what bit rate would you choose? 128, 160, 192, 224, 256 or 320 kbit/s theres so many great mixes out there but i get easily annoyed when they are in 128k. some say that ppl wont give it a try if they see its in 320 coz it takes too much disk space, i personally dont mind, everything from 192 up is fine with me ;)

Re: MP3 quality

320 HQ sound is the way to go. uncompressed is still gonna ultimate tho.

I nearly posted this a while back

where does AAC / apple lossless fit into the spectrum of sound quality? Given FLAC is the highest , where does apple lossless fit in? better than 320k/s? Is a 320 aac the same as a 320 mp3?

thanks

Re: MP3 quality

192 for sets is perfect.

320 for tracks being used to dj in a club.

For tracks used to dj in club...Wav > 320mp3 though...

Re: MP3 quality

from wiki [QUOTE][B]Audio quality[/B]

When performing lossy audio encoding, such as creating an MP3 file, there is a trade-off between the amount of space used and the sound quality of the result. Typically, the creator is allowed to set a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate"]bit rate[/URL], which specifies how many [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobits"]kilobits[/URL] the file may use per second of audio. Using a lower bit rate provides a relatively lower audio quality and produces a smaller file size. Likewise, using a higher bit rate outputs a higher quality audio, but also results in a larger file. Files encoded with a lower bit rate will generally play back at a lower quality. With too low a bit rate, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact"]compression artifacts[/URL] (i.e. sounds that were not present in the original recording) may be audible in the reproduction. Some audio is hard to compress because of its randomness and sharp attacks. When this type of audio is compressed, artifacts such as ringing or [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-echo"]pre-echo[/URL] are usually heard. A sample of applause compressed with a relatively low bit rate provides a good example of compression artifacts. Besides the bit rate of an encoded piece of audio, the quality of MP3 files also depends on the quality of the encoder itself, and the difficulty of the signal being encoded. As the MP3 standard allows quite a bit of freedom with encoding algorithms, different encoders may feature quite different quality, even with identical bit rates. As an example, in a public listening test featuring two different MP3 encoders at about 128 kbit/s,[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#cite_note-26"][26][/URL] one scored 3.66 on a 1–5 scale, while the other scored only 2.22. Quality is dependent on the choice of encoder and encoding parameters.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#cite_note-listening-test-128-2006-27"][27][/URL] However, in 1998, MP3 at 128 kbit/s was providing quality only equivalent to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding"]AAC[/URL] at 64 kbit/s and MP2 at 192 kbit/s.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#cite_note-28"][28][/URL] The simplest type of MP3 file uses one bit rate for the entire file — this is known as [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_bitrate"]Constant Bit Rate[/URL] (CBR) encoding. Using a constant bit rate makes encoding simpler and faster. However, it is also possible to create files where the bit rate changes throughout the file. These are known as [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_bitrate"]Variable Bit Rate[/URL] (VBR) files. The idea behind this is that, in any piece of audio, some parts will be much easier to compress, such as silence or music containing only a few instruments, while others will be more difficult to compress. So, the overall quality of the file may be increased by using a lower bit rate for the less complex passages and a higher one for the more complex parts. With some encoders, it is possible to specify a given quality, and the encoder will vary the bit rate accordingly. Users who know a particular "quality setting" that is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_%28data_compression%29"]transparent[/URL] to their ears can use this value when encoding all of their music, and not need to worry about performing personal listening tests on each piece of music to determine the correct bit rate. Perceived quality can be influenced by listening environment (ambient noise), listener attention, and listener training and in most cases by listener audio equipment (such as sound cards, speakers and headphones). A test given to new students by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University"]Stanford University[/URL] Music Professor Jonathan Berger showed that student preference for MP3 quality music has risen each year. Berger said the students seem to prefer the 'sizzle' sounds that MP3s bring to music.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#cite_note-29"][29][/URL] Others have reached the same conclusion, and some record producers have begun to mix music specifically to be heard on iPods and mobile phones.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#cite_note-30"][30][/URL] [B][[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MP3&action=edit&section=8"]edit[/URL]] Bit rate[/B]

Several [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rates"]bit rates[/URL] are specified in the MPEG-1 Audio Layer III standard: 32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 160, 192, 224, 256 and 320 kbit/s, and the available [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_frequencies"]sampling frequencies[/URL] are 32, 44.1 and 48 [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHz"]kHz[/URL].[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#cite_note-MPEG-2.5-2-21"][21][/URL] Additional extensions were defined in MPEG-2 Audio Layer III: bit rates 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 144, 160 kbit/s and sampling frequencies 16, 22.05 and 24 kHz.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#cite_note-MPEG-2.5-2-21"][21][/URL] A sample rate of 44.1 kHz is almost always used, because this is also used for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_%28audio_CD_standard%29"]CD audio[/URL], the main source used for creating MP3 files. A greater variety of bit rates are used on the Internet. 128 kbit/s is the most common, offering adequate audio quality in a relatively small space. As Internet [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_%28computing%29"]bandwidth[/URL] availability and hard drive sizes have increased, higher bit rates like 160 and 192 kbit/s have increased in popularity. Uncompressed audio as stored on an audio-CD has a bit rate of 1,411.2 kbit/s,[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#cite_note-31"][note 2][/URL] so the bitrates 128, 160 and 192 kbit/s represent [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression_ratio"]compression ratios[/URL] of approximately 11:1, 9:1 and 7:1 respectively. Non-standard bit rates up to 640 kbit/s can be achieved with the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAME"]LAME[/URL] encoder and the freeformat option, although few MP3 players can play those files. According to the ISO standard, decoders are only required to be able to decode streams up to 320 kbit/s.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#cite_note-32"][31][/URL] [/QUOTE]

