DJ Turbo
hey guys,
i have just started buying real proper songs for my mixing off the net... i got most songs at 320k quality (not given the choice of quality), but on other sites there are both 192k and 320k options for any song to download, the 320k costing more.
the question is, is there that much to tell in the quality difference between the two? e.g. if i was mixing with songs with both quality numbers, would the 192k sound crappy compared to the 320k? cause being poor i dont really wanna be spending more moolah on each song, ya know?
thanks,
Skedd
i have just started buying real proper songs for my mixing off the net... i got most songs at 320k quality (not given the choice of quality), but on other sites there are both 192k and 320k options for any song to download, the 320k costing more.
the question is, is there that much to tell in the quality difference between the two? e.g. if i was mixing with songs with both quality numbers, would the 192k sound crappy compared to the 320k? cause being poor i dont really wanna be spending more moolah on each song, ya know?
thanks,
Skedd
Posted Thu 28 Feb 08 @ 1:20 am
bagpuss
Hi Turbo,
Check my blog for a detailed answer :).
Posted Thu 28 Feb 08 @ 1:47 am
erxon
... and his wav vs. mp3 comparison thread. :)
Posted Thu 28 Feb 08 @ 2:23 am
andytaylor125
Hi, I tink for alot of people 192kb/s is fine, but for others they feel it's not high enough quality. From what I've read on the forums, it seems to be those who work with big soundsystems who want the highest quality.
I play in a few clubs and I use192kb/s mp3s.
I think the best thing you could do is do a little experement. Find a song you like (one with lot's of instruments in, not minimal techo or someting!) then buy both versions from a site, then compare them by playing one on each deck in virtual dj. Try it in a club if that's wear you play, or just on the highest quality speakers or headphones you've got. Hope that helps.
I play in a few clubs and I use192kb/s mp3s.
I think the best thing you could do is do a little experement. Find a song you like (one with lot's of instruments in, not minimal techo or someting!) then buy both versions from a site, then compare them by playing one on each deck in virtual dj. Try it in a club if that's wear you play, or just on the highest quality speakers or headphones you've got. Hope that helps.
Posted Thu 28 Feb 08 @ 3:02 am
jimmy b
All my mp3 files are converted and downloaded at 320K rate, personally I can't tell the difference between 192k or 320k and the crowd won't either,
but it's a good habit that I've got into.
Jimmy b
but it's a good habit that I've got into.
Jimmy b
Posted Thu 28 Feb 08 @ 3:07 am
Paz75
its not necessarily about 'hearing' a difference. its about the operations done on the material. for instance, you might not hear a difference between 192 and 320 file until you apply a keylock and pitch-shift it. the differences will become more apparent.
similarly, the differences will become more apparent the more you slow a track down from it's original speed.
a good analogy is this. youre driving on the highway (Rather someone is driving and you are in the passenger seat). You are staring at the dotted lines in the road. Each line segment represents a bit in the mp3 file. as you speed up, the bits are appearing more quickly. if you go fast enough, in fact the line starts to appear like one long line. when you slow down though, the lines come more slow. if this is the audio, the lines (clarity) become so far apart, you loose definition of the track and start to hear artifacts in the sound. often it can be described like a soft choppy sound.
ideally this isnt too much of a factor so the argument becomes moot. but in circumstances it applies. i listen to mp3s of any calibre but prefer 320 if i can help it. however, i refuse to spin with anything less than 320 for sake of quality.
final point. YES, you can hear the difference between 192 and 320, or even 256 and 320.... BUT, you only hear the difference when listening to very good speakers. for instance, my genelecs will show you every flaw in every track. but you will rarely hear this in a club or on headphones because the reproduction and stereo imaging is not accurate enough.
hope this helps and sorry to bagpuss if i doubled anything
similarly, the differences will become more apparent the more you slow a track down from it's original speed.
a good analogy is this. youre driving on the highway (Rather someone is driving and you are in the passenger seat). You are staring at the dotted lines in the road. Each line segment represents a bit in the mp3 file. as you speed up, the bits are appearing more quickly. if you go fast enough, in fact the line starts to appear like one long line. when you slow down though, the lines come more slow. if this is the audio, the lines (clarity) become so far apart, you loose definition of the track and start to hear artifacts in the sound. often it can be described like a soft choppy sound.
ideally this isnt too much of a factor so the argument becomes moot. but in circumstances it applies. i listen to mp3s of any calibre but prefer 320 if i can help it. however, i refuse to spin with anything less than 320 for sake of quality.
final point. YES, you can hear the difference between 192 and 320, or even 256 and 320.... BUT, you only hear the difference when listening to very good speakers. for instance, my genelecs will show you every flaw in every track. but you will rarely hear this in a club or on headphones because the reproduction and stereo imaging is not accurate enough.
hope this helps and sorry to bagpuss if i doubled anything
Posted Thu 28 Feb 08 @ 8:52 am
Charlie Wilson
Nice one Paz,
If you have spend a lot on equipment getting a really nice systems together or play at venues that have the good stuff then by playng mps's that arn't at the best quality is defeting the point of having the good gear.
