Question about Ean’s DJ pool topic (MP3’s)
This has really thrown me, Ean said, and I quote,
“This is in part due to the fact that the majority of the collection is stored in 192 kbps (”near CD quality”) as opposed to the standard 320 kbps mp3s.”
Is that correct? I thought 320 would be a better quality than 192. And are 192’s near CD quality?
yes and no. i think CDs are somewhat 192s in one angle of view, but actually they have higher sample rate (or something like that) so its different beast altogether… i think mighty wikipedia will give you the details anyway.
wav > mp3 320 > mp3 192
cd quality is 16 bit, 44.1 khz, with studio quality going all the way up to 32 bit 192 khz to avoid nyquist wrapover
I know about CD quality and all that stuff. I just always assumed that the lower the bit rate on MP3’s, the lower quality.
What do you mean by “wav > mp3 320 > mp3 192”, are you saying that’s the order of quality? If so then Im lost, is 192 near CD quality or not?
I can’t wait for the day when the internet is so fast, and ipods are so big that size and compression isn’t an issue, and everything is kept in WAV.
A .wav file can be seen as the highest quality audio. There are various bit and sampling rates but they are considered to be ‘lossless’ compared to cd’s. Put differently: wav quality = cd quality.
When converting wav or cd to mp3, several factors play a role but the most important is the bit rate (e.g. 320, 192 or 128 megabits per second). This value shows how many bits are used to describe the wave-form every second. The higher, the better obviously. Wav files use about 700-800 mbps so mp3 is less than half of that.
Most people don’t hear the difference between high quality mp3 (320, 256mbps vbr). Some can differentiate between wav and 192.
I think a good option would be v0 lame encoding but AFAIK no online store uses this..
Good luck I hope you understood this all.
edit: actually I think you misunderstood his comment because he said:
He means the website says it is near CD quality. Ean has his doubts about this comment because he mentions:
I understood everything apart from Eans quote. 
He’s saying that a 192 kb/s mp3 is of lower quality (near CD quality) than a 320kb/s mp3 (standard quality for DJing on mp3).
For the record DJfreshstep wrote the article
Also 320kbps mp3’s are closer (but still not equal) to cd quality than 192kbps mp3’s are
How can 192 be of lower quality than 320 yet be near CD quality, when CD is better quality than 320?
WTF? Am I missing something here?
The article is misleading and needs to be edited
Yes, CD is WAV.
320kbps is VERY close to this, 192kbps are expectional mp3s, normal mp3 was 128kbps.
So 192 is NOT near CD, but ok… far better than 128; simply try to read the countless-topics about quality here in the forum.
To make things worse; it depends on how good the encoding is done, 320 can have shitty quality, even WAV, but 192 can also have a good quality.
It all depends…
192 and 320 are both imitations of cd quality but 320 does the job better. Judge for yourself, listen to some wavs and both mp3 types and if you can’t hear a difference then 192 is better for you as it uses less storage space.
Let me just say something here. I know all about MP3’s, WAV’s, AIFF’s, AAC’s, blah blah blah. I’m not asking what the difference is, or how it’s compressed and the in’s and out’s of different audio file formats…
…Thank you, that’s all I needed to know.
Well I understood it the moment I read it. But well enough, go ahead
I’m really lost how the article is misleading.
I’m more lost at the fact that people honestly think that promos are sent to pools in less than 320kps format.