|
MP3 Mix Download - 192kps or 320kps? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| agentdansmith |
Surely with all of us being DJ's, I would have thought that you would have an ear for the difference in quality between 192k and 320k? ;)
I mean yeah, if you were just posting up a speech for students to listen to then 320k is complete overkill but we're DJ's who should know better. If you can't tell the difference between the 2 types, then why do we all go out and buy decent monitors, amps and pay a premium for 320k mp3 files?
:) |
|
|
| erdega |
| quote: | Originally posted by skip
i have broadband and a bigger hard disk! ;) but the world doesn't work very well if everyone would just think about themselves. ;) |
You should not think about yourelf only or the entire world out there but the specific audience and how you want to preent this mix to them
| quote: | | Originally posted by skip i'd say that most people can't hear any difference between a 192kbps and a 320kbps dj mix and it certainly isn't as relevant in dj mixes as it is on singles IMO. |
I can hear and I know that in electronic music dynamic range is important to hear different sounds so you are depriving your listeners of the experience by lowering standards. Certainly if you are DJ , you need to mind and know the quality. Having said that , I did a little test here to hear the difference between WAV-cd quality, 320k and 192k mp3 and I can hear the difference where 320k is compressed but still full but 192k gets weak especially in bass and high sounds. Just listen to these samples with volume down and then volume up.
75 seconds of A&B- good for me
1_Good_For_Me__Radio_Edit__1.wav (12.45 MB)
http://www.mediafire.com/?exldlizz32t
1_Good_For_Me__Radio_Edit__1(320k).mp3 (2.83 MB)
http://www.mediafire.com/?agjat5odyey
1_Good_For_Me__Radio_Edit__2(192k).mp3 (1.7 MB)
http://www.mediafire.com/?7dk5ui4m4r2
| quote: | | Originally posted by skip sure, you can put your mixes up in blu ray format, but it doesn't make any sense at all. |
No one has yet put tracks in blu ray which is high resolution, multi channel but I'd love to hear it
| quote: | | Originally posted by skip if you recorded speeches and put those up for download for people. for students for example, so they could hear what the professor had said or something. would you record those in blu ray format too and put them up in blu ray format so everyone would get the best |
you are mixing things up a bit, speech does not have high dynamics unles it's very screechy so to speak but I will say anything below 128k for speech is a pain to listen to . Likewise rock and maybe hip hop is preety straightforward music which is less affected by quality of recording
| quote: | | Originally posted by skip possible quality? i think not, as speech can still sound pretty good even as a rather low bitrate mp3, so there would be no real advantage over putting it up in some really high quality format, but there'd be a lot of disadvantages. the case here is pretty similar IMO, just not nearly as extreme. ;) |
It's a matter of quality over quantity. I can certainly say that higher bitrate produces better sound with less garble and something I can enjoy to listen to over and over again. As for me , I delete any audio file below 320k as it hurts my ears listening to it again
:o |
|
|
| RJT |
People who think that a 320kbps MP3 version of their set will somehow be more likely to get them a gig because of the increase in sound quality are utterly daft.
192 is fine. 90% of people couldn't tell the difference if you had them take some sort of blind test. |
|
|
| agentdansmith |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
People who think that a 320kbps MP3 version of their set will somehow be more likely to get them a gig because of the increase in sound quality are utterly daft.
192 is fine. 90% of people couldn't tell the difference if you had them take some sort of blind test. |
I don't think anyone on here has said that they would have a better chance of a gig if he/she recorded their mixes in 320kbps :) |
|
|
| Tony Morello |
sure, if you're pressing professional cds that are going to be distributed in the tens of thousands, then yes, sound quality will be a concern
but you're a ing BEDROOM DJ putting out a ing MIXTAPE
i want to see if you can actually put 2 records together and have it sound good, i don't give 2 s on the sound quality |
|
|
| agentdansmith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tony Morello
sure, if you're pressing professional cds that are going to be distributed in the tens of thousands, then yes, sound quality will be a concern
but you're a ing BEDROOM DJ putting out a ing MIXTAPE
i want to see if you can actually put 2 records together and have it sound good, i don't give 2 s on the sound quality |
I think you need to chill out pal.
