please keep the help section for problems with Scratch LIVE.

*moved to general*

There is no point increasing the bitrate from a lower one, you should set the bitrate when you encode your files.

i personally cant really tell a difference, and if you're on a loud club system i doubt very many people will be able to tell either.
i can however tell when something is encoded badly, like the volume levels werent set right.
i have one song that i downloaded that is HORRIBLY clipped, i mean to the point of distortion, but it's the only version of it i could find, so i'm stuck living with it.
it's all about personal preference in my opinion, so many people will tell you otherwise, and have their own opinions and that they can tell a difference, i personally can not.
it's all in the eye of the beholder, or ears depending on how you look at it.
personally, i say encode at what sounds good to you.
Josh

You should be encoding your music at 192kbps at the very minimum. 256k or 320k (or more) is best.

You have to either get them at that bitrate, or encode at that bitrate from the original song. You CANT take a 128k file, for example, and then re-encode it to 256k because youve already lost the data.

For people that say they cant notice a difference, well I guess it depends on the system you spin on. I spin on Mackie monitors at home, and JBL/Yorkville system out and there is a VERY noticeable difference to me. A higher bitrate file will just be beefier and often tighter.. if you mix a 320 file into a 128 file its pretty noticeable on any good system.

actually, IMO, its very noticeable when on a loud system. if you have the system flat (no eq or anything), im sure you can 'feel' the difference. ive recently compared 320kbps to 192kbps.... there is a difference.... just listen to it in the dark, have the exact same track with 2 difference bitrates on each turntable, and cross between them.



i agree.

that's just my opinion guys, granted my hearing is probably not the best in the world, between all the years of headphones and car stereos blaring, and recently jet engines all around me, i'm sure i'm not the one to talk to about sound quality :-P.
Josh

Something to think about:

When was the last time you were playing and someone came to you and asked "Is that a 320kbps or 192kbps track?"

:)

I would use a minimum of 192 but prefer 256. You can REALLY tell the difference when using 128 or 160 kbps in a loud sound system. The music sounds flat.

Sixx, youre right nobody will probably ever ask that question. However when I first got serato and downloaded music online that were 128, a few other DJs have asked me to turn up the highs or bass because they noticed that the sound was flat. The bad thing about it is that because its so compressed, even if you adjust the eq on the mixer, it doesnt really make a big difference.

I know Jay-P. I said 320kbps and 192kbps. :) I encode at 192kbps for quality and quantity.

actually, the place you can notice the difference between 192 and 320 the most IS in a club on a big sound system. the 192 files are considerably lacking on the subsonics which causes them to have less of a "punch" in the lower end. this difference is exaggerated on big systems.

i personally encode at 320 and keep all of my tracks backedup as wav files on backup DVDs. this way, if i ever need to i can go back to the uncompressed source (i often will compile a set using the WAV files if i am going to do a limited set at a club or if i am going to record a mix CD as this gives you the absolute best sound quality. and while i have never had any complaints about poor sound quality, i have actually had several people comment on how clean and clear my music sounds in the club--especially if i'm followed by the resident DJ who uses only vinyl, and old worn out vinyl at that).

IMHO, 320 is the way to go. this gives you a file that is very close to the original source in terms of quality. the obvious downside is that you use of HD space quickly. however, extra HD space is cheap now....so buy another drive.

one other thing to remember, when PnT is implemented into SSL, you are going to notice the difference with the extra bitrate when time stretching or pitch shifting. the lower bitrate files are going to have much more noticeable artifacts in them when using them with PnT. just something to think about.

thanks alot for the input.great help.maybe i am dumb or ignorant but how do encode the files i download to a higher kbps?

thanks

wouldnt do you any good if you did, you cant improve quality by doing that.
Josh

how about from here on out

files you download (unless .wav) are allready compressed thus it is not possible to improve their quality. When ripping you should use Exact Audio Copy as it has a reliable error correction feature. Like everyone said 320 should be the way to go.

yep...once you have a file in mp3 format you can not go "up" in quality (bitrate). mp3 compression is "lossy" meaning that during the encoding process certain bits of data (usually from the inaudible frequencies) are discarded. THIS IS IRREVERSIBLE. you cannot get back to the full uncompressed source quality no matter what you do. think of it as cutting a piece of wood in half and throwing away one of the halves. no matter what you do to that remaining half you will never get it to be a full piece of wood again. you can continue to cut the wood down (decrease the quality) but you can never go back the other way (increase the quality) because the data you discarded is gone forever. if you download an mp3 file at 192 and re-encode it at 320 you are simply chopping more data from it and while it will be in 320 format....this is only a percentage of the original 192 bitrate track in terms of quality (at 320 bitrate you are compressing at approx. 1:4 ratio meaning that if the original WAV file is 100 MB the compressed file will be approx. 25 MB). not advisable to re-encode your mp3s as you only lose quality with the re-encoding no matter what bitrate you choose.

Sixxx, my bad... I misread it your post.

I can notice a difference between 128 and 192 depending on the song. Some songs sound pretty good at 128, but others sound like crap compared to a higher bit rate. Anyone notice songs produced by Lil' Jon (that keyboard sound he's been using lately) sound pretty bad at 128?

I'm starting to use 192 VBR to encode my files. I think I read on here somewhere that this is better than a flat 192, because it gives you a wider range when it comes to the bitrate. It'll just average out to 192, so if it needs more depending on the sound, it'll use more "bits" if needed - is this correct?