|
sampling...
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Floorfiller |
So I have a song that I am going to sample, but *dun* *dun* *dunnnn* it's in 320 mp3 and not wav. You always hear that you need to sample in wav, but i'm just looking for opinions....is this similar to the debate 320 vs wav for djing where the difference may be negligible or a different animal all together? I have always used wav's up to this point, but would really be able to increase my sample base if I sampled my other tracks.
thoughts?
is it going to be completely noticeable in a mix that material is not sampled from wav? is there some really good reasons why you have to use wav or just the preference for highest quality? |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| Sample it and hear? |
|
|
| Subtle |
| I know i cannot hear a difference between 192+ and wav |
|
|
| palm |
| what are the sample? is it only one sound or is it more? i wouldnt care though, 320 is good enough for samples really. |
|
|
| derail |
It depends on the sound - some mp3 algorithms cut off everything above 16kHz, so if it's a hihat sample it may be noticeable that it's missing the very high end.
But in most cases, it'll be fine.
I remember a friend of mine once came out with the comment that 320 Kb/s mp3s were better than CDs... because the companies marketing CD players were advertising 128Kb/s as "CD quality sound!". I thought that was kind of amusing.
Sure, the difference between a 320Kb/s mp3 and a 1411.2 Kb/s WAV isn't huge, but you can't compress the original audio and end up with better sound.
Sorry, bit of a tangent... |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| quote: | Originally posted by derail
It depends on the sound - some mp3 algorithms cut off everything above 16kHz, so if it's a hihat sample it may be noticeable that it's missing the very high end.
But in most cases, it'll be fine.
I remember a friend of mine once came out with the comment that 320 Kb/s mp3s were better than CDs... because the companies marketing CD players were advertising 128Kb/s as "CD quality sound!". I thought that was kind of amusing.
Sure, the difference between a 320Kb/s mp3 and a 1411.2 Kb/s WAV isn't huge, but you can't compress the original audio and end up with better sound.
Sorry, bit of a tangent... |
i've heard the same thing, that 320 is actually above cd quality, and the cd quality is the equivilent of like a 192KBs
not that that means ripping your cds at 320 will make them sound better, it just means that ripping them above 192kbs won't really make a difference. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
i've heard the same thing, that 320 is actually above cd quality, and the cd quality is the equivilent of like a 192KBs
not that that means ripping your cds at 320 will make them sound better, it just means that ripping them above 192kbs won't really make a difference. |
This is incorrect. CD quality is 1411 kbps, more than four times the data in 320 kbps. You always lose audio information in the conversion to MP3. |
|
|
| d_Verge |
It also depends on the sample's place in the track. For instance, if it's a background element, most likely washed in reverb and/or delay, it makes very little difference in my opinion. However, in the case of something more up front like a vocal or lead sample, some folk may be able to pick up on the integrity a little bit easier. In the end, I personally always tend to follow the rule, "If it sounds good, It is good."
Hope that helps.
:) |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| ah interesting. why is it mp3s don't go above 320? and cds dont go above 1411 for that matter? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
ah interesting. why is it mp3s don't go above 320? and cds dont go above 1411 for that matter? |
Probably because 256 kbps is considered archival quality; 320 is already too much. It's just diminishing returns; if you keep upping the bit rate then your file ends up being larger than various lossless algorithms.
To the OP: Unless it's very badly encoded, nobody will be able to hear the difference. |
|
|
|
|
