|
Dj With No Name LiveSets !!! (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Eye-Riz |
| quote: | | I just said LiveSet to people had the idea that itīs a non stop set... |
The english name for that is 'non-stop mix' :D
I'm sorry for going off topic again, but what are you doing here in the amateur dj section if you are considered one of Brasil's best dj's???
Don't mean to offend you, but that seems a bit strange to me... |
|
|
| Dj With No Name |
1st - Is there a `īProfessional Djs Section`` ??? I didnīt see it, sorry...
2nd - What wrong with you about me staying here /
3rd - I can be famous in my country, but not in the world... Maybe I can consider myself a amateur in the world scene...
But I really think you offended me asking me why am I here... Even if you say that it wasnīt your intetion man ... I am here to share my Non Stop Sets, and you keep asking me stuffs and stuffs, over and over, like if you donīt believe that I am a professional dj... Whatīs wrong man ?
Cheers,
Dj With No Name :cool: |
|
|
| Paul Wilson |
| 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. |
The average human ear cannot tell the difference between 96 kps and 192 kps! |
|
|
| djdawn |
| quote: | Originally posted by Paul Wilson
The average human ear cannot tell the difference between 96 kps and 192 kps! |
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. |
|
|
| patticus |
| so this is a mix from vinyl or mp3? |
|
|
| DJ Fundamental |
| From the track selection I would guess it's MP3....? |
|
|
| Paul Wilson |
| quote: | Originally posted by djdawn
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. |
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 |
| quote: | Originally posted by 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. |
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 |
| quote: | Originally posted by 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 |
You obviously didn't understand what I just said. |
|
|
| djdawn |
"Once I had an MP3 in 96 kps and I changed the bitrate up to 192 kps and he never even noticed anyu difference"
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:) |
|
|
| Dj With No Name |
it was remixed in CDS and Vinyls... ( Like in a disco.) I used MK II for vinyls and CDJ100-S ( Pioneer) for cds ;)
And about the quality, well, USE THAT MP3PRO and uīll get a better quality of 192 ! THE BEST QUALITY ON EARTH MATE !
Cheers,
Dj With No Name :cool: |
|
|
|
|
