bitrates?

ianuss

Couple of questions......

could you play 128kbps out in a club? I'm guessing 'no chance' is the answer.

could you play 128kbps at a party?

can you alter/improve the bitrate when ripping an original cd to mp3?

Scubadevils

I wouldn't play 128kbps on my MP3 player, let alone through any sort of speaker system!

Rip in at least 320kbps and ideally FLAC or some other lossless format - there is generally an option in whatever player/encoder you are using.

Mediamonkey is good if you are on a PC.

http://www.mediamonkey.com/

billybigunz

128 is fine. Most people can't hear and don't give a **** either way.

billybigunz

Never listen to audiophiles, biggest group of bull**** artists going.

http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/

I got this correct, most didn't. To be fair there should be a choice for 'can't tell the difference'. And maybe one for 'can tell but doesn't sound any worse'.

Jev/N

Depends on the codec version as some recent 128-160 kbps version I've heard have been very good, even with a good pair of headphones used.

I still try not to go any less than 192kbps for parties and higher for clubs - bigger club systems will be able to handle a wider band of frequencies you might notice the difference...

billybigunz

Stick with 192 where you definitely can't hear a difference though.


The psychology behind people hearing and seeing differences is very interesting. Tell somebody they have taken a pill for something and they will believe it. Also why it doesn't matter if your new phone has an 8megapixel camera.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html

electrogrimey

Jev/N wrote: »

I still try not to go any less than 192kbps for parties and higher for clubs - bigger club systems will be able to handle a wider band of frequencies you might notice the difference...

This.

The crowd'd definitely notice the difference if you played a tune in a club in FLAC, asked everyone to see if the next one sounds worse, and then played the same tune in 128. Other than that, 192 up is fine. A lot of DJs have the mixer going into the red anyway, which is going to make their precious 320s sound like 128s anyway.

Anything new I buy I'll always get in at least 320, but I'm not going to go and buy and the albums I have ripped at 192 to get a higher bitrate.

copeyhagen

just in a habbit of downloading in 320 or nothing at all.

the system i use for tunes normally theyre all 320 anyways so its happy days

Scubadevils

billybigunz wrote: »

128 is fine. Most people can't hear and don't give a **** either way.

There is a difference, who gives a sh*t about 'most people'?

Musicman2000

billybigunz wrote: »

128 is fine. Most people can't hear and don't give a **** either way.

Thats total b****x of course people are going to notice when its being played on an in house club sound system, Fair enough if you have the in ear i pod phones in, most people wont know then:)

ianuss

Well, cheers for all the responses lads. Good to hear some varying opinions. A spot of bitrate discussion is second only to a good genre debate .

I'm a recent laptop dj myself, so all of my recent purchases have been 320 but I was just contemplating ripping all my old cd's (1998 -) - most of which seem to be 128. And I really don't feel like rebuying them all at better quality bitrate.

I think what I might do is just rip them anyway, possibly to FLAC, and keep them in a seperate folder from the other stuff. That way I can decide what to play depending on what sort of soundsystem I'm using.

Executive Steve

320 or WAV or STFU tbh.


Mind you, you'd get away with playing techno or electro at a lower bitrate than you would DnB, Jungle or Dubstep, for the same reason you can crank up a two-tunes-per-side techno record on a ****ty rig and still have it sound much louder than a single-cut DnB record, there isn't anything like the sonic complexity in the average techno tune.

billybigunz

Musicman2000 wrote: »

Thats total b****x of course people are going to notice when its being played on an in house club sound system, Fair enough if you have the in ear i pod phones in, most people wont know then:)

No, it is the exact opposite. Clubs are a far more forgiving environment given the volume, how bad they are setup, the acoustics, all the hums and distortions from the mixers and limiters, people screaming in your ear, the majority of people being drunk.

Eat your words ganhed.

gsparx

ianuss wrote: »

Well, cheers for all the responses lads. Good to hear some varying opinions. A spot of bitrate discussion is second only to a good genre debate .

I'm a recent laptop dj myself, so all of my recent purchases have been 320 but I was just contemplating ripping all my old cd's (1998 -) - most of which seem to be 128. And I really don't feel like rebuying them all at better quality bitrate.

I think what I might do is just rip them anyway, possibly to FLAC, and keep them in a seperate folder from the other stuff. That way I can decide what to play depending on what sort of soundsystem I'm using.

You have the choice at what bit rate to rip them when you convert to MP3 or .wav etc. If they're on CD they're high quality audio (with iTunes wav converter it's 1411kbps (not sure if this is standard)).
What are you using to rip your cd's and why would you need to buy them again?

copeyhagen

billybigunz wrote: »

No, it is the exact opposite. Clubs are a far more forgiving environment given the volume, how bad they are setup, the acoustics, all the hums and distortions from the mixers and limiters, people screaming in your ear, the majority of people being drunk.

