 192 kbps is enough |
Rudeone
love & light
Registration Date: 15-10-2005
Posts: 926
Helpfulness rating:
 |
|
just wanted to let you know 
__
MySpace
|
|
|
19-01-2007 12:35 |
|
|
cynik 
Cp6uja
Registration Date: 15-03-2005
Posts: 5,646
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
|
|
19-01-2007 12:38 |
|
|
Rudeone
love & light
Registration Date: 15-10-2005
Posts: 926
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
yours are? i cant make any difference between 192 and 320 when encoded with the latest lame codec
__
MySpace
|
|
|
19-01-2007 12:41 |
|
|
cynik
Cp6uja
Registration Date: 15-03-2005
Posts: 5,646
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
well not exactly. but I've heard 192kbps compared to a wav on professional studio equipment
... if it's VBR then well. it could be quite similar in quality
__
https://soundcloud.com/tsai-vidro-voves
|
|
|
19-01-2007 12:51 |
|
|
Rudeone
love & light
Registration Date: 15-10-2005
Posts: 926
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
yea a wav sounds better then a compressed audio format of course.
i just noticed, that a lot of users up there tracks in 320 kbps. you need extrem good ears to make a diffrence between a 192 and 320 file. the average listener simply cant.
__
MySpace
|
|
|
19-01-2007 13:01 |
|
|
D2o
Ghost
Registration Date: 30-05-2005
Posts: 2,545
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
|
|
19-01-2007 13:01 |
|
|
Rudeone
love & light
Registration Date: 15-10-2005
Posts: 926
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
|
|
19-01-2007 13:03 |
|
|
cynik
Cp6uja
Registration Date: 15-03-2005
Posts: 5,646
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Dj Jimmy C
whats VBR 
|
Variable Bit Rate. lame decides where to apply higher kbits/s and when it's okay to lower it and (supposedly) not lose any quality
| quote: |
Originally posted by rudeone
yea a wav sounds better then a compressed audio format of course.
i just noticed, that a lot of users up there tracks in 320 kbps. you need extrem good ears to make a diffrence between a 192 and 320 file. the average listener simply cant. |
I upped a 320 because thechronic said that his converting script gives best results if a file is in 320
__
https://soundcloud.com/tsai-vidro-voves
|
|
|
19-01-2007 13:04 |
|
|
Halph-Price
Zombie Algorithm
Registration Date: 22-12-2004
Posts: 6,160
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
320kbps is actually DVD quality or, actually what DVD's use when they play sound unlike the 'cd quality' standard 192kbps........... 
but the lossless formats (.wav is a lossless) are better then that like the new apple, and now they hae gotten to the point where they take up less room than mp3's, thus making mp3s obsolete.
but how do get ride of iTunes?!
the .m4a apples loseless format looks like a good contender to over take the not needed mp3 format. but convenince over quality. it will always win. we go back in quality of music with mp3's and now we can do what should have been done, upgrade of quality with comptuers.
anyways, applee lossless is good, specially with logic for it's timestreching capabilities, sicne it's broken down ina linear fashion. can take up 40-60% less room then .wav/.aiff formats.
good for iTunes, and hopefully, the world.
check it.
oh ya and 192 is "cd quality", it's good enough. my ears cannot tell a difference because it's insignificant. all music sounds like that now, unless you listen to 'vinyls'
__
This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by Halph-Price: 22-01-2007 11:04.
|
|
|
22-01-2007 11:02 |
|
|
cynik
Cp6uja
Registration Date: 15-03-2005
Posts: 5,646
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
|
|
22-01-2007 15:22 |
|
|
@1$-)
unregistered
|
|
funny i always thought 16bit was cd quality.
mp3s suck ass and if you cant hear it buy some decent cans/monitors or buy some new ears.
|
|
|
22-01-2007 15:36 |
|
|
cynik
Cp6uja
Registration Date: 15-03-2005
Posts: 5,646
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
|
|
22-01-2007 15:42 |
|
|
Rudeone
love & light
Registration Date: 15-10-2005
Posts: 926
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by MUNKI C
mp3s suck ass and if you cant hear it buy some decent cans/monitors or buy some new ears. |
i was talkin about difference between 320 and 192 kbps mp3s. most cant hear it. we tested it
ill post up the thread 
__
MySpace
|
|
|
22-01-2007 16:29 |
|
|
cynik
Cp6uja
Registration Date: 15-03-2005
Posts: 5,646
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
|
|
22-01-2007 16:32 |
|
|
@1$-)
unregistered
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Rudeone
| quote: |
Originally posted by MUNKI C
mp3s suck ass and if you cant hear it buy some decent cans/monitors or buy some new ears. |
i was talkin about difference between 320 and 192 kbps mp3s. most cant hear it. we tested it
ill post up the thread
|
erm. yeh i guess it depends on the encoder. id like to think i could tell the difference though. In the past ive always been able to notice theres something not right with thehigh end where the conversion has reduced some of the freqs. and there was sometimes a kind of phasey thing going on. but. if you say so...
