128 V 160 192 320 Etc

[digmen1]

At present I d/l most of my songs at 128, as it seems the most popular.
Also I only have an onboard sound card and crappy speakers (finance)

I know some purists swear by 320 etc

And I know others swear they can't tell the difference between any of them.

But I have a serious question.

In the near future I want to put on a music show and want to know if the songs I am d/l at 128 will put out a good fat sound through a good PA system.

Or do I really need to go to one of the higher rates ?

Can I have serious answers only please.

Digby

[Adster]

to be honest??

on a good PA system 128s sound shit

the crappy speakers I too have on my PC makes 128s sound good but when there played on my stereo they sound crap!

I go for the 192s at minimum and that is the standard these days

[3RA1N1AC]

if you're going to deejay with mp3s on high-quality equipment, you'd do well to avoid 128 and try to stick with 320 (as much as possible) unless you want people to complain about the sound quality 'cos there's bound to be at least a few people in the crowd who can tell the difference.

but it kinda depends on the type & quality of source audio you intend to play, too, since some music just sounds worse at 128. for instance, if you're going to play oldies or punk, 128 would prolly not sound too bad. but if you're going to play electronic dance music, hip-hop, or something along those lines (where the music has a wider range of highs & lows), the music would generally benefit from higher bitrates.

[Illuminati]

I aim to get 320s - I'm unfortunately one of those who can tell the difference between a properly-ripped 320 track and a properly-ripped 192 (though when the 320 or 192 is ripped cackly, there's very little difference).

The only problem is that finding 320 tracks (compared to other bit rates) is rare, finding full 320 albums even rarer. The general consensus is becoming 192 though when it used to be 128, so seeing more & more 320s may be happening soon :)

As for broadcasting them through a PA system, I dunno to be honest :( but usually those PA systems I do listen to regularly are crap quality anyway, so I don't think many would mind (unless there was a lot of screeching :lol: :devil:).

[god-of-rock]

Originally posted by digmen1@7 January 2004 - 10:11
At present I d/l most of my songs at 128, as it seems the most popular.

I know some purists swear by 320 etc
:angry::frusty::angry:
bitrates ain't no popularity contest, it's how good quality YOU want from your music...

If you're satisfied with 128, and you don't hear any differance from 192 you probably should get a doctor check your ears...


edit: removed offensive material

[Jayhawk]

well i would recommend getting 192 cause if you do decide to get good speakers you will be albe to tell so its up to you if you want quality later

[digmen1]

Thanks guys,

Very intelligent contributions !

So it looks like its really 192 !

I must admit that when I search I do not see so much 192, but I will start to look for it in a big way for my favourite artists.

But I would still like to hear from a DJ in a club etc to see what they use.

Thanks

Digby

[Jayhawk]

what program do you use to d/l your music?

[summerlinda]

Originally posted by KwahyaJ@7 January 2004 - 19:37
what program do you use to d/l your music?
You just couldnt resist eh? :P

[Spider_dude]

i am coming round to the way of thinking vbr.

[sparsely]

know some purists swear by 320 etc

psh.

~192kbps lame --alt preset standard

[Adster]

Originally posted by Sparsely@8 January 2004 - 10:53

know some purists swear by 320 etc

psh.

~192kbps lame --alt preset standard
yeah if you got a kick ass connection with no INTERNET cap 320 is fine by most ppls standards

but I have a cap monthly before I get shaped and i don't want to download 20 meg tracks for 1 fucking album

[Jibbler]

Everyone knows DJs use 128kbps. Compression is important! Those mp3s can be awful heavy!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :music1:

[sparsely]

Originally posted by Adster+7 January 2004 - 19:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Adster @ 7 January 2004 - 19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sparsely@8 January 2004 - 10:53

know some purists swear by 320 etc

psh.

~192kbps lame --alt preset standard
yeah if you got a kick ass connection with no INTERNET cap 320 is fine by most ppls standards

but I have a cap monthly before I get shaped and i don&#39;t want to download 20 meg tracks for 1 fucking album [/b][/quote]
even then, 320 is still a waste.
what&#39;s the fucking point of compression if the song is still 10MB?
+ proper lame settings (you must use 3.90xxx) result in sound quality as good as 320 anyway.

[muchspl2]

guess I&#39;ll way in, if you can find OGG get it, better than mp3, I think ogg is almost always going to be better than mp3 just because the people who take the time to make ogg instead of mp3 care about quality

[Adster]

Sparsley I agree with you a waste of time

I HOPE THAT IT WON&#39;T BECOME A COMPLETE STANDARD

just for ppl that don&#39;t believe me about how dare it is to live in Australia heres a link for you here (http://www.dart.net.au/products.php?action=soho) now tell me its easy to get a 1 MB connection with no cap ;)

[sparsely]

I agree.
as alternatives, ogg and mpc are the best.
the only reason I don&#39;t rip to those formats is the smaller userbase/compatibility

[Jayhawk]

Originally posted by summerlinda+7 January 2004 - 13:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (summerlinda @ 7 January 2004 - 13:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-KwahyaJ@7 January 2004 - 19:37
what program do you use to d/l your music?
You just couldnt resist eh? :P [/b][/quote]
hahaha i couldnt