|
quality of mp3
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Scolomon |
Lets say I am in the best club in the world with the best soundsystem
Can i getaway with playing 192 kbps mp3s?
or will it sound bad on the speakers? |
|
|
| blacknoizybox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scolomon
Lets say I am in the best club in the world with the best soundsystem
Can i getaway with playing 192 kbps mp3s?
or will it sound bad on the speakers? |
thats what most of mp3 users are concerned of. i dont think much people had experience playing in the top clubs with top soundsystems. generally, big club loudspeakers arent very clear in sound comparing to cute little studio monitors like KRK PR8 and etc. anyways i think 192 is not enough. 256 and up is the deal )) |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by blacknoizybox
thats what most of mp3 users are concerned of. i dont think much people had experience playing in the top clubs with top soundsystems. generally, big club loudspeakers arent very clear in sound comparing to cute little studio monitors like KRK PR8 and etc. anyways i think 192 is not enough. 256 and up is the deal )) |
Like he said. However some 192 MP3s are better encoded than others, so it depends on the MP3 and it also includes how the track was mastered, as some are better mastered than others. 320 Kbps is ideal and you can find plenty of those online at Beatport, AudioJelly and DJDownload. I haven't noticed a huge difference between WAV and MP3. Some people can, but the difference is so slight I don't think it's worth spending the extra dough for WAV. Just go with MP3, 192 should be fine actually, but like I said, it depends on how well the track was mastered...doesn't matter, anything 192 or above should work fine on most systems. |
|
|
| DJ Intrigue |
I agree, 192 is not nearly enough. I personally would rather play out .WAV's simply because they are full uncompressed tracks and that is the fact of the matter for me, however if I had to give in to spinning mp3's, it would be 320 no question.
Regardless of whether or not the difference in quality is audible or not (which I think is fairly moot myself), why "settle" for something more inferior when there are better options out there? |
|
|
| A.B |
Could someone help me out with this query please??
If I record my vinyl onto cd, do I have to do anything other than make sure the levels aint to high?
I'm not bothered about compressed format's or any of that malarky!
I just want to have 2 or 3 songs per cd that sound as sharp as my vinyl would in a club.
Many thanks. |
|
|
| [NFC]Wave |
| I don't play anything less that HQ VBR, 320, or straight WAV files. I find at big clubs that anything lower the bass distorts and isn't as crisp on the lower tones. |
|
|
| J:\Digital |
| 320 or WAV for me.. nothing else.. |
|
|
| richg101 |
| quote: | Originally posted by blacknoizybox
thats what most of mp3 users are concerned of. i dont think much people had experience playing in the top clubs with top soundsystems. generally, big club loudspeakers arent very clear in sound comparing to cute little studio monitors like KRK PR8 and etc. anyways i think 192 is not enough. 256 and up is the deal )) |
the clarity of the speaker really doesnt come into whether you will hear a difference between bitrates/wavs etc. it is the volume you are playin it at. belive me you will notice a 192 a lot easier on a funktion 1 15,000watt pa rig than you would on some studio monitors.
anyways id say id play a 192 in a club if i can only get a 192 of a track i really wanna play. most club goers probably wont notice.
now if tiesto played a 192 on a system the size of say the global gathering rig then it would sound very rough. i look at it like zooming in on a digital photo. a 'wav' photo would be like zooming in on a 12 megapixel digital slr. a '192kbps' photo would be like zooming in on a 1mega pixel camera phone image. its just the size of the rig you play on that counts if you ask me. |
|
|
| Allen Mueller |
320 or wave for me. For what hardrives cost now there is no reason not to. I don't know where i saw it but it was a picture of how much loss you get ass you step down it mp3 quality. Buy the time you down to 192 alot of info has been lost.
allen |
|
|
| henryv |
| I always use 320kbps tracks in mixes... its pretty much the best. |
|
|
| OMNIFEX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Allen Mueller
320 or wave for me. For what hardrives cost now there is no reason not to. I don't know where i saw it but it was a picture of how much loss you get ass you step down it mp3 quality. Buy the time you down to 192 alot of info has been lost.
allen |
I added my input in that thread, but don't know where it is.
I agree but, wav. would be first choice, then settling for 320 Kbs MP3.
Why people are still using low bitrates is beyond me.
In the late 90's 10 Gigs was considered big, now we have terabytes, and, people still using low quality bitrates MP3s |
|
|
| Scolomon |
A lot of people trade music
A lot of people don't have 320 or wav files they have 192.
Sometimes you get a song that isnt released when trading, and its 192 and you have no idea how the person you trade with came into possesion with this song.
So....
Thats why some people use low biterates........
though i would never engage in borderline illegal activities.... |
|
|
|
|
