Quality of MP'3s when DJ'ing in clubs

[olafmol]

Best is to try. For example, I've downloaded/purchased the same material from beatport in 320kpbs MP3 and WAV format. Due to the excessive compression done today with dance music, the MP3 encoded file had even distortion, while the same song worked really well (borderline to clipping) as a WAV file. I stay away from MP3/AAC files myself for production use, but then again all I usually do is remixes.

The dynamics also suffer from the encoding stage, but with the current sound systems used at events it's hard to know much, as the systems themselves are not exactly HiFI quality (rather pushing out as much dB as possible).

--Kent

interesting...i think a lot of the difference in CD sound comes from the fact that you can get away with A LOT MORE when mastering for CD compared to mastering for vinyl...... people tend to forget the dynamics and only think about loudness and normalising stuff when mastering/processing for CD transfer.....this way a lot of CD material sounds much worse than vinyl (even when transferring a vinyl only recording to f.e. a CD compilation, because these transfers are often processed/mastered again before going to the CD pressing plant)..

you can clearly hear this in the mid-range of CDs and MP3's....the balance seems to be gone, the midrange is pushing away the lower range, and at loud volumes this sounds really uncomfortable, as the human ear is most sensible to the mid-range (where the human voice resides) ... when you cut away the mid-range for several dB's and boost the lows a littlebit you notice the sounds comes a lot closer already....

furthermore vinyl reproduction introduces artifacts that have a postive psycho-acoustical effect....especially the needle tracking the groove introduces all kinds of distortions....these often translate into the drums and bass-sounds having more punch because they get a little layer of distortion/harmonics, and the high frequencies sounding "wider" like some kind of expander going on.... you can experiment with this effect using f.e. the grungelizer plugin from Steinberg.....only use the distortion setting and notice how the beats and bass start sounding louder/punchier just like you're used from a vinyl record...

Olaf

[The Freeq]

Thanks people.

Nub

Would u know what rate the MP'3s from itunes are encoded at, is there a way of finging this out....

Thanks

[ethios4]

iTunes uses the superior Fraunhofer mp3 codec, and encodes at your choice of bitrate, variable or fixed.
Seems that there are many different opinions about which bitrate to use. The Fraunhofer website makes a vague claim that 128-kbps is CD quality. Elsewhere i've read that 160-kbps is CD quality, with Fraunhofer codec. Many people here on the forum seem to prefer at least 192-kbps. I've also heard recommendations to always use variable bit-rate to ensure the highest level of encoding for any given section of audio.
My ears tell me that mp3 has never sounded as good as uncompressed.

[The Freeq]

Thanks Ethios

How do you choose what bitrate you want to download?

[ethios4]

Ahh... i think i misunderstood your question. Music bought from the iTunes music store is AAC format, 128 kbps, AFAIK, but i haven't used the store so i don't know.
My previous post was about iTunes ripping options.

[Nub]

[quote="ethios4"]iTunes uses the superior Fraunhofer mp3 codec, and encodes at your choice of bitrate, variable or fixed.
Seems that there are many different opinions about which bitrate to use. The Fraunhofer website makes a vague claim that 128-kbps is CD quality. Elsewhere i've read that 160-kbps is CD quality, with Fraunhofer codec. Many people here on the forum seem to prefer at least 192-kbps. I've also heard recommendations to always use variable bit-rate to ensure the highest level of encoding for any given section of audio.
My ears tell me that mp3 has never sounded as good as uncompressed.[/quote]

I think you need to do a bit more research here my friend. Fraunhofer is not regarded as superior. It offers some advantages below 192kbps but Lame is otherwise of higher quality and should be the option of choice for pro use at the moment.
Audible quality reduction is readily apparent below 256kbps.
The is no improvement in quality by using variable bit rate encoding.

nub

[ethios4]

Nub,
Right you are my friend...thanks for the correction!!

[ethios4]

After using it for a while, i must say that LAME mp3 codec sounds fantastic compared to Fraunhofer! I've had to go through and re-rip everything, but its been worth it as the quality is so much better.
I am curious, though, as to why VBR isn't better than CBR...
seems to make sense to conserve file size where possible, and use a high bit-rate where necessary.

Also, i've been using Easy CD-DA to extract... works quite well, easy to use, and lotsa options. Demo is free, functional, and works for quite a while.

[onyxashanti]

i use 192 kbps for all mine, although i'm encoding a couple here and there at 256. works fine for my DJ gig. i am hoping to get a larger HD and use wav's so that i can DJ with ableton rather than just use it for "special occasions". or, even better, just get a firewire drive with nothing but ablton WAV files on it, but right now, i cant afford it. maybe soon.

[Macrostructure]

I am curious, though, as to why VBR isn't better than CBR...
seems to make sense to conserve file size where possible, and use a high

This is actually an issue of definiting terms - "Better" for instance

http://service.real.com/help/faq/rjbvbrfaq.html#whatvbr states that "Many MP3 players may inaccurately report the duration of VBR-encoded files. If the MP3 player cannot accurately determine the time, seeking in the file may also be unpredictable." which makes them pretty useless for DJing

If you intend to encode at less than 320 or 256mbps and are prepared for some vagueness in seeking within tracks then VBR will give higher quality overall as it will allocate really high bit rates where much detail is required IF YOU SELECT THE HIGHEST QUALITY VBR OPTIONS - VBR has quality options within it!. However, with storage being relatively cheap these days why rip at less than 320mbps? You will noyl save 5-20% in file size for similar quality. In a couple of years I will probably go through my entire CD collection again and rip to full size wav, it will only be what...500gb+?

ms