|
For all the digital DJs and 320kbps nazis out there... (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| geroin |
| quote: | Originally posted by jalalinator
From what I know I'd have to totally agree with Orko and Swonders ..
by the way I could totally tell the difference on that site with my mdr7506's on..too easy |
you can because 128 is poor quality, when it gets to 192 it becomes the best it could be basically
if there was a sample of 192 VBR and 320 it would be VERY difficult to tell the difference. |
|
|
| harcourt |
| I prefer 96kbps mono, nobody can tell. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| You're all wankers! |
|
|
| Flec |
--alt-preset standard
or
--alt-preset extreme .... vbr sucks unless your playing the files on a computer tho |
|
|
| Shade |
| You'd have to be deaf not to tell the difference between the two clips. |
|
|
| djbruuen |
with little doubt i was able to identify the 320. to make this more of a challenge their needs to be at least 10 examples so its not just a random guess for some.
If you're listening to this on quality speakers though, you've got to have some hearing problems, or are just not paying attention enough to tell the difference. |
|
|
| DJ Mach X |
| quote: | Originally posted by VinylJunkies
lmao
How? |
The same we people did it with ty record pressings or crappy bootlegs, re-rip it, try to clean up the sound yourself and re burn it or something....
Or play around with the levels constantly and really REALLY HOPE that the track is so dope that it overshadows the lack in sound quality...
Again, I am not knocking or disagreeing with the simple fact that 320 is better and can sound better than 192, or that WAV is superior to both mp3 formats...this is debatable and always will, but I am not doubting it and do agree...
I'm saying, if I was in a club, I would rather hear a song tear the roof of the sucka and bangah propah the crowd with it's beats and styles but be at 192kbps, and sure, if dead sober in the room totally by myself and with no ambient sound, hear the sound quality difference...but right now having to much fun to care.
OR
Hear a mediocre track, or a another track but WOW does this sound so crisp and clear, this DJ MUST have gotten this straight from the producers mac cuz it's so damn good in quality I think I am going to dance and have fun to it solely on it's brilliant uninterupted clarity and sound quality...
You're average clubber, customer, even colleauge (unless trained and proffessional or experienced) won't know unless you told them... they may notice a sound difference but not right of the bat go "HOLY BAT, that DJ is using inferior quality and encoded audio in his set..."
In a perfect world, we would all have every single track, wether new, bootleged, whitelable, classic or personal in the highest quality imaginable and all have massive terabytes of harddrive space to store it all and play live with it.... but we don't... |
|
|
| jalalinator |
it all comes down to the system your listening to the track on..
FLAC FOR THE WIN :) |
|
|
| Cosmic Fur |
Allright, so here's a different question.
Let's assume that one CAN tell the difference between a 320kbs mp3 and a 192kbs mp3 when they're sitting at home listening to samples back-to-back.
Now my question is, what does it matter? When you're playing out at a club, your audience doesn't have the higher-quality sample to compare to. With all the ambient noise, people talking around you, people yelling, etc etc, no one in their right mind would hear the tiny imperfections you could hear in a perfect setting. If you play a whole set of 192kbs mp3s, is there going to be even one person that will go, "oh yeah, this is encoded at 192kbs; I can totally hear it". no. So what's the point of being all anal about the quality, let's say above the CD-quality 192kbs?
Edit: I could hear the diff between the 128 and 320, but I doubt I'd be able to tell even 128kbs in a club. And even if I could, it's such a non-issue anyway. I'd critique the DJ much more on his mixing and track selection than I would on the quality of the mp3s he uses. IF he had ABSOLUTELY PERFECT MIXING AND SELECTION, then we could start to split hairs on the quality of mp3s. |
|
|
| djbruuen |
| on the above. personally i think 320 can be a bit snobbery. On 128 there is a very noticable audio difference to the point where people won't be saying "this is 128" but many will notice that it doesn't sound 'quite' as good as it should. depending on the room acoustics/ambience etc. Between 192-320 however, i personally have a hard time telling the difference unless REALLY trying to analyze the tracks, to the point for the common clubber of 'whats the point?', and it'd be a bit of a guessing game. 192 i think is a perfectly fine format for 99% of people, and the other 1% is for the snobs who swear by 320 just because its a higher number. |
|
|
| El K Dee |
not this again....
all i can say is that it wasnt hard to tell that it was A cos of the way B was so cooked.
and anyone that thinks that 192 and 320 are no different would say that an acoustic instrument recorded and played on cd is identical to if it were on vinyl or tape |
|
|
| SgtFoo |
i'm not familiar with flash file encoding.... but does flash tend to convert or compress mp3s at all within a flash movie??
if so then the whole test is bonkers.
Most of you who say you can hear a difference either have
A) superhuman hearing
OR
B) you're listening from an acoustically treated space with 20hz-20khz flat response monitors and you haven't lost most of your hearing to nightclubbing over the years.
Thus 98% of you are complete BS if you can tell the difference.
Most people should not be able to tell the difference.
The reason why the industry provides 320kbit mp3s to DJs is because a sound system reproduces better bass (low end frequencies) if there's more resolution to reproduce more perfect sine waves (the heart of a perfect bass tone).
A side-effect of encoding at 128kbit and lower is the adaption of frequencies to the fledger-mundson curve.... the most audible frequencies interpreted by the human hearing system. the encoder discards frequencies not common to the listening curve and allows for less data to need to be stored.... that's how most lossy compressions work.
on a side note... from my somewhat acoustically adequate space with decent monitors, I can tell that the highs on the 128kbit are less dynamic and have slight digital artifacts.
..heheh done and done.
OH!.. and vinyl records are not the solution anymore either... unless the original material being pressed has NEVER EVER EVER gone thru a digital/analog conversion whatsoever. ... nowadays... that's VERY unlikely. |
|
|
|
|