Re: MP3 quality

128 is meant to be CD quality, so listening to a set, as long is it is at least 128, i'm good with it

I wont play anything lower than 256, if it's a really big system Ii wont touch anything that's not a .wav or 320 kbps

Re: MP3 quality

theres noway a 128k/s is cd quality! if you rip a retail cd and rip to 128 and play on a decent system u can here masses of difference. (at least on my hifi system)

kat : that still doesnt address the apple lossless debate (or am i missing something -i might just not understand!))

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=Steve Graham;835302]128 is meant to be CD quality[/QUOTE]:?: it says128 is 11:1

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=Huggie Smiles;835307]theres noway a 128k/s is cd quality! if you rip a retail cd and rip to 128 and play on a decent system u can here masses of difference. (at least on my hifi system)

kat : that still doesnt address the apple lossless debate (or am i missing something -i might just not understand!))[/QUOTE]

i should have elaborated, in soundforge when i save something to mp3 it says 128 kbps (cd quality)

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=Huggie Smiles;835307]

kat : that still doesnt address the apple lossless debate (or am i missing something -i might just not understand!))[/QUOTE] i use wav on my iPod in 1411 so cant answer apple on apple question sovvy but from whats written in wiki i guess aac to mp3 is 1:4

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=Steve Graham;835302]128 is meant to be CD quality, so listening to a set, as long is it is at least 128, i'm good with it

I wont play anything lower than 256, if it's a really big system Ii wont touch anything that's not a .wav or 320 kbps[/QUOTE]

Yeppers.8)

Re: MP3 quality

It really depends. For 90% of what I listen to, 192 is just fine because I'm not listening to it at a volume that I'll really be able to tell a difference. For stuff I really dig, though, or for music that I would expect to be played at high volume, I'll go ahead and blow the disk space for the 320.

Re: MP3 quality

192 is sure enogh for dj sets, and sometimes 128 will do too, if it's been done with a good encoder. some 128 mp3s will sound worse than others...

when it comes to tracks to be played out loud in a club: 320.

Re: MP3 quality

listening thru [URL="http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=11037717"]these[/URL] 128 sounds sort of metallic, for a better quality hi-fi 128 wont work imo[URL="http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=11037717"] [/URL]

Re: MP3 quality

as my standard, i render all my studio mixes down from WAV to 320. i can tell the difference between each depth, but it really does not matter to me.

WAV FTW

Re: MP3 quality

I don't go near anything under 192 kbps, don't care how good it supposed to be.

128 is criminal

Alot of people like the fact mp3 are small in terms of file size, but if you are after sound quality, the minimum you should settle for is 192 kbps.

I see a huge difference when I play 192 vs 320 on these Monitor Audio RS 1 speakers, but 192 does sound full enough for most music.

[IMG]http://www.monitoraudiousa.com/assets/images/speakers/large/3.jpg[/IMG]

If space is not an issue, then go for as big an mp3 as possible

FLAC is apparantly CD quality, as is, I believe, Apple lossless. WAV also gets the thumbs up

The lower the bitrate, the more the tone of the music is comprimised, such as treble and bass.

It really depends on how fussy you are, and I'm a fussy fucker :shock:

Re: MP3 quality

192 was ok back in the day when mp3's first came out and we were still on modem connections and were worried about space and it took 10 minutes to download an mp3.

I have almost 6TB of storage in my server right now and have a 2MB/second download to my house, so space/time is no longer an issue. 320k CBR mp3's are what I'd go with.

Also FLAC is awesome and has some support in non-apple based mp3 players too. Flac is 100% lossless and can sometimes save you a suprising amount of space without any quality loss. WAV is also lossless, but without any compression type algorithms run on it like FLAC. I dont know much about AAC etc since I stay away from that apple stuff.

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;835332]320k CBR mp3's are what I'd go with.[/QUOTE]

Ideally ;)

Re: MP3 quality

Sometimes it depends on the source and how things are recorded. Even 128 kbs can be tolerable when it's the quality of e.g. Hernan's Yellow set ... or fustrating - Sasha's 2004 Renaissance @ Pacha (great set, terrible stream-rip).

I'd prefer 320/m4A ... some things even on flac or wav - but the latter two aren't realistic.

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=lilsensa;835300]192 for sets is perfect.

320 for tracks being used to dj in a club.

