Neuro Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Personally, when it comes to this, I'm a stubborn bastard when it comes to digital audio. 1) Quality: I will always convert a wav or other master audio (e.g. CD, vinyl) into 320kbps, without exception. Tapes you can go down a lot on, so 192kbps I think is plenty as you're extracting the maximum audio quality from an inferior sound source. 2) Size: I don't care if 1 track takes up 20MB, who cares? Hard drives are big enough these days. 3) I hate iTunes because they only offer downloads at 128kbps - how ridiculous is that? Most don't care, but on a big soundsystem, it notices, and that "compressed" sound of any track makes me want to hang myself. Twice. 4) Always mp3s - sod all the other audio formats, I know everything plays mp3s and always will do. So if someone gives me an AAC file or OGG, I don't care, I'll go and convert it. What do others reckon? Would be really interested.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 I agree mate. I'm also quite stubborn! I don't mind mixes being in 128kbps - that adequate enough for listening to, but when I buy MP3's, they've gotta be in 320kbps. I'm amazed that so many people are happy to buy 128/192kbps MP3. They sound OK when you play them on your PC on their own, but when you mix them into 320kbps quality MP3's, you can clearly tell the difference. The hi's and low's aren't as sharp, and the bass is mushier and not as crisp. If I buy from Vonyc.com, then i'll always ask for the WAV file and then convert it myself to 320kbps. The ONLY time i'll play a 128/192kbps tune is when i've got no choice (ie, only one shop has excluisve rights to the track, and they're only offering it at a lower quality, or its an artist bootleg that he's saved at a lower quality). Sometimes, if a track was originally saved in 320kbps quality but converted to 128/192kbps, you MIGHT be able to get a bit more oomph out of it, but I find that if a track was originally saved at a lower quality and you try to convert it to 320kbps, you often make it worse. When a tune is compressed to a lower quality, it takes bits out of the tune to reduce the filesize. When you ask it to convert back to 320kbps, you're asking it to put bits back that aren't there to put back - so it plays around with the other bits that are there instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuro Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Sometimes, if a track was originally saved in 320kbps quality but converted to 128/192kbps, you MIGHT be able to get a bit more oomph out of it, but I find that if a track was originally saved at a lower quality and you try to convert it to 320kbps, you often make it worse. When a tune is compressed to a lower quality, it takes bits out of the tune to reduce the filesize. When you ask it to convert back to 320kbps, you're asking it to put bits back that aren't there to put back - so it plays around with the other bits that are there instead. This is true, you can't "resurrect" any tunes by saving them as 320kbps if they were originally saved at much less... a case in point when I was searching for The Fabulous 23s - "Ghost Town" once, and Christian found the artists' website where they were free to download.... only he'd decided to save them all as 128kbps - immensely frustrating as I have to hunt down the vinyl now and do it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 only he'd decided to save them all as 128kbps - immensely frustrating as I have to hunt down the vinyl now and do it myself. Yeah, I hate cases like that. I bought the Randy Katana remix of Bodyrox - Yeah, Yeah! - and its a bloody good edit, but it was only available in 128kbps and sounds rather poor when you mix it. It sounds very "flat" - needless to say, i've not played it in sets as often as I should have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aza Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 I like to encode most of my mixes at VariableBitrate (VBR), which covers rates of 128kbps/320kpbs. This saves file space and also ensures quality. It drops to a lower vbr at quieter points i.e. breakdowns and shoots back up again when the sound kicks in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quadrant Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 I think I have voiced similar views on this subject previously on the board. If someone's going to rip a tune, do it in 320 nothing less. Why have cotton when you can have silk? Throw down your sword and do it properly, that's what I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 I like to encode most of my mixes at VariableBitrate (VBR). It drops to a lower vbr at quieter points and shoots back up again when the sound kicks in... Thats awesome! When God designed the woman, its a pitty he didn't make her Variable Bitrate too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Thats awesome! When God designed the woman, its a pitty he didn't make her Variable Bitrate too Good job there's only one female who posts regularly on here mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Good job there's only one female who posts regularly on here mate I'm not scared of Bjorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonB Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 itunes is bad for downloads as they have a lot of stuff exclusively annoying and now many big labels are chuckng out special download editionsof album and such with downloadable on itunes only bonus material, I really don't understand why certain big labels make certain remixes of stuff avilable this way, oh lets see its the DRM! which apple are now on about dropping, well if the qualty crap it doesnt matter either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissie Brown Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Tom Wrote; Good job there's only one female who posts regularly on here mate. I'm not scared of Bjorn It's a good job l've got a sense of humour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 It's a good job l've got a sense of