|
MP3 Bitrate problem (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pinokio
if you are on 192 kbps or above I think you are going to be fine- |
no way. theyre ok to listen to thru your headphones on an mp3 player or your PC or whatever. they ARE NOT to be used for playing out. im not saying everyone would be able to tell the diff, but seriously, show some respect for your audience. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| I really don't have a problem with DJs playing MP3s (on CD-A discs that is, not MP3 discs, as most clubs use CDJ 1000s (which I own) that don't have the MP3 disc function. Anyways, MP3 is a lot better than it used to be. 320 Kbps is what I order on beatport, and have no complaints, sounds fine. I'm not a huge audiophille, and I'm sure an audience in a club with a good sound system wont no the difference, or really care. A lot of DJs are sent MP3s, and play them out, so again there really is nothing wrong. How many clubbers, besides the producers/DJs or audio experts, care about the bitrate or format anyways as long as they are having a good time and the DJ is playing good music? Thats all that matters really. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| ^^ DJs/Labels do not get sent/play 192 mp3s in clubs. and a good sound system makes the differences more, not less, obvious. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
^^ DJs/Labels do not get sent/play 192 mp3s in clubs. and a good sound system makes the differences more, not less, obvious. |
I'm not saying they come in 192, i'm saying that 320 kbps is pretty much standard now (as 192 was three years ago), and many DJs (to my knowledge) get sent MP3s from producers over the net or on CD in 320 (or more). Wav files are fine, but MP3s just, to me at least, more economical and take up less space. And like I said...not many people that go to clubs really care how exact the sound quality is, as long as it's not . 192 is NOT good quality to today's standard, but I am sure that the average person would not really care or know that big of a difference between 192 and 320, unless like I said your really into audio like some of us are. Even on a good system, you have good sound quality from that, and extra things boosting the power like graphic equalizers, amplifers and the quality of the speaker system. |
|
|
| Nic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Soonmeister
you can "up" the bit rate carnt you.....im not to sure but the sound quality over all improves if you convert it say 192Kbs to 800Kbs or change the Format to .WAV where ive seen bit rates shoot up to 2000+
Dont know if it has a proper effect on sound ( but it does on your HDD )
My Highest bit rate Tune is 4 Strings - Take me away ( Coast 2 Coast remix ) @ 3072Kbs 126Mb and its sound completly AWESOME!!!!! |
"uping" the bit rate wont increase the sound quality, when you compress to an mp3 you discard data, that data cant be undiscarded, if it could the audio codec would do it "on the fly" as you played the mp3
3072kbps is much higher than CD quality audio so unless it was ripped from a record with very, very high end equipment its a huge waste of space |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
yeah, but the thread is about whether theres a real difference between 192 & 320. and im saying, yes, yes there is. i dont have a prob with 320 at all.
your \'average clubber\' cant hear trainwrecks either. doesnt mean we should throw out beatmatching coz most ppl dont notice.
i just think its really poor form to play lesser quality audio, ruining the experience for those of us that CAN tell the difference, just to save a couple of bucks. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, but the thread is about whether theres a real difference between 192 & 320. and im saying, yes, yes there is. i dont have a prob with 320 at all.
your 'average clubber' cant hear trainwrecks either. doesnt mean we should throw out beatmatching coz most ppl dont notice.
i just think its really poor form to play lesser quality audio, ruining the experience for those of us that CAN tell the difference, just to save a couple of bucks. |
I understand what your saying, but unless there is another medium that doesn't take up as much space as Wav files (which aren't as accessable as MP3s) then MP3 seems to be the new form. Trainwrecks do suck, they are noticeable, to me, to even people who go to clubs often, will notice when a DJ totally screws up. However, I will admit to not having the best sound system (a cheapy used QSC amp, some older 12 inch Yamaha speakers), but even then to me (And my parents who aren't as big into audio as I am) can't tell that big of a difference. When I used to spin vinyl, yes it had a warm sound, but 320 Kbps MP3s I personally like better. I can hear the highs and lows better, don't have to turn up the mids or highs as loud, and it just has a punchier bass and to me..clearer/louder sound quality. Like I said though, the files are converted to CD-A, so excuse my igrnoance but from perspective.. do they stay the same when burned onto that format at all? Sound quality wise... |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| Sorry for going off topic a little but I'm still a little bit new to a lot of the technical aspects of DJing/Producing (audio quality in particular). I have only been doing it for two years and switched formats for many reasons... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
like i said, playing 320 mp3s is fine by me. i certainly cant tell the difference ;) but i can with 192. and i think its insulting to play them to a crowd (in a club, where youre being paid to entertain).
esp when we\'re talking about a difference in $$$ between the 192 & 320 of sweet all. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
like i said, playing 320 mp3s is fine by me. i certainly cant tell the difference ;) but i can with 192. and i think its insulting to play them to a crowd (in a club, where youre being paid to entertain).
esp when we're talking about a difference in $$$ between the 192 & 320 of sweet all. |
I agree with your point about playing 192 in clubs. I wouldn't if I was playing at clubs either. I have a bunch of 192 MP3s from three years ago when I used to download them until the RCIA and record labels started to sue. Now I have been downloading them legally on Beatport and AudioJelly, and only download at 320 kbps. The price difference isn't that much either, mostly on audiojelly it's only .25 more, although that is more when you consider the exchange rate (it's about $2.30 dollars), so it's still cheaper than vinyl. Like I said in my previous post, I prefer the sound of 320 kbps MP3s better than vinyl, unless of course if I had a really nice sound system, which I can't afford and don't really need considering it's my bedroom set up, not a club. |
|
|
| cottcott44 |
Ok thx for those informations ;)
So 320kbps should be the right choice even if it's more expensive !!
I have to buy less tunes but with better quality ;) |
|
|
| tvmann |
I would go for 320 if I was buying tunes and they were to be played out, just to be safe. However, my friends and I cannot tell the difference between the original WAV file, 320 CBR, 192 CBR, and VBR (Lame alt preset standard). This is with CDs I rip myself at various bitrates as a test.
Lots of 192k tunes that may have come from P2P may be vinyl rips using who-knows-what quality turntable, cartridge, mixer, soundcard, mp3 encoder etc, so the quality can be poor. While the legal 192k mp3s you can now buy are from digital sources using the best encoders.
What I'm saying is - don't rule out the legal 192 downloads - they're pretty good. Why not buy a few tunes in both formats and put them on a CD and run them on the biggest & best sound systems you can find, and decide for yourself? |
|
|
|
|
