Ok in headphones? Ok in a club? Ok in your bedroom?

192

192 is good!
320 is overrated!!!

ermm ok for bedroom and clubs... sorry shuda been clearer

I leave my settings at 320 because a lot of stuff I rip is for personal headphone use and I figure HD sizes are only going to go up, so why the hell not. In fact, I'm considering ripping to WAVs for this reason.

I would always stick with 320kbps whenever possible.

In a home environment, where you only have a small listening system or nearfield monitors, chances are stuff that's less than 320kbps will sound OK, because 75% or more of the bandwidth of an MP3 is used to represent upper-mid/high frequency details. Nearfield monitors, unless you have a reference subwoofer, are not going to give you the full picture. This explains why 128kbps sounds OK with a personal music player - even professional headphones can't faithfully reproduce sub-bass frequencies.

On the same token, this also explains why low bitrates that might sound OK on your home system will sound like shit in the club - the low end details aren't faithfully represented. Ever play a 128kbps on a system? The highs are there, but something just sounds lifeless.

To take it a step further, if you really think about it, the psychoacoustic model that MP3 compression is based on assumes that the listener defines "sound quality" as the amount of high end detail that is reproduced. Ever hear the statement that "independent tests have proved that there is no distinguishable differences between WAV and 128kbps MP3 files"? That's because the public, since the advent of digital, has been manipulated to perceive sound quality based on treble response.


Dustin Fields
Ortofon USA

To me, though, mids and highs also sound shitty with 128. Everything sounds like old school hip-hop--SP-12s with low sampling rates.

For a professional I recommend nothing less than 192kbps VBR (LAME encoding preferred) for 'most' events.. Yes, VBR causes problems for some systems (especially Windows) but VBR will ALWAYS capture more detail than CBR at a given ABR.

I've played lower bitrate tracks when I 'had' to (new track from a record pool and only offered at lower bitrates) but you end up trying to compensate for something that's not there with EQ settings, etc. But older music tends to be more forgiving on bitrates than newer tracks. Older technologies used in mix-down/mastering induced more noise and had a more limited range than modern technologies. Because of this older recordings that are used at weddings like Buddy Holly, Louis Armstrong, and Sinatra are ok at lower bitrates. As you migrate to club and other music with a driving bass beat higher bitrates are necessary (as Dustin Fields pointed out) for accurate reproductin of sound. And once you take it out, you can't put it back - no matter what anyone with a BBE or other sonic maximizer or sound enhancement product claims.

On a side note, if you want to compare tracks or read up on comparing bitrates/codecs the studies I trust most are double-blind studies. They tend to be FAR more accurate than the others.

In a perfect world we'd all be spinning FLAC, APE, or some other lossless compression... and we could get all the tracks we want/need in those formats and they'd fit on a single SD card.

If I download some songs from the youtube to mp3 converter (converts youtube videos into mp3 files) and I then open that song up into my Fl Studio, would I be able to export it as a wav file or mp3 file at 320 bitrate for a live performance or is it stuck with whatever bitrate it was converted to?

You can't increase the audio quality no matter what format you upconvert it to - it can only sound as good (or as bad) as the original file. By the way... ripping from YouTube = bad form

before you go through any of this trouble, d/l a track of you tube then BUY the same song from CD, iTunes, amazon (somewhere legit) and listen to the difference...and then stop playing with garbage sounding files...

Fixed.

I have some vinyl that needed ripping. Instead I got lazy, found them online at 128 to 320 and ran them through Platinum Notes. Most of them sound fine to me.

Chutney tracks are hard to find so I do rip sometimes from youtube and then edit them in Soundforge or Audacity. They're not on a 320 level but they sound a whole lot better than the original youtube rip.

nothing lower than 320 or your sound like a chump.its 2015 hard drives are cheap we all have high speed internet so time to move on and be using flac,wav or aiff
if you want to be a pro DJ start thinking like one.

youtube rips !!! what a joke,only for cheapskate amateurs.

Or if it's the only way to find a track. Remember, we all played Strafe Set It Off, the worst sounding piece of vinyl of all time and LOVED it.

Good programming trumps good sounding recordings. That said, you should strive for the highest quality within reason.

There have been many tests done and pretty much everyone can hear a difference in sound quality between 128kbps and 192kbps, but from 192kpbs up they can't (i.e. they can't tell the difference between 192kbps and 320kbps.) I still use 320kbps mp3s just to be on the safe side, plus hard drive space is cheap. But, a lot of so-called audiophiles claim they can tell the difference but they really can't.

Watchwww.youtube.com

A good video for the beginner. There are more to this series that are worth watching too.

yep that is a great track.
yes theres been times when i wanted a track and could only find it on youtube but i'd never rip it.just makes me go dig harder for it.
you dont know what bitrate it was when it got uploaded,then you have youtube's compression then finally the program or website you use to rip will be doing its thing,in the end you just have a horrible sounding bit of audio.



yes but not within reason,just strive for the highest quality all round.people dancing might not thank you for it but it will add to their enjoyment in a small way.

the salvaged sounds lost to mp3 compression

Watchvimeo.com

I was definitely a little novice when starting this thread. it should definitely be 320kbps mp3 / 256 AAC or of course .WAV.

what the hell is that

You didn't watch it backwards did you? You now have 7 days left to live unless you can get someone else to watch it first!

