|
MP3 - VBR vs 320 kps - Poll! (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| geroin |
| quote: | Originally posted by jon jon
crazy talk :p |
yeah trust me, it only would be noticebale on a crazy sound system,
192 is 95% identical to a cd quality but twice as small as 320
since everyone has high speed nowadays it shouldn't matter anyways but back a year or two ago 192 would do fine. |
|
|
| samhouse |
there is some distortion on a louder system when using 192...
i usually get my tunes from beatport at 320. has anyone ever ordered the wav format cds from them....are they worth the shipping fee? |
|
|
| geroin |
| quote: | Originally posted by samhouse
has anyone ever ordered the wav format cds from them....are they worth the shipping fee? |
wav on a cd is exact same thing as a 320 kbs mp3 if they come from the same source (i'm talking quality wise) |
|
|
| El Kay Dee |
320....
cos VBR is usually a problem on DJ CD players |
|
|
| Dr. Z |
Actually,
I think mp3s are different.
The MPEG layer 3 (MP3) encoding format takes the raw WAVE audio file and compresses it using a Fourier Transformation. A fourier transformation keeps the same amount of data, but uses less space. If you know a little bit about it, it has to do with superimposing many different frequencies to make a single signal. The single signal contains all the data of all the harmonics, but its "smaller" in size.
The same way an MP3 encodes the audio file. I dont know too much about this, but I belive WAV compressed into mp3 of 128-192kbps contain the same amount of data as 1000+ kbps encoded WAV. Increasing encoding to 320kbps from 192kbps in an mp3 increases the amount of data space used for the audio file but it still has the same data (much like digital zoom, no matter how much you zoom, you still contain the same old data). Recording in wave and encoding in 192 mp3, these files contain the 'true' recorded sound. Much like how a BMP picture contains all the true colours and pixels of an image, without compression. The actual 'quality' of sound comes in the sample rate, 44kHz standard. The faster you sample, the 'truer' sound you can record from whatever instrument is making the sound. The higher the sampling, the more 'quality' data you will have to store in whatever data space you assign it. So if you record with say 92KHz sample rate, on a 320 kbps mp3 encoded file, this will sound better in quality, than copying a file from an audio cd and encoding it to 320kbps. (because CDs are usually burned from a 128kbps recording, 44kHz)
etc |
|
|
| Floorwhore |
| quote: | Originally posted by El Kay Dee
320....
cos VBR is usually a problem on DJ CD players |
|
|
|
| activate |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
192 is just fine, no difference between 192 and 320
both sound almost identical because like msz mentioned mp3 is a lossy format anyways |
play them on a decent sound system in a club.. and there's a big difference |
|
|
| El Kay Dee |
| quote: | Originally posted by activate
play them on a decent sound system in a club.. and there's a big difference |
the difference between 320kbps mp3s and WAVs however is barely noticible to anyone other than the producer of the track |
|
|
| |3 |_ @ Z 3 |) |
Without a doubt WAV or FLAC Lossless is the only way to go. MP3's = Compressed audio. Most people can't hear the difference between 320k MP3 vs. uncompressed 1400k WAV. However, anytime you compress anything especially audio you will always have some loss in quality, its just a matter of who can hear the difference since the human ear has a hard time distinguishing the two
Being a frequent buyer on Beatport... I must say there are only certain songs I have been able to see a significant difference in quality and I think its mainly based on the production of the track in the first place... if it was produced and recorded in a million dollar studio than your more than likely going to have one of the highest quality tracks when its pressed for vinyl/cd release.. |
|
|
|
|
