192 kbps mp3's - should I delete them?

[Archies'bald]

I sometimes wonder how we managed with acetates and vinyl. All the clicks and hisses.

[dodge]

I wouldnt totally dismiss 192's. They could be good for listening references to catch inspiration or what ever. Also you can easily get away with playing good quality tunes and throw 192's in over the top for like the vox etc, but not actually let the tune drop on its own.
I dunno if you're into the production tip but you could always hang on to the 192's for sampling. And before anyone says "yeah but they are poor quality", a smart man will use that to his advantage. You know that horrible under water washy type sound that MP3's produce, whats stopping you from exploiting that sound and making it part of your track? After all its sound at the end of the day. Maybe even run it through some fx to really exaggerate that MP3 sound and get some really off key frequencies peak through, bounce that shit down, resample, bounce, resample etc etc.

There's no rules, only guidelines.

[DvlsAdvct]

I've spun 192 kb/s tracks on large club systems and it might take a volume boost and some EQ manipulation but they can sound solid, as long as they are solid tracks. I wouldn't get rid of anything until you replace it, just put a comment in the track like "LOW BITRATE" or "DO NOT USE" so you can keep it fresh in your head for personal listening.

I don't think there really is a hard fast rule. Some 320kb/s can sound like SHIT, and some 192 can sound just as good as 320

[sj03w4t]

variable bit rate, means the bit rate changes, lower for silent parts higher for more complex parts

arghh
VBR doesn't take a lesser bit rate for silent parts!
Basically during encoding, VBR 'looks' at how many bits are required to describe that little part of the song. Then it chooses the right amount of bits for that part. It will vary but stick around the amount of bits you entered (e.g 192)
volume has nothing to do with it I think..

Yeah DvlsAdvct's idea is good

[ohmyjosh]

+1 on DvlsAdvct, some 192 are really noticably poor, but other are alright, I don't understand why though...

[BradCee]

+1 on DvlsAdvct, some 192 are really noticably poor, but other are alright, I don't understand why though...

i blame it on shitty mastering during the production/post production process prior to being converted.

if you fuck the mastering up, not even 'flac' can save the sound. inversely decent mastering shines through even at 192

[DvlsAdvct]

+1 on DvlsAdvct, some 192 are really noticably poor, but other are alright, I don't understand why though...

It's also the path the track has gone through.

SOmeone sends me a WAV file. I bounce it down to a 128 kp/s track. Then I send it to my buddy who likes to spin WAV files so he bounces it down to a WAV file. Then he decides to send it to some friends, but the file is too big so he bounces it down to a 320kb/s. Then one of them decides to put it on their mp3 player but doesn't have room so they bounce it down to 128kb/s. THEN they decide to seed it on a torrent, and someone downloads it, ups it to 192kb/s and you have a track that will sound like shit.

[DJ_Animus]

Thats why getting music straight from the source is key! Also depends on the genre, I have some 192 EDM tracks that sound very tight, no need to ditch those. If it sounds good, it sounds good.

[BradCee]

which is why i buy everything first hand, even my 192s sound better than some of the wavs out there.
(i know for a fact juno download convert everything themselves from a wav, some sites require the label to provide all the conversions themselves)

even if someone puts me onto a track i'd still prefer to go buy it so i know it hasn't gone through needless amounts of conversion

[wrong chris]

i delete most my 192s, i only make an exception for older music like classic rock etc. when it can be difficult to find copies at higher bitrates.
As far as new music goes, unless it's a 'must-have cannot live without' track, i garbage bin that shit unless its 320... saves time in organizing my folders.