|
320 kbps MP3 vs. WAV: can you hear the difference? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Existo22 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Cable, and I'm talking about broadband speeds dip. Why should I sit around waiting for a 100 MB file when I could get an identical copy that's only 10 MB? Your track isn't that important to me. |
That would be a 128 mp3 file if its ten times smaller and if you can't tell the difference between that and a wave you are deaf playboy. DEAF.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Yeah, that's around 1100 90-minute mixes and albums (some are 60, some are 120 or more, I figure that's a reasonable average), and I'm already well over that limit.
Why should I keep spending money on more hard drives when it costs nothing to use MP3 instead? The difference is even more noticeable when copying to an external disc - oh hey, I just downloaded 20 new mixes to listen to at work, do I sit there waiting for 1 minute to copy them or 10 minutes? |
Yeah man I get what you are saying. Time is running out. Download all the free mixes in the world and compress them so you have room to stuff in some more. 10 minutes? whos got so much time to wait for the file to transfer? Somebody who switches the font and color from default every-time he posts maybe?
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[FONT=Tahoma] [COLOR=#99CCEE]And what about CDs to play in my car? Or SD cards to put into my phone? I have a choice between fitting approximately 1 hour of audio onto a piece of media or 10 hours. Gee, what should I choose? |
If you are a truck driver and the cd changer is at the back of your truck make sure you fill up that cd with as much music as you can for your cross-state 12 hour shift. Otherwise you can stop to take a leak somewhere and switch that cd with another one.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
DJs put out tons of free mixes that are completely legal. That's about all I listen to anymore. I would not want to download a friggin' .wav for each one. |
The mixes that djs put out are mp3 to begin with.
You are right. Wether thats completely legal or not is another subject.
For the few people left actually supporting this industry and buying a few cds now and then there is absolutely no reason to compress the cds anymore because these days hard drives are large and cheap. |
|
|
| palm |
| most of the tracks these days are overcompressed and ed up already before rendering-stage so it doesnt matter, why waste time and space on a track? When it comes to my own productions its a different case, the good ones I keep the wav for my own pleasure. But thinking that it matters wav vs 320knps is just moron as all, yes all releases of today are mastered to crap anyway. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Existo22
That would be a 128 mp3 file if its ten times smaller and if you can't tell the difference between that and a wave you are deaf playboy. DEAF. |
No, it's 192, not 128, and approximately 99.9% of people cannot even hear the difference at that bit rate. 256 kbps is "archival quality", and 320 kbps is overkill.
| quote: | | Yeah man I get what you are saying. Time is running out. Download all the free mixes in the world and compress them so you have room to stuff in some more. 10 minutes? whos got so much time to wait for the file to transfer? Somebody who switches the font and color from default every-time he posts maybe? |
I agree, you are an idiot.
| quote: | | If you are a truck driver and the cd changer is at the back of your truck make sure you fill up that cd with as much music as you can for your cross-state 12 hour shift. Otherwise you can stop to take a leak somewhere and switch that cd with another one. |
You obviously either don't drive or don't live in a major city or ever go on decent road trips (which doesn't surprise me, you're probably 14). There's no place to stop and take a leak, and even if there was, I wouldn't want to have to store 50 CDs in my car. Who does that?
| quote: | | The mixes that djs put out are mp3 to begin with. |
No, really!?!? WOW, thanks for the info! And WHY do you think they are MP3s, hmmm?
| quote: | | You are right. Wether thats completely legal or not is another subject. |
It's not a subject at all. It's legal. It's "completely" legal. Ripping a track out of the middle of one and posting it online would be illegal.
| quote: | | For the few people left actually supporting this industry and buying a few cds now and then there is absolutely no reason to compress the cds anymore because these days hard drives are large and cheap. |
Yes, there is, because not compressing it is a waste of space. Do you fill your house with useless knick-knacks just because it's a big house? Do you cover every square inch of your walls with lame-ass posters and 20-year-old photos because the space is there? Do you hoard the cardboard boxes from every product you buy just in case you ever need to return one 7 years later? |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
No, it's 192, not 128, and approximately 99.9% of people cannot even hear the difference at that bit rate. 256 kbps is "archival quality", and 320 kbps is overkill.
