|
Numark with the Future of DJing Again? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| sufee_b |
| wavy gravy files? |
|
|
| Cuzo |
[
edit: on the original subject, i dont care if Numark develops a cdj that sucks you off in between mixes, i still wouldnt buy that . [/QUOTE]
Only way I'll get into DJing.
mmmmmmrobo love. |
|
|
| _tAmiKo_ |
| wow that looks siiiiiik...maybe if mr.endgame is a good boy til christmas....he'll ge....or maybe next year...lol. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
MP3s sound like on a loud system no matter what.... |
LOL, here we go with the self-proclaimed "audiophiles" again!
MP3s encoded at 256 kbps or higher are a nearly perfect recreation of the original sound. And when I say "nearly", I don't mean "you can hear the subtle differences", I mean "you need a very precise spectrum analyzer to see the difference". 256 kbps is considered by most sound professionals to be archival quality, which means that as long as it's not being re-encoded then it is good enough to delete the original.
Now some people will encode their MP3s at 128 as demos, and if DJs play those "bootleg" versions then yes, they will sound ty. But that rarely (if ever) happens. Assuming that it is encoded at a reasonable bitrate, then it sounds exactly the same to a listener as a CD master would. Virtually every crackhead audiophile who thinks he can tell a high-quality MP3 encoding apart from the original recording fails a blind test. It's simply not possible for the human ear to hear the difference.
On an aside, "Vinyl" (which isn't really even vinyl most of the time) simply introduces artifacts into the track. Some people like those artifacts, some don't, but people need to see it for what it is: a "lo-fi" media. There is nothing really "analogue" about vinyl - this is not like the "tubes vs. solid state" discussion which actually has some merit. Yes, the audio is recorded continuously as opposed to being sampled, but at a 44 kHz sampling rate, no aliasing occurs below 22 kHz, which is 1 kHz higher than even the most sensitive human ears. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
i could introduce you to some highly specialized sound engineers that would tell you differently diginut.
No matter what, an MP3 is a compression and to compress requires a level of sacrifice of sound quality. Not to mention that digital medium whether MP3 or CD quality is still different from analog. The highs are definately more precise with digital but the problem is that the bass is also more concise. That means the bass actually loses its "warmth" and sounds canned. For dance music this is not a good thing. Which is why digital media for dance music, in a club, will never sound as good as an old fashioned record. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
The "warmth" of analog sound comes from tubes (and only tubes), because they introduce harmonic distortion in the even harmonics, which sound warm, but not the odd harmonics, which sound harsh.
Vinyl does nothing to accomplish this. It only introduces hiss, crackle, and artifacts, and very few legitimate sound engineers would refer to that as "warmth".
As for MP3 being compression and requiring "a level" of sacrifice, you have to understand what that level is. The actual level of noise generated by a 256 kbps MP3 compression is virtually always lower than the noise floor of whatever equipment the track was recorded on. Most music producers are working on a fairly basic system with fairly basic hardware that's not going to guarantee noise below, say, -50 dB. The noise introduced by compression (at that bitrate) is something like -80 dB if I remember correctly. That means nobody will ever know the difference.
The only instance in which it will make a difference is when it's getting encoded, decoded, encoded again, etc. The noise is obviously cumulative, so if you keep going through this process then it will eventually become audible - hence my description of "archival quality" earlier.
Vinyl *adds* noise, in the treble AND bass. It just happens to be a pleasant type of noise for some people. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
only one simple way to solve this..
bring your best coded mp3s and vinyl to a club and play them back to back.
Ask Tygon what the results were. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Jay, what in the hell are you talking about?
Since we already know that the same track recorded onto CD audio sounds different from vinyl, it goes without saying that the MP3 is going to sound different from vinyl. It's impossible to make an objective comparison because anybody who listens carefully is going to KNOW which recording is the vinyl due to the artifacts.
The only useful comparisons would be:
a) The original CD vs. a high-quality encoded MP3 (to see if there is any loss in quality); or
b) An original vinyl record vs. a digital recording of that vinyl record with studio-grade equipment (to see if there is actually some unique "analogue" characteristic other than artifacts, which can easily be reproduced digitally and often are)
Since I'm not a DJ and I don't own a vinyl collection or studio-grade recording equipment, I can't personally prepare material for either one of those tests (and even if I could, why would I want to waste my time on it?). But the fact of the matter is, those comparisons have been done many times in the past and the results are always the same.
Unfortunately I haven't found many good sites on this ever since r3mix.net got taken down... it's a shame, because there has been so much misinformation going around since then. |
|
|
| 8Wonders |
Lots of 'myths' in this thread, a lot of which are covered accurately by Digi.
Is MP3 compression lossy? Absolutely! Does the mp3 compression have artifacts, which are the most apparent when encoded at lower bitrates? Most definitely! Can a lamen tell the difference between a 256bitrate mp3 and CD? Most definitely NOT!
Given that 99/100 Clubs use ty PA speakers, quality of the source audio is negligible as it will sound no matter what.
As for 'analog' being warmer, sure, if you're going from DAT to Vinyl directly, but most music nowadays is recorded digitally, meaning all that that 'warmth' that people refer to is not there to begin with.
Being heavy club goers, 9/10 people here wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a high bitrate mp3 and raw wav. |
|
|
| sufee_b |
| jayx1, digi is correct |
|
|
| Orko |
I used to love the sound of vinyl, and its distortion and low end bass.
But to be honest, I know prefer the clean sound of cd. Although cds can sound `tiny` at times, i`m willing to deal with the lack of distortion.
I also hate the fact that you can sometimes tell a vinyl has been playd a tonne, and it starts to loose its apeal to me.
That new turntable is and was the next logical progression. I think the fact that it has mp3 capabilities is good for just testing tracks out. Ofcourse no pro is going to use an mp3 in a club, so its not even an issue for me. |
|
|
|
|
