|
Comparison test between original and compressed audio formats
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
here's my thought. It has taken "new codec technology" to make it sound almost flawless. So how many djs use this technology, furthermore how many basement djs who get the ocassional gigs do this as well?
No doubt that technology has emerged that allows it to be possible. But i still have to argue that most DJs, even the international ones, have yet to use this technology. Furthermore id like to see the difference between digital and analog as far as dance music is concerned. This has long been a bigger arguement of mine. |
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Furthermore id like to see the difference between digital and analog as far as dance music is concerned. This has long been a bigger arguement of mine. |
Uh the "difference" between analog and digital technology is negligable at least of people who say that analog sounds better. The music is all produced digitally anyway! (Unless you use real instruments etc but even then things are modified digitally). Just depends on how the file is set up/compressed (as is showin in the article). |
|
|
| DJ_Science |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
here's my thought. It has taken "new codec technology" to make it sound almost flawless. So how many djs use this technology, furthermore how many basement djs who get the ocassional gigs do this as well?
No doubt that technology has emerged that allows it to be possible. But i still have to argue that most DJs, even the international ones, have yet to use this technology. Furthermore id like to see the difference between digital and analog as far as dance music is concerned. This has long been a bigger arguement of mine. |
I didn't realize that over 300 kps MP3s were such cutting edge? The Mp3 compression they are talking about in that article is the same one Beatport uses to sell its Mp3s. So I would argue that most likely, most of the digital DJs are using this technology and have been for more then a year or two. |
|
|
| Wyndham |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Science
I didn't realize that over 300 kps MP3s were such cutting edge? The Mp3 compression they are talking about in that article is the same one Beatport uses to sell its Mp3s. So I would argue that most likely, most of the digital DJs are using this technology and have been for more then a year or two. |
This article is talking about how good the new codecs are and not about a 320kbps being cutting edge, its the codecs that are cutting edge. U've been able to compress to 320 kbs for like 10 years but theres still a huge difference in quality between differnet programs. If you think ripping a wave and encoding to 320 kbps now and 10 years ago is the same, ur very wrong. They're talking about how good the new codecs are to replicate the original sound by taking out freqs that humans dont pick up as well/ears dont miss as much...instead of strictly mathimatical equasions which was how it was done in the past.
| quote: |
In plain English, the bits of audio that are messed with in a compressed audio file are based on an opinion of how humans hear, rather than on any fundamental laws of maths or physics.
In the case of MP3, a group of scientists in Germany (The Franhofer Institute) decided amongst themselves what to chuck out and what to keep, so it's probable the sound will be coloured to a degree and therefore may actually sound better than the original to some people.
|
this is one of the reasons in the past that people say digital sounds a lot harsher or not as warm as analog/vinyl, which is what all these audio engineers are working on fixing, and apparently its working very well. |
|
|
| DJ_Science |
| My apologies, i stand corrected. |
|
|
|
|