Fuck dis shit

K

192Kbps is usually good enough for most people. The human ear can hear a difference between 192 and 160, but isn't sensitive enough to hear a difference between 192 and 256 (maybe a tiny handful of people with really great hearing). Beyond that, only pedants will claim to hear a difference between 256 and 320.

Agreed!

The difference between a high bit rate and a lower bit rate isn't just wether people notice it.
Ear fatigue is unconscious but it effects people's desire to keep listening/dancing etc.
look up "ear fatigue" as it relates to mixing in the studio to learn.
As a real vinyl and serato DJ I can tell you that when I play all vinyl I can play each song longer and people lose interest in the song more slowly then when I'm playing the same songs digitally.
I actually think that's part of the reason that quick mixing is more and more needed/used these days to keep people interested.

thats bullshit,
its 2016 and people still use 192mp3's!!! what a joke,go get a hearing test.you should want your music to sound the best it can.just because you cant hear the difference doesn't mean other people cant.

To my experience, if I'm playing in a big club/venue with a high quality sound system, I just don't play the song for too long (less than 20 seconds). There are some rare songs, especially old school reggae/rockers, that you can't find high bit-rates unless you have the record/45 and rip it yourself. In those rare instances I find myself having to use or boost the EQ when playing them. On a mobile set it really doesn't make that much of a difference. All I can say is that I never cleared a floor due to playing a song with a low bit-rate. Even played a 68 once (didn't know Serato could even play that).

*knocks on wood*

As a note, this conversation has been held before:

serato.com

serato.com

Just got done converting over 1500 songs to higher bit rates thanks to "iTunes Match". I can't believe I was playing out some crowd favorites at 128 kps for so long either!?! Definitely a difference there.

Unfortunately, I did rip a bunch of old tunes at 192 kps back in the day that I can't seem to find anymore. On my mobile system though... I can't tell.

Easy with the hostility.

There's an option in iTunes to encode files to lower quality for your iPhone/iPad, I have that set to 192, but that's aac, not mp3, supposedly better quality. If you're doing that in iTunes I don't think it's the same as 192 mp3.

Certainly I find it hard to tell the difference, I keep my library totally uncompressed AIFF for my own peace of mind whenever I can get it, but when I compare between the version on my phone and the one in my library, I'd find it really hard to tell the difference.

I find it really hard to tell the difference after 192kbps too. Question; does anyone know if there is an audible difference with 192 vs. 320 when it comes to things like pitch adjustment or scratching? Does a higher bitrate make for less grainy sounding scratches and less artifacts when adjusting pitch? I've never noticed, but my ears ain't what they used to be. For the record, I too always use the highest bitrate possible for peace of mind, but I am unconvinced there is an audible difference after 192. A lot of people say you can tell the difference when playing on a big sound system. I've played on big sound systems but I've never done a side by side comparison.

Heck, even iTunes was selling 128 bit files back in the day. Now these were AAC, but still very low bit rates for public sale. Eventually after the DRM removal, iTunes went to higher bit rates and allows free upgrades (iTunes Match and so does Amazon), but at one point 128 was acceptable (or at least the best you could get when the digital market hit).
I know this says nothing about higher bit rates beyond 192 sounding better, but rather a testament to the progression of storage capabilities and the lower limits of what "sounded good enough."
And yes, lower bit rate songs will undoubtedly sound "grainy" when scratching or any pitch adjustment. I also agree with deezlee about ear fatigue. There's a great article on this topic by Tony Andrews of Funktion 1. A good read!
serato.com

personally I can't tell the difference above 192 really, even on big systems, but your mileage may vary. I still download lossless for archival purposes as you can create whatever you want from them, but I can't even really tell the difference w/ lossless except sometimes if I'm actively listening side by side.

wiki.hydrogenaud.io

VBR: variable bitrate mode. Use variable bitrate modes when the goal is to achieve a fixed level of quality using the lowest possible bitrate.
VBR is best used to target a specific quality level, instead of a specific bitrate. The final file size of a VBR encode is less predictable than with ABR, but the quality is usually better.
Unlike other MP3 encoders which do VBR encoding based on predictions of output quality, LAME's default VBR method tests the actual output quality to ensure the desired quality level is always achieved.

CBR: constant bitrate mode. CBR encoding is not efficient. Whereas VBR and ABR modes can supply more bits to complex music passages and save bits on simpler ones, CBR encodes every frame at the same bitrate.
CBR is only recommended for usage in streaming situations where the upper bitrate must be strictly enforced. There is still some variability in bitrate behind the scenes, through LAME's use of the bit reservoir feature of the MP3 format, but it is much less flexible than actual VBR.

The rule of thumb when considering encoding options: at a given bitrate, VBR is higher quality than ABR, which is higher quality than CBR (VBR > ABR > CBR in terms of quality). However, ABX tests demonstrate that as bitrate increases, the perceptual differences diminish, with all modes generally reaching transparency well before their maximum settings; when you can't tell the difference, the modes are qualitatively the same.
In terms of filesize VBR tends to produce the smallest files down to -V7. For lower quality (e.g. for non-music audio such as speech) ABR will produce smaller files than VBR, starting from --abr 115.

not hostility more like frustration,stop using mp3's its a shitty sounding format and no longer needed with large hard drives and fast internet.
are we not music lovers 1st and DJ's 2nd

10 years from now what you guys are beefing about being the best quality audio out will be considered the "sh*ttiest" as progression continues. It's not that serious, at least to me it ain't.

A lot of online places now also have the option of 24-bit wav if 16 bit uncompressed ain't good enough for ya