If you have spend a lot on equipment getting a really nice systems together or play at venues that have the good stuff then by playng mps's that arn't at the best quality is defeting the point of having the good gear.
Posted Thu 28 Feb 08 @ 5:34 pm
Diamond G
If you were someone collecting music for your ipod - I would say Rip at least 192.
But for DJ'ing - beat matching is essential and 320 is the way to go for the very reasons Paz75 pointed out.
Inevitably, the time will come when you want to get creative and beat match a slow song with a faster Dance track - you'll be glad you have your collection ripped at 320kbps so the Keylock will do its job well.
If you run poor quality tracks (e.g., 128kbps) through your Keylock and have the pitch way up/down - you WILL be able to hear the difference whether at the club or in your bedroom. Nonetheless, when you're playing at the club most people are thinking about hooking-up and if the track you're playing is conducive to rubbing up against each other NOT whether the track sounds Great or just good.
But for DJ'ing - beat matching is essential and 320 is the way to go for the very reasons Paz75 pointed out.
Inevitably, the time will come when you want to get creative and beat match a slow song with a faster Dance track - you'll be glad you have your collection ripped at 320kbps so the Keylock will do its job well.
If you run poor quality tracks (e.g., 128kbps) through your Keylock and have the pitch way up/down - you WILL be able to hear the difference whether at the club or in your bedroom. Nonetheless, when you're playing at the club most people are thinking about hooking-up and if the track you're playing is conducive to rubbing up against each other NOT whether the track sounds Great or just good.
Posted Thu 28 Feb 08 @ 5:58 pm
listen2
Perhaps that is true with digital music but what about people playing vinyl for years. I'm no audio expert but vinyl sounds vary from each pressing and needle used. What do you suppose quality vinyl would be compared to vs. an mp3? Vinyl has much more lows and an overall organic sound vs. digital formats that sound much more crisp and sometimes even to crisp. I thik if dj's have been playing various quality vinyls for years and average people didnt notice the sound difference then certainly club goers will not hear any difference in mp3s. To a level 3 audio fiddler i know they will.
Posted Thu 28 Feb 08 @ 7:44 pm
Paz75
Thats an interesting subject actually. turntables get amplified by something called the riaa eq curve:
what you are seeing is the eq applied to the TT input in the mixer. essentially the role of a preamp. the material vinyl is made of; PVC can only hold a certain frequency. if youve ever plugged the TT in to line and turned up the gain, youd hear it. so the frequencies of the recording on the vinyl record are the opposite of the chart above. notice that the eq goes below 0dB at 1000Hz. So this means the amplification is actually reducing highs through eqing.
the neat part i learned 2 years ago is that you can buy preamps that dont have RIAA curves. I bought a tube amp for digitizing my vinyl collection which uses a software plugin to add the RIAA curve to it, only this time you can tweak it.
so on my curve, the highs are as crisp as a digital recording because i increased it specifically to compare to digital. the only difference is that my vinyl has hugely warmer bass than the digital (and maybe a bit of noise depending on the recording).
so in the end, because of the method use to imprint a wave on vinyl, it has the potential to have WAY MORE crisp highs than CD or digital. only thing is you need to adjust the riaa curve yourself.
what you are seeing is the eq applied to the TT input in the mixer. essentially the role of a preamp. the material vinyl is made of; PVC can only hold a certain frequency. if youve ever plugged the TT in to line and turned up the gain, youd hear it. so the frequencies of the recording on the vinyl record are the opposite of the chart above. notice that the eq goes below 0dB at 1000Hz. So this means the amplification is actually reducing highs through eqing.
the neat part i learned 2 years ago is that you can buy preamps that dont have RIAA curves. I bought a tube amp for digitizing my vinyl collection which uses a software plugin to add the RIAA curve to it, only this time you can tweak it.
so on my curve, the highs are as crisp as a digital recording because i increased it specifically to compare to digital. the only difference is that my vinyl has hugely warmer bass than the digital (and maybe a bit of noise depending on the recording).
so in the end, because of the method use to imprint a wave on vinyl, it has the potential to have WAY MORE crisp highs than CD or digital. only thing is you need to adjust the riaa curve yourself.
Posted Fri 29 Feb 08 @ 12:38 am