Eat your words ganhed.

wrong. the better the soundsystem the way more noticable a badly ripped tune will be.

anybody with an ear for music would probably be able to tell a lower bitrate tune being played in a decent soundsystem.

MilanPan!c

copeyhagen wrote: »

wrong. the better the soundsystem the way more noticable a badly ripped tune will be.

anybody with an ear for music would probably be able to tell a lower bitrate tune being played in a decent soundsystem.

128 sounds like ass, but no one under 16 will notice.

Executive Steve

gsparx wrote: »

You have the choice at what bit rate to rip them when you convert to MP3 or .wav etc. If they're on CD they're high quality audio (with iTunes wav converter it's 1411kbps (not sure if this is standard)).
What are you using to rip your cd's and why would you need to buy them again?

Pretty sure he's talking about CD's full of 128kbps MP3's he burned back in the day

billybigunz

MilanPan!c wrote: »

128 sounds like ass, but no one under 16 will notice.

My link proves otherwise. I always laugh how 30 year olds with tinnitus are so particular with sound quality. People over 30 can't hear above 13-15 kHz.

ianuss

gsparx wrote: »

You have the choice at what bit rate to rip them when you convert to MP3 or .wav etc. If they're on CD they're high quality audio (with iTunes wav converter it's 1411kbps (not sure if this is standard)).
What are you using to rip your cd's and why would you need to buy them again?

I probably should have prefaced my original question with the fact that I'm a total retard when it comes to technology. Literally - power on/off and google is about my level.

The cd's I want to rip would all be originals I bought years ago. I was of the understanding that they were 128's, in which case, if I tried to rip them, that I would only be able to do so at 128 - is this not the case??

I used windows media player to try and rip them from cd and it was done at 128. I only tried 1 or 2 tracks before posting my query rather than going through my entire collection as I wasn't arsed doing it if the sound quality was going to be pants

I am Yup

Hey,

same kind of question. Was gonna post a thread on this. Gonna be djing in a pub with a pretty good sound system but not nightclub quality. Will be either on my laptop with Virtual Dj or with cd's.

Basically wondering if songs bought on Itunes are high enough quality to use and where do people buy the high quality 320bps mp3's? Will burn itunes songs to cd's and use normal cd's if i'm not using the laptop.

Jev/N

I'd be more worried about 'artifacts' left by the algorithms for lower bitrates rather than the frequencies missing... you could hear some in that example Billy gave, or at least I thought I heard them :pac:

copeyhagen

billybigunz wrote: »

My link proves otherwise. I always laugh how 30 year olds with tinnitus are so particular with sound quality. People over 30 can't hear above 13-15 kHz.

ur link proves nothing. theres a huge difference between listenin to some crappy down tempo ****e on headfones / speakers in ur house than lsitenin to a tech house or bassy tune through a 1000 watt amp in a club.

ur talkin sh1te and just trolling for the sake of trolling.

ED E

MilanPan!c wrote: »

128 sounds like ass, but no one under 16 will notice.

Correction, few. I woulda known, but nearly all under 21s wont give a sh1t:)

Executive Steve

ianuss wrote: »

I probably should have prefaced my original question with the fact that I'm a total retard when it comes to technology. Literally - power on/off and google is about my level.

The cd's I want to rip would all be originals I bought years ago. I was of the understanding that they were 128's, in which case, if I tried to rip them, that I would only be able to do so at 128 - is this not the case??

I used windows media player to try and rip them from cd and it was done at 128. I only tried 1 or 2 tracks before posting my query rather than going through my entire collection as I wasn't arsed doing it if the sound quality was going to be pants

Ah ok - there's a setting you can use to decide what any audio you extract gets ripped to. Just set it to 320 and you're done. (or set it to extract as WAV if space isn't at a premium).

Executive Steve

billybigunz wrote: »

My link proves otherwise. I always laugh how 30 year olds with tinnitus are so particular with sound quality. People over 30 can't hear above 13-15 kHz.

It's not the top end I'm worried about TBH.

billybigunz

Executive Steve wrote: »

It's not the top end I'm worried about TBH.

Compression has little effect on bass. Low frequency signals require bery little data to be reproduced.

Anima

It can have an effect I think. MP3 can compress an audio file by stripping out parts that can't be heard. What parts can't be heard? The parts that are being masked by other parts that are louder. I'm not exactly sure of the degree of the effect it would be but there would be some loss anyways I'd say.

gsparx

ianuss wrote: »

I probably should have prefaced my original question with the fact that I'm a total retard when it comes to technology. Literally - power on/off and google is about my level.