|
|
|
22-01-2007 16:37 |
|
|
Rudeone
love & light
Registration Date: 15-10-2005
Posts: 926
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by cynik
WHYYYYYY???!?!?! WHYYYYYY?!?!?!
 |
same quality, faster downloads 
__
MySpace
|
|
|
22-01-2007 16:47 |
|
|
Knives
Tourist
Registration Date: 29-11-2006
Posts: 12
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Halph-Price
320kbps is actually DVD quality or, actually what DVD's use when they play sound unlike the 'cd quality' standard 192kbps...........
|
Uh... what?
320kbps is NOT DVD quality, and 192kbps is NOT CD quality.
DVD can either be AC3 (Dolby Digital) or DTS. Both allow maximum sampling bitrates of 640kbps and 1.5Mbps, respectively, in consumer format (on one DVD, not theatrical style of using synchronized CD-ROM drives for audio).
CD quality has always been 44.1kHz (44,100 samples per second), at a 16-bit depth - bit depth deals with dynamic range; for every added bit of depth you achieve an additional +/-6Db of dynamics, which is why higher-quality 24-bit depth is used in the studio, and on classical recordings with emphasis on changing dynamics. It doesn't really matter for most music, considering the 'loudness wars' labels are taking part in now.
I agree that convenience and durability wins over quality in the format wars, though. Look what happened with VHS and BetaMax - Beta was much better quality, but lost to the larger, durable (and some say out of plastic companies wanting more of their product sold) VHS tapes. Same with analog formats switching over to digital - it is technically a loss in quality (with the way some analog systems are now, yes, you can tell), but everything was going digital at the time; it'd be pointless to hold out.
As for me, I rip my CDs to 320kbps MP3, and try to maintain a similar bitrate when looking for torrents (OiNK fuckin' ROCKS). I did so because 320 is a decent balance between quality and file size for me, and because I do a lot of sending music to friends - friends who don't know what FLAC, APE, etc. etc. are. It's much easier to dumb things down to MP3 for the convenience.
But I don't know why people are saying you can't tell the difference... It's subtle, but I've always been able to identify which of two recordings has a lower compression bitrate (it also depends on the content of the song - some instruments provide better cues to compression than others).
__
VIOLENCE IN ACTION
This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by Knives: 22-01-2007 17:26.
|
|
|
22-01-2007 17:25 |
|
|
thechronic
admin
Registration Date: 01-11-2002
Posts: 5,293
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
CD's are not compressed, so theoretically you will never reach full CD quality with MP3's, not even at 320kbps.
But there is theory and there is 'hearing the difference'.
Forget the bitrates, the 'quality' of the sound has more to do with the encoding program than the bitrate.
If you encode with LAME at 192+kbps VBR using high quality settings the quality is indistinguishable from CD. If you encode with Blade or Xing at 320kbps it sucks balls.
I've noticed that 90% of the tracks uploaded here are encoded with CBR (fixed bandwidth, eg 128kbps or 160kbps) which does not make much sense. CBR wastes bandwidth when it is not needed (eg silent passages) and it lacks bandwidth when it IS needed. VBR is the way!
__
If you find spam on the site, please hit the  button and select my name. I'll personally kick it to the murky depths of hell where it belongs! 
|
|
|
22-01-2007 18:09 |
|
|
thechronic
admin
Registration Date: 01-11-2002
Posts: 5,293
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by MUNKI C
mp3s suck ass and if you cant hear it buy some decent cans/monitors or buy some new ears. |
Hehe I did a blind test myself once and really couldn't tell the difference between a VBR MP3 and the original WAV source audio. I used a high quality converter from RME and my top quality earphones.
I'll set up a test, I'll convince you all
__
If you find spam on the site, please hit the button and select my name. I'll personally kick it to the murky depths of hell where it belongs!
|
|
|
22-01-2007 18:20 |
|
|
dmccabe
Cool Steppa
Registration Date: 20-12-2004
Posts: 130
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
Do any of you guys "play out/ spin"? The resaon I ask is because I'm going to buy serato
and was wondering what these opinions on bit depth and format could mean for me.
I'm not looking to restrict my sets to mp3s or wavs with serato but its very often easier to
find tracks (esspecially older ones) in an mp3 format. I live about a 1 hr drive from the record store
and its hard to regularly get out there.
__
SAVE THE SL1200
|
|
|
22-01-2007 18:22 |
|
|
|