When I download someone's mix (whether it's off this site or any other site) I'm not downloading it to judge them or to see whether they can put two records together - I'm downloading it so that I've got an hours worth of decent music (hopefully :) ). If it is good then I'll pass on my comments.
If it does turn out to be a crap mix then I'll just bin it but if it's a good mix then it helps if it was in a higher quality.
Just my opinion, but there's no need to have a fit about such a simple discussion ;) |
|
|
| tvmann |
I did a quick test on redegas's posting of the 3 sample downloads (nice track btw) and on my computer setup (SB Audigy, HK speakers with sub) I can't hear any difference. This computer is probably typical of what people will use to check out someone's DJ mix. I'll move the files to a better computer soundcard/speaker setup for another test later. BTW the encoder seems to be Fraunhofer which I don't think is the best, Lame has the best reputation AFAIK.
Most EDM has been compressed like hell so there is no dynamic range really. After all it's meant to be played in a noisy place where many people are talking loud and probably drunk, and most music these days has been compressed a lot for radio, CDs. There are no subtle nuances in most EDM. It's not like classical music. The MP3 process does not try to change the levels (compression), it tries to keep the music sounding exactly the same, that is the goal after all, not to tinker with the final sound. The lower bitrates do however cut off more and more high frequency (above 18Khz for 192 kbits/sec) (most adults can't hear much above 16 Khz so generally it's not very noticeable).
I would be less inclined to download someone's mix if it was 320K unless I knew it was really good, it just wastes bandwidth and time. 192 or even lower is fine for DJ mixes, but put up the mix at different bitrates if you want.
There is a point to be made for putting out mixes at low bitrates, that way you are not competing with sales by the original track artists and showing them more respect. Remember amateur DJs are putting out the original artists' work almost certainly without permission so they shouldn't be giving away high quality versions of other people's work, the objective is to show how well someone can mix, not to provide people with high quality copies of copyrighted music. |
|
|
| SuspicionVandit |
what about the AAC format
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
which is essentially the "sequel" to mp3 in terms of a new revolution in size-to-quality compression.
It's unknowingly used by everyone who downloads from ITunes.
Pretty much all Mp3 software support it now (Itunes, Windows Media Player, Winamp), although I wouldn't know how widespread it is in Car stereo's, home audio systems, etc (if you're trying to cater to the whole universe)
then there is always the new WMA format, but, bleh! |
|
|
| agentdansmith |
| quote: | Originally posted by tvmann
There is a point to be made for putting out mixes at low bitrates, that way you are not competing with sales by the original track artists and showing them more respect. Remember amateur DJs are putting out the original artists' work almost certainly without permission so they shouldn't be giving away high quality versions of other people's work, the objective is to show how well someone can mix, not to provide people with high quality copies of copyrighted music. |
I see what you're saying here and have often wondered myself on the legalities of uploading mixes containing copywrited music.
However, I doubt that it would compete with sales as the only people that buy EDM are DJ's (most people anyway) and they would only buy an original full length track to mix with. |
|
|
| saltytheseagull |
| 192. Anything more is pointless for a mix unless you're mass producing a CD from it. |
|
|
| Spoonz |
| quote: | Originally posted by agentdansmith
I think you need to chill out pal.
When I download someone's mix (whether it's off this site or any other site) I'm not downloading it to judge them or to see whether they can put two records together - I'm downloading it so that I've got an hours worth of decent music (hopefully :) ). If it is good then I'll pass on my comments.
If it does turn out to be a crap mix then I'll just bin it but if it's a good mix then it helps if it was in a higher quality.
Just my opinion, but there's no need to have a fit about such a simple discussion ;) |
i think he's getting annoyed because u are missing the point he has made quite clearly... go and download any promo mix from any biggish dj's website. 9 times out of 10 it will be nomore than 192. the average listener will download a mix for the music - they are unlikely to notice any difference between 320 or 192 quality files on their standard home system |
|
|
| Fledz |
Definitely 192. 320 is overkill for a mix.
128 is also fine, but 192 preferably. If it's less than 128 or more than 192 I usually won't download it. |
|
|
|
|