The cd's I want to rip would all be originals I bought years ago. I was of the understanding that they were 128's, in which case, if I tried to rip them, that I would only be able to do so at 128 - is this not the case??

I used windows media player to try and rip them from cd and it was done at 128. I only tried 1 or 2 tracks before posting my query rather than going through my entire collection as I wasn't arsed doing it if the sound quality was going to be pants

128 must be the default setting for your Windows player. As someone suggested, look in the preferences.
An original CD contains the highest quality digital audio commonly available. What your computer does when it changes it to a PC file determines the resulting quality.
Select 320kbps stereo MP3 and you'll be grand.

JDxtra

Remember, when ripping CDs the popular software (iTunes / Windows Media Player) would rather rip a CD fast than worry about errors on the disc. I’ve been trailing Exact Audio Copy, and that seems to do the business. I’d rather not let a track rip rather than rip it, only to find it’s full of skipping audio at a later stage.

Jev/N

I am Yup wrote: »

Hey,

same kind of question. Was gonna post a thread on this. Gonna be djing in a pub with a pretty good sound system but not nightclub quality. Will be either on my laptop with Virtual Dj or with cd's.

Basically wondering if songs bought on Itunes are high enough quality to use and where do people buy the high quality 320bps mp3's? Will burn itunes songs to cd's and use normal cd's if i'm not using the laptop.

Most iTunes tracks are 256kbps AAC, which is a different compression codec, but generally thought of as better quality for the bitrate when compared with mp3 (confusing I know) - suffice it to say you'll be fine!

ianuss

Right, got it sorted. I tried using MediaMonkey but it wasn't recognising the track ID's, whereas Windows Media Player does, so I went with that. Changed the 'rip settings' to WAV(lossless) as 192kbps was highest alternative.

Files ripped this way are roughly ten times larger than the ones I had ripped at 128, but space isn't really an issue. The sound is noticeably better in WAV too. I was played the same track in both formats and there is a difference - no doubt about it.

The weird thing now is, Torq isn't picking up the correct BPM. All tracks are being recognised as 67 BPM - which they aren't? Any ideas?

Jev/N

Be very careful with WAV files in those programs - I had a few in Serato which were analysed and the BPM was written to them. The BPM data was written over the audio and it was wiped completely leaving a blank file.

This is due to the fact that there is no ID3 tag in a WAV file, unlike compressed audio, so when the program tries to write the info, it ends up rewriting over the file itself.

Torq should be able to pick up the BPM regardless, just not write to the file - so each time you start a track the BPM will take a second to adjust. Just make sure you don't have it on auto-write BPM as I said above

gsparx

You could download iTunes for PC. There are lots of options for "importing" audio from a CD in the preferences.

ottostreet

A common mistake people seem to make is thinking that converting a 128kbps MP3 to a 320kbps MP3, somehow magically gives them back the frequencies the encoder cut out! I know of a DJ who constantly plays 128 files at his gigs, thinking they are 320. I personally only download 320, and rip all my cds at 320. i occasionally have to get 256 for more rare tunes, and use FLAC for any lower than that if at all possible.

if youre planning on playing on a big system, then i recommend not going lower than 256 kbps.

Zascar

billybigunz wrote: »

Never listen to audiophiles, biggest group of bull**** artists going.

http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/

I got this correct, most didn't. To be fair there should be a choice for 'can't tell the difference'. And maybe one for 'can tell but doesn't sound any worse'.

Interesting how the majority of people got that test wrong. Maybe it was because of the particular track or encoding etc.

I play about 99% 320kbs - I have in the past played a track and questioned its quality, only to find out its 192 or something. It definitely depends on the system, I have a big high quality system in my car and the difference can be huge. I think the bigger difference is between 320kbs and a vinyl record, for reasons that were explained to me but I can't remember.

I doubt I could tell the difference between 320 and wav - I'd be fairly sure my hearing is not 100% anyway. For me the downsides of wav don't make it worth while, 320kps is plenty good enough. I'd be more concerned about the quality of the actual music I'm playing.

Why has jtsuited not posted here yet???

jtsuited

Zascar wrote: »

Why has jtsuited not posted here yet???

meh it's all been done.

as has been said it very much depends on the codec what you can get away with. 320 is fine. anything less on a big system is unacceptable tbh.

128 is horrible.

b45

i dont understand why anyone who is playing out would play 320 mp3's . I think the reason is this , people dont want to pay for WAVs/FLAC files and think they take up too much room on their hard drives .

Neither is a decent excuse imo . why would you not want your sets to sound as good as possible ? If you were to ( far fetched i know ) get a gig at an Awakenings/I Love Techno style festival would you really be confident turning up with you batch of low bit rate mp3's ? Would you not be worried about a serious drop in sound quality if the dj before was using WAV files or vinyl ?