For tracks used to dj in club...Wav > 320mp3 though...[/QUOTE]

Pretty much this..

btw your avatar is so funny :lol:

Re: MP3 quality

^^ :)

Re: MP3 quality

the bitrate really is not the most important thing.. something recorded as a .wav or 320 can sound like complete shit

garbage in = garbage out

Re: MP3 quality

^well duh :)

Re: MP3 quality

right, so this thread is pointless ;)

you can master a 128 recording and have it sound better than a wave of a shit recording.. so whats the point?

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=Steve Graham;835366]right, so this thread is pointless ;)

you can master a 128 recording and have it sound better than a wave of a shit recording.. so whats the point?[/QUOTE]

not really m8, by mastering a 128 u will only push up all the "noise" created when creating a 128 bit mp3. mastering any kind of mp3 thats not 320 is almost pointless:roll:

Re: MP3 quality

digital anything is a pretty shitty compromise imo no matter what numbers you label it with.

The invention of the cd came along with an enormous myth that it sounded better than what we had before and most of the world bought into it.

Digital audio is very convenient, nothing more

Re: MP3 quality

^^^^ werd!

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=bobjuice;835370]digital anything is a pretty shitty compromise imo no matter what numbers you label it with.

The invention of the cd came along with an enormous myth that it sounded better than what we had before and most of the world bought into it.

Digital audio is very convenient, nothing more[/QUOTE]

not this again lol

digital has many advantages as does analogue, u really have to weigh/catagorise and compare what those advantages are

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=bobjuice;835370]digital anything is a pretty shitty compromise imo no matter what numbers you label it with.

The invention of the cd came along with an enormous myth that it sounded better than what we had before and most of the world bought into it.

Digital audio is very convenient, nothing more[/QUOTE]

well fucking put bud :RockOn:

see, now that's some great subject for discussion; vinyl sounds better :D

Re: MP3 quality

but cd sounds better than tape!

Re: MP3 quality

hahaha :)

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=i!!ustrious;835375] vinyl sounds better :D[/QUOTE]

it may sound better in your oinion but can u say that when u sit and listen to vinyl that what u are hearing is a "pure" sound with things like crackling/noise etc.

think aboutit!! ifanalogue was so great then why is the amount of people using it bcoming smaller each day :|

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=thebanned1;835381]it may sound better in your oinion but can u say that when u sit and listen to vinyl that what u are hearing is a "pure" sound with things like crackling/noise etc.

think aboutit!! ifanalogue was so great then why is the amount of people using it bcoming smaller each day :|[/QUOTE]

no, YOU think about, lol

digital is cheaper, mp3's are easier to lug around

ask any dj what format they prefer, guarantee the majority will say vinyl, but digital is cheaper, easier access and carrying vinyl is fucking HEAVY!

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=thebanned1;835381] think aboutit!! ifanalogue was so great then why is the amount of people using it bcoming smaller each day :|[/QUOTE]

IMO because vinyls doesn´t make money anymore.. just my 2 cents

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=thebanned1;835381] think aboutit!! ifanalogue was so great then why is the amount of people using it bcoming smaller each day :|[/QUOTE]

convenience and cost - nothing else.

The money i used to spend on vinyl is comparable to what i spend now on mp3s, difference is i get 40 tracks now to the 10 i got before.

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=Steve Graham;835386]no, YOU think about, lol

digital is cheaper, mp3's are easier to lug around

ask any dj what format they prefer, guarantee the majority will say vinyl, but digital is cheaper, easier access and carrying vinyl is fucking HEAVY![/QUOTE]

like i said in my previous post, look @ the advantages of both and compare them in a chart or something and weigh the advantages of each,from there its up to the individual to make there own conclusions, sure every dj loves vinyl because 90% of dj's today learned there trade on vinyl decks :lol:

digital is a cleaner/crisper sound imo

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=thebanned1;835390]

digital is a cleaner/crisper sound imo[/QUOTE]

maybe, if you like crispy sound.

give me depth any day

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=AchtungBaby!;835387]IMO because vinyls don´t make money anymore.. just my 2 cents[/QUOTE]

ask yourself why though

[QUOTE=bobjuice;835388]convenience and cost - nothing else.

The money i used to spend on vinyl is comparable to what i spend now on mp3s, difference is i get 40 tracks now to the 10 i got before.[/QUOTE]

the thing is though if everyone was still buying vinyl then te cost of it wuldnt be as great as it is today as there would be more compition in the market place driving costs down, u used to be able tobuy a 12" for the price of a mp3 in its hayday

you are right about convenience though

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=bobjuice;835391]maybe, if you like crispy sound.

give me depth any day[/QUOTE]

depth is easily achievable with digital, just not @ the sample rates of a cd for example

even the humble cd is getting a bit old now :lol:

Re: MP3 quality

[QUOTE=thebanned1;835395]even the humble cd is getting a bit old now :lol:[/QUOTE]

I see the Super Audio CD format was on the cards some years back, but didn't take off. I think some Jazz CDs have been released in this format ;)

Re: MP3 quality

you're really clueless aren't you