a clear difference between 96 and 192 and I will try to prove this by posting clips in the NEW thread we will have soon.
I don't have time for that right now, but I will later today...see you there, this is quite interesting
"

So here is my thread
I made two clips for everybody to download

1. http://www.djdawn.de/muzik/FirstRebirth96.mp3

2. http://www.djdawn.de/muzik/FirstRebirth192.mp3

load both of them into winamp and compare, especially the snare roll in the first 15 seconds...to me the 96 version sounds like there is a towel over the speakers.
What do you think???

___________________

RetroActive 4

There is certainly an audible difference between 96 and 192. If you listen to a song with hard, pounding bass, it is still quite noticeable between 128 and 192. Obviously, listening to the 128 version would sound ok, until you compare it with the higher quality version.

Barry

quote:

Originally posted by djdawn Hi everybody! Me and some others got in an argument in a thread in the Amateur forum, and I think the topic deserves a little more attention... Here is what happened so far: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by RavingLunatic Listening right now.. nice tracks, nice mixing! but the bitrate could be a bit higher 96k just sounds like FM radio to me, when I'm used to 192k or at least 128k *edit* done listening, nice! I like it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Wilson: "The average human ear cannot tell the difference between 96 kps and 192 kps!" DJ Dawn: "WHAT??? Are you serious about this statement? The difference is so obvious to me that I can't believe this. I cannot imagine anybody that is not deaf and can't hear the difference.... just my thought, though." Paul Wilson: "I am 100% serious. There is literally no difference in quality between 96 kps + MP3's. Once I had an MP3 in 96 kps and I changed the bitrate up to 192 kps and he never even noticed anyu difference. I rip all my MP3's to 96 kps simply because you get a small file size and almost no loss in quality. Perhaps your thinking of 64 kps MP3's where there is clearly a difference, but there is almost no difference between 96 kps plus and is something the average human ear could never tell. People are just led to believe there's a difference simply because it says "96 kps" when you play them." DJ Pete: "hahah... no Paul going from 96 kps to 192 kps is still the same as 96 quality kps, the quality will still sound the same as 96 even when you incode it back up to 196 or to what ever, when compressing from WAV to MP3 the quality is lost for ever. there is a big difference between 128-96-64and even more at 44 and 22, but little difference from WAV-128" Paul Wilson: "You obviously didn't understand what I just said." DJ Dawn: "Well but DJ Pete is right....what you did will not make it sound better. If you have an "original" wav and convert it to 96 and 192 you will know the difference when comparing those files. If this is not what you meant, please make yourself more clear. Also, I think we should start a seperate thread about this in the DJ Zone or Chill-out, because we are wasting space in No Name's thread... Paul, have you ever been to www.r3mix.net ? There are people out there who can hear the difference between two files that are 180 and 185 kbps and were encoded with Lame using two different command lines...now I'm NOT capable of that, but I hear a clear difference between 96 and 192 and I will try to prove this by posting clips in the NEW thread we will have soon. I don't have time for that right now, but I will later today...see you there, this is quite interesting " So here is my thread I made two clips for everybody to download 1. http://www.djdawn.de/muzik/FirstRebirth96.mp3 2. http://www.djdawn.de/muzik/FirstRebirth192.mp3 load both of them into winamp and compare, especially the snare roll in the first 15 seconds...to me the 96 version sounds like there is a towel over the speakers. What do you think???

Firstly I did not say changing it from 96 kps 192 kps does not make it sound better. I'll try to make this sound clearer.

I was sending a track to somebody through MSN and I only had it 96 kps and he asked for it in 192 kps so I took the 96 kps track and encoded it to 192 kps. I did this so he would think it was an 192 kps MP3 but it was really 96 kps quality and he did not realise it was really a 96 kps MP3. That's what I was saying.

Do you understand me now???

To call me deaf for saying there was very little difference between 96 kps and 192 kps is ridiculous. Because there is very little. If I give you 3 MP3's all encoded in 192 but one is really 96 kps, one is 128 kps and one is 192 kps I'm sure you won't tell the difference.

And it's funny how nobody complained when I put 96 kps MP3's for direct download a few weeks back.

I think we can see the difference, BUT, using MP3PRO, your tune in 96, will have the same quality as 192, but in small size !