humour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteve Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 Can I add overpriced promo mp3s to the list too? I have bought them occassionally, only to see them a couple of days later at the usual price. At least with a vinyl promo, you have something physical that says its a promo, but you get diddly squat with a promo mp3 It seems the labels just hold back the release date and put them on sale as a promo for a week or two to rake in the extra cash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 Can I add overpriced promo mp3s to the list too?I have bought them occassionally, only to see them a couple of days later at the usual price. At least with a vinyl promo, you have something physical that says its a promo, but you get diddly squat with a promo mp3 It seems the labels just hold back the release date and put them on sale as a promo for a week or two to rake in the extra cash Its just a money making con. Its not a promo - its just an exclusive MP3 that isn't being sold anywhere else until a couple of weeks later. A Vinyl promo was exactly that - a Promotional copy issued to see how it sells, what the reactions are, etc - and there was a slight chance that it may never get released, meaning you had something fairly exclusive. An MP3 promo isn't a promo at all - it'll be released regardless, whether the feedback is poor or not because there are no risks involved. The artist recieves a percentage of anything sold - so if it flops, nobody has lost out. They couldn't take that risk with Vinyl because there were upfront fee's involved - the cost of the vinyl, distribution, sleeve designing, etc - thats before any profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSaint Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 if space isnt an issue then use lossless formats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bjorn Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 I'm not scared of Bjorn haha, only just seen this! I try to get all my mp3's in 320kps, altho i do settle for 192kb if i have to. Have researched it a lot and only the highly trained ear can pick up the difference between 192kb & 320kb mp3's while in a club, on a small system u would never notice. Sod huge WAV's and m3u etc crap, stick to mp3's, small and easy to work with :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuro Posted February 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Have researched it a lot and only the highly trained ear can pick up the difference between 192kb & 320kb mp3's while in a club, on a small system u would never notice. But you do! I think everyone notices when you go below 192, but even on a small system with a 192kbps file there are certain musical aspects which are an instant giveaway for me, sometimes not instantly but eventually you just know. I can't explain it... it irriates the **** out of me!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simcut Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Im definately pro 320kbps at the moment.....! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuro Posted February 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 if space isnt an issue then use lossless formats Which formats are best for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bjorn Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 But you do! I think everyone notices when you go below 192, but even on a small system with a 192kbps file there are certain musical aspects which are an instant giveaway for me, sometimes not instantly but eventually you just know. I can't explain it... it irriates the **** out of me!! yeh i agree, below 192 and u seriously notice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aza Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Tim ".wav" is the best for lossless formats, hence their insanely large file sizes. I believe this is like the gold of all rips... Usually by default when I record mix demos (at a max of 80mins) I save as wav just to capture the recording exactly as it is and then encode that. The file size for this is usually 800 Mb (+ - sometimes)... Bjorn: m3u's are playlist files...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bjorn Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Tim ".wav" is the best for lossless formats, hence their insanely large file sizes. I believe this is like the gold of all rips...Usually by default when I record mix demos (at a max of 80mins) I save as wav just to capture the recording exactly as it is and then encode that. The file size for this is usually 800 Mb (+ - sometimes)... Bjorn: m3u's are playlist files...? yeh sorry i meant aac, mp4 etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aza Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 yeh sorry i meant aac, mp4 etc :mrgreen: :mrgreen: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuro Posted October 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 I want to resurrect this gripe I have with iTunes and their refusal to release anything above 128kbps.... I know their AAC encoding is actually better and it probably has the quality of a 192 equivalent mp3, but I still think they're having a laugh in selling us audio which is about half the quality of what you could rip yourself using a CD single. The whole point in compression is to save space, and yet we don't need to these days - buying an inexpensive external hard drive is so easy so I don't give a monkeys if 1 track takes up 20MB - :wall: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 VONYC is the also a terrible offender for poor quality & imo they should know better. I mean VONYC actually sell exclusively dance music, which they must know will be played out. 320k is the benchmark really & I doubt very much whether PvD would wana play some of the tracks they offer for sale on there. Their policy of having to wait for the high quality .wav files is also a complete joke, I really detest using the place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.