192 vs 320

I did a test on my home theater system($8000.00 speaker system) between 320 MP3, 320 AAC, 320 ATRAC & straight from CD. The CD by far was the most clear with the AAC barely beating out the ATRAC and MP3 the absolute worst. I likened it to a scuplter made out of marble(CD) to the same sculpture made out of Lego's(MP3) Original was just more rounded with a cleaner, more distinct high end and a much fuller low end. I can definitely hear a difference between 192 & 320 MP3's on just about anything except laptop speakers.

if you don't notice the difference, you should notice the difference.

it's especially noticeable with bass heavy dance music because it affects the top and bottom ends most dramatically.


if you listen to a 192 by itself it might be easy to mistake it as a 320, but in the instance that you're using it in a set and say mixing a 320 into a 192 - immediately you'll notice that the 192 just doesn't have quite the same impact as the 320. that itself is enough to skunk a mix, you don't want that.

Fair enough. Then some bugger comes on and spins a humble old piece of vinyl and puts all of us to shame ;)

Comparing sounds with pictures is as useful as comparing pictures with sounds (read: it isn't useful at all), but in order to get an idea of how bitrates and different compressors affect your sounds, the following comparison is interesting to check out:

Lossy Audio Codecs Comparison

You can see that you lose a lot of headroom and dynamic range, right from the start, and that's generally fine - most listening devices and most ears aren't that great above 16khz anyways - but you can also get a feel for how fidelity breaks down as the compressors do their work.

If you're djing for yourself and your music sounds good enough, that's great - you're the only one you have to convince :)

If you're recording your music or especially if playing for a crowd, though, I think you should be thinking about quality of your music the same way people in here obsess over the details of their controllers and mappings. As I mentioned before, manipulating music (stretching, pitch bending, layering, etc) degrades its fidelity, so the better quality you start off with, the more quality you'll end up with once the signal reaches the speakers.

The defining point for debates like this seem to be whether or not whoever is involved wants to think of things in a subjective or logical way. 'Good' quality and 'bad' quality are subjective. Arranging, producing and even mixing are highly subjective subjects, too. Conversion and math are objective ones, though, and when there are so many variables between your mp3s and your listener, having the best source material possible seems like the smart answer for me.

I guess I should clarify that even though I can't tell a difference I buy most all of my stuff at 320.

i can.... muddy mids. muted highs and iffy bass


fuck, go to ukfdubstep or ukf drumandbass on youtube, pick a recent video, skip to the meat of the song, then go back to where you were and listen to it at 720p

its kind of like that

http://i53.tinypic.com/wmm43o.gif

Here's a visual of the compression mp3 does.

Nice one Nick.

yeah. looking at the waveforms of each in traktor is noticeable too

does it really matter? I mean....most club system are wired in mono!

thats why i dl all my mp3 from myspace @96 kbps!