Djing isnt meant to be some easy thing anyone can for free , at a professional level anyway . I think the least to expect from a dj who is playing to a room full of paying punters is that they wont be playing dodgey mp3's downloaded off some blog .

copeyhagen

320 is good enough for all sound systems

and i dont *pay* for 99% of my tunes so cant really get any better than 320

b45

copeyhagen wrote: »

320 is good enough for all sound systems

and i dont *pay* for 99% of my tunes so cant really get any better than 320

fair enough if you walk into a club and someone is playing 320 mp3's it does sound ok and you might not immediately notice it but when played alongside lossless files or vinyl you can hear a difference . i just dont understand why you wouldnt want your set to sound as good as possible ? cause your too scabby to pay for music ?

Executive Steve

b45 wrote: »

i dont understand why anyone who is playing out would play 320 mp3's . I think the reason is this , people dont want to pay for WAVs/FLAC files and think they take up too much room on their hard drives .

Neither is a decent excuse imo . why would you not want your sets to sound as good as possible ? If you were to ( far fetched i know ) get a gig at an Awakenings/I Love Techno style festival would you really be confident turning up with you batch of low bit rate mp3's ? Would you not be worried about a serious drop in sound quality if the dj before was using WAV files or vinyl ?

Djing isnt meant to be some easy thing anyone can for free , at a professional level anyway . I think the least to expect from a dj who is playing to a room full of paying punters is that they wont be playing dodgey mp3's downloaded off some blog .

Personally I don't play files full stop. 320 is a decent enough compromise between quality and file size though.

We're about to press up 200 copies of a pair of tunes we like just so we can play them and cover the costs of that by selling the spare 198 copies, although if i were a rich man i'd be cutting all the fresh stuff straight to dubplate... Screw doing that unless you're doing six gigs every weekend though...

jtsuited

Executive Steve wrote: »

Personally I don't play files full stop. 320 is a decent enough compromise between quality and file size though.

We're about to press up 200 copies of a pair of tunes we like just so we can play them and cover the costs of that by selling the spare 198 copies, although if i were a rich man i'd be cutting all the fresh stuff straight to dubplate... Screw doing that unless you're doing six gigs every weekend though...

where you getting a run of 200 done? I have some secret projects I need small runs like that done and the lowest run i can get is 350.
these heavy whitelabels?

Executive Steve

jtsuited wrote: »

where you getting a run of 200 done? I have some secret projects I need small runs like that done and the lowest run i can get is 350.
these heavy whitelabels?

Can't remember the name of the place off the top of my head, will PM it to you tomorrow.

These lads do a decent dub cutting service though - http://dubstudio.co.uk/

£40 sterling for a one-off copy of a two-sided 12" - it's not pressed on the same stuff they used to make them from (acetate) it's a newer material that's almost as hard as vinyl but still has that lovely melted crayon aroma off it. You'd want to get your tunes properly mastered at somewhere like Subvert Central Matering or Finyl Tweek before you send it off, because you're likely to get a better job done than you will with the dub studio in-house engineers.

Pricey enough, but if you need the tunes you need the tunes; obviously works better if not too many other people have them... Fierce, Andy C, Dillinja, Lemon D - they're all still strictly on the dub-cutting tip.

Dillinja and Lemon D remortgaged their houses a few years ago and bought a cutting lathe (and the Valve soundsystem) just so they could have complete control over every single step of the process from sampler to speaker. (And also apparently because their basslines were starting to get so weighty that none of the other cutting houses would cut their tunes for fear of breaking a cutting head; they cost up to ten grand to replace and you can't insure them!)

ianuss

After ripping all my cd's to WAV I've discovered that there is a fairly big volume difference between some tracks from various cd's. I've downloaded MP3Gain to standardize all my mp3 tracks but it doesn't look like there's a similar programme for WAV. Anyone know of any? Or does the WAV file fromat not support the option?

b45

ianuss wrote: »

After ripping all my cd's to WAV I've discovered that there is a fairly big volume difference between some tracks from various cd's. I've downloaded MP3Gain to standardize all my mp3 tracks but it doesn't look like there's a similar programme for WAV. Anyone know of any? Or does the WAV file fromat not support the option?

just adjust the gain on your mixer accordingly while mixing .

ianuss

b45 wrote: »

just adjust the gain on your mixer accordingly while mixing .

thanks an all but that doesn't really answer my question

Scubadevils

ianuss wrote: »

thanks an all but that doesn't really answer my question

Whatever the format, be it vinyl, cd or digital, the volumes will vary - you can adjust the gain or volume of the format when you are mixing. I wouldn't bother trying to find ways to level them all off via software, just do it when mixing.