I agree, you are an idiot.
You obviously either don't drive or don't live in a major city or ever go on decent road trips (which doesn't surprise me, you're probably 14). There's no place to stop and take a leak, and even if there was, I wouldn't want to have to store 50 CDs in my car. Who does that?
No, really!?!? WOW, thanks for the info! And WHY do you think they are MP3s, hmmm?
It's not a subject at all. It's legal. It's "completely" legal. Ripping a track out of the middle of one and posting it online would be illegal.
Yes, there is, because not compressing it is a waste of space. Do you fill your house with useless knick-knacks just because it's a big house? Do you cover every square inch of your walls with lame-ass posters and 20-year-old photos because the space is there? Do you hoard the cardboard boxes from every product you buy just in case you ever need to return one 7 years later? |
2048 |
|
|
| wrzonance |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
2048 |
1024
512
256
128
huh? |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by wrzonance
1024
512
256
128
huh? |
no, 2048 |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| 2048 FOR LIFE, NUBS |
|
|
| Existo22 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
No, it's 192, not 128, and approximately 99.9% of people cannot even hear the difference at that bit rate. 256 kbps is "archival quality", and 320 kbps is overkill. |
192 is 8 times smaller and the ''archival'' quality you are talking about is 6 times smaller. Learn to count playboy.
Whether 256 is archival quality all the experts in archiving audio (the mastering engineers not the tranceaddict clowns who switch the font every time they post) will say this is not true. In fact most of them would refuse to work with your mix if you send them a 256 mp3.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I agree, you are an idiot. |
You are an idiot if you buy cds and in 2009 you compress them to save disk space. The 90s are over. Get with the times.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
You obviously either don't drive or don't live in a major city or ever go on decent road trips (which doesn't surprise me, you're probably 14). There's no place to stop and take a leak, and even if there was, I wouldn't want to have to store 50 CDs in my car. Who does that? |
Somebody whos music doesn't consist of dj sets downloaded for free of the internet maybe???
Maybe... just maybe somebody who went to the cd store and bought an actual cd.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
It's not a subject at all. It's legal. It's "completely" legal. Ripping a track out of the middle of one and posting it online would be illegal. |
It is not completely legal. In fact it is not legal at all. The djs do not have permission to use the tracks and redistribute them for free to clowns like you who don't buy music anymore. They do that anyway though. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
I will take the next 5 tracks released by everyone in this thread, market them in a DJ set of my own, and even sell them. And no one will do a ing thing. How is that for legality?
And the fact that I could do that without any resistance, makes one think about how much legality plays in any of this?
Who still buys music?.. I mean, let me reiterate. Who still buys EDM? |
|
|
| Lucidity |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
2048 FOR LIFE, NUBS |
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by Existo22
192 is 8 times smaller and the ''archival'' quality you are talking about is 6 times smaller. Learn to count playboy.
Whether 256 is archival quality all the experts in archiving audio (the mastering engineers not the tranceaddict clowns who switch the font every time they post) will say this is not true. In fact most of them would refuse to work with your mix if you send them a 256 mp3.
You are an idiot if you buy cds and in 2009 you compress them to save disk space. The 90s are over. Get with the times.
Somebody whos music doesn't consist of dj sets downloaded for free of the internet maybe???
Maybe... just maybe somebody who went to the cd store and bought an actual cd.
It is not completely legal. In fact it is not legal at all. The djs do not have permission to use the tracks and redistribute them for free to clowns like you who don't buy music anymore. They do that anyway though. |
Ah, existo, you're my hero. Please write a thread on audio quality just like your trance tutorial, it was so accurate and informative.
I really want to hear more of your opinions about everything:gsmile: |
|
|
| Fledz |
Oh ffs this discussion again? :rolleyes:
Wavs are a waste of time, space and money. The audible difference between Wav and 320mps is negligible. |
|
|
|
|