Cheers,
Dj With No Name

___________________
``Trance is the cure for your soul. Trance opens your mind. Trance makes you feel better. No doubt: In Trance, WE Trust ! ``

And djdawn if you want to prove me wrong contact me on my MSN and I'll send you 4 samples. All are in 192 kps but one is really of 96 kps quality, one is of 128 kps and one is a genuine 192 kps rip. If you can tell the difference between these then I'll go with your story.

for me, there is a significant difference in sound between 96kbps and 128kbps+...

i only download 128+ kbps mp3s because that's minimal CD quality right there.. when you play the songs in your car, it's very noticeable... in headphones as well. the sounds are very muffled and such.

And djdawn if you want to prove me wrong contact me on my MSN and I'll send you 4 samples. All are in 192 kps but one is really of 96 kps quality, one is of 128 kps and one is a genuine 192 kps rip. If you can identify each of them!

There's a noticable difference between 96k and 192k, If I download anything from WinMX or whatever I usually try get it at round 128k, or 160k, i avoid 192k if I can coz I'm running outa space on my PC. 96k is alright quality, 128k, 160k, 192k are all pretty good, and there isn't that much of a difference, 64k or below is tripe.

___________________
"Níl saoirse gan saoirse lucht oibre."

Paul, I didn't want to offend you in any way when I made that "deaf" statement...
I would be interested in that listening test of yours. But I don't have MSN, you can contact me on ICQ 78688750

Also, the quality difference between the bitrates depends a lot on the type of music you encode. I only use VBR for encoding, and you can clearly see what I mean. Some songs will come out at an average bitrate of 220 kbps, others will be only 120 on average.
The more complex the material the more bps you need. Vocal tracks can come out very low bitrates and sound just fine, heavy metal will need more most of the time.
Same with techno. Beats only sound fine at low bitrates, stuff with lots of layers with drums, vocals and so on will need higher bps...
So if you make samples for me, please use something that is complex like Veracocha - Carte Blanche or songs like that.
I will give it a try.
The point I was trying to make is that 96kbps may sound ok with some files, but at times you need more.
Did you listen to my samples, btw?

___________________

RetroActive 4

quote:

Originally posted by djdawn Paul, I didn't want to offend you in any way when I made that "deaf" statement... I would be interested in that listening test of yours. But I don't have MSN, you can contact me on ICQ 78688750 Also, the quality difference between the bitrates depends a lot on the type of music you encode. I only use VBR for encoding, and you can clearly see what I mean. Some songs will come out at an average bitrate of 220 kbps, others will be only 120 on average. The more complex the material the more bps you need. Vocal tracks can come out very low bitrates and sound just fine, heavy metal will need more most of the time. Same with techno. Beats only sound fine at low bitrates, stuff with lots of layers with drums, vocals and so on will need higher bps... So if you make samples for me, please use something that is complex like Veracocha - Carte Blanche or songs like that. I will give it a try. The point I was trying to make is that 96kbps may sound ok with some files, but at times you need more. Did you listen to my samples, btw?

I've made 3 samples using Binary Finary "1998" (Matt Darey Mix) and put them into a zip file.I got rid of ICQ because I always had problems with it but I'll try to find some webspace to upload it to!

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Wilson I've made 3 samples using Binary Finary "1998" (Matt Darey Mix) and put them into a zip file.I got rid of ICQ because I always had problems with it but I'll try to find some webspace to upload it to!

yep please upload it to some webspace cause i think i know the difference betweem 192 and 96...

Yeah, I'd be interested in hearing those samples too.

to clarify, and summarize.

only when ripped from the original wav file or from vinyl/CD, straight into an mp3, will the bitrate will make a difference in quality.

128k will sound decent, anything less will sound crappy, 192 will sound wonderful, and anything more than is pretty much just wasting space(at least for my ears)

if you try to convert a 96k mp3 to 192k though, it will not sound any better, that quality is lost forever.

so, I have the DJ with no Name liveset, recorded in 96k mp3pro.
listened to it in winamp, quality is lacking.
downloaded the plugin http://www.mp3prozone.com/download.htm
quality is still lacking
downloaded the mp3pro player
quality is still lacking, doesn't seem to have changed at all.

am I missing something?

this is listening in my headphones, and I can instantly tell the difference between 128 and 192.