I have not published the results. I did these experiments informally to convince myself that mp3’s were “good enough” to make the switch from CDs. I have repeated this every few years…I actually get requests from the dance community for my “music quizes.”
Whenever I hear “audiophile” I mentally substitute “complete moron”. Ironically, at that point, I don’t have to try and change anything else about what they say…
In a double blind test, it is (almost) certain that no one can pick out a reasonable mp3. Especially if you get to listen to each track in isolation…and can not A/B two tracks as much as you want.
My confidence comes from other places…and ALL my music meets my “more than good enough” quality measures.
Ive found a happy medium using FLAC, file size is more forgiving than wav + has the tagging abilities of mp3 (not quite but good enough) - the main point being for me that when i burn it to a CD (yes i still use CDs ) it is the original wav.
I do have mp3s, some are even 192 - but these are for listening not playing gigs.
Theres no real argument sound quality wise for lossless vs 320 mp3, but there is some comfort for me in knowing i have that best possible representation of that sound (Okay higher sample rates, but as far as commercially available goes).
There is also the matter of “fatigue” that is much debated, as our ears aren’t meant for digital audio, some people argue that their ears “tire” after less prolonged listening to a digital source vs analogue.
It could also be said that the perceptual encoding used by mp3 is putting more strain on the listener, with their brain and ears constantly filling in the gaps.
I’m no neuro scientist however so i could just be talking shit.
I also use FLAC to archive my music when I rip. If I need to edit a song, or burn a CD I prefer to use the FLAC. I do convert to mp3 “as needed.”
If it makes you feel better…then keep going.
CDs are a digital source. So are WAV files, FLAC files, and mp3’s…and really all computer based file formats are digital. The only “analogue” sources that are in “wide” use are vinyl and (some) tape.
I happen to use a digital mixer, and digital PA management…so that portion of my signal chain is also digital. There is analog signal path from the CD player or computer sound card to the mixer…and from the limiter to the amps & speakers.
ALL sound is analog when it comes out of the speakers.
There are no gaps. The mp3 codec “fills in the gaps” before the signal gets to the sound card. The sound card is producing a “full range” 44.1kHz signal (or whatever the soundcard’s settings are as the song is playing).
The mp3 compression removes some low and high frequencies. The compression also examines the song for instances where “frequency masking” is present…and the quieter frequencies are removed. And so on.
So where to from here? We’ve gone from Records and Analogue Tape, to CDs, to Mp3s.
I also try and produce? LOL and spend some good hard earned money on my sound quality and I’m sure the professionals spend a hell of a lot more money on their equipment.
I think we should pay the producers and musicians (and I’m not saying me) more respect and play the tunes at the highest quality possible.
Force Beatport to get rid of the extra fees for AIFF and WAV and stop buying everything through iTunes. We’re bringing up a generation on poor sound quality with no respect for the artists.
DJs playing rips off the YouTube and the Internet, where will it end…
320 MP3s —> 256 ----> 192 ---->>>> how far will we go?
I’d rather push for the download stores to a higher than CD standard
Digital video wants to go up in quality digital audio is happy to go lower. Why?
I’d love to be able to afford FLAC, honestly. But, I still don’t have a huge hard-drive nor can I afford the extra $$ whenever I want to pick up a couple tunes.
In a perfect world, it wouldn’t be an issue or a worry.
But honestly, I’m fine with 320 mp3. I’ve done the sound test back to back on a few different systems, and I haven’t been able to tell a difference myself. I’m not playing on a multi-million dollar system, but you know what I mean. I imagine in the future once hard-drives eventually get stupid large and cheap, there eventually won’t even be a need for a lossy format to save space. But we haven’t reached that point yet.
Right now though, I think getting wav or flac is honestly just overkill.
That’s a huge load of bollocks. The ear fatigue that happens in clubs comes from 110dB audio, not the format it’s generated from.
[quote=“ekwipt, post:66, topic:41277, username:ekwipt”]
Digital video wants to go up in quality digital audio is happy to go lower. Why?
[/quote]No, it doesn’t. It wants to be cheap (in terms of bandwidth, media, and storage costs) just like audio. 1080p HD is lower resolution than the CRT that came with my dell in 1999. It’s about 2 MP. It takes ~30MP to even come close to color still 35mm film. The film that movies are shot in and finished on (when they’re using film) is often times larger than that.
So, no, video is not concerned with high quality. That’s one thing where the analog formats just can hold more information. It’s more expensive. It’s a lot harder to work with. And the technology has existed to go back and forth between analog and digital formats for a while. But when it comes down to reproduction, HD video is worse than the technology that existed 13 years ago. And it all sucks compared to film.
HD is the mp3 of Video.
How much music do you guys have? I use a 120GB SSD, and I’m fine. Before that, I used a 64GB SSD. It was crunched, and I had to keep a lot of stuff on externals…but the music was easy to fit…and it’s >90% uncompressed wav/aiff.
If this is a hobby…that is totally understandable. If you are getting paid…then you are using false economy. Focus on quality of songs (and formats) and not on quantity.
If you can’t tell the difference…that’s great. Someday you might be able to tell the difference. Are you prepared to re-purchase your whole collection again…in one shot? Or do you think that you will just abandon some large portion of your music as you move into the future? Either way, as soon as you can notice a difference…you are facing a tough choice.
We are there today. 1TB drives external drives are <$100. I have even seen 2TB drives on sale for <$150.
I archive in FLAC…and I find that FLAC files are 50-60% the size of WAV files. Given that, a 1TB drive will hold about 40,000 FLAC songs. How much music do you have? If you can afford to have 40,000 songs…then just “don’t buy” you next 100 songs and instead get a 1TB hard drive.
I have about 3000 songs in my Traktor collection. That is everything I have even considered playing over the last 2 years (since switching to Traktor). And honestly, maybe 500 of those songs have been played more than once.
It may well be overkill today. What about tomorrow.
I was CD based DJ for the first 10 years I was in business. So, I have had to rip my own music since the beginning.
I started using a computer for playback in about 1998. My DJ computer was built in a 2U rack case and contained two 15GB (not a typo) drives. My desktop had four 40GB drives. To get it to fit…I ripped my “core” collection of about 120 CDs to mp3 @ 160. If I used mp3 @ 192, then the “core collection” would not fit on my DJ computer. Life was full of very hard choices in those days.
In about 2002 my DJ computer had a 180GB hard drive. I re-ripped my full collection to mp3 @192.
In about 2006 my DJ computer had two 250GB hard drives. I re-ripped my full collection to mp3 @ 224.
Starting about 2008…I had 1TB of total external storage in my house. I re-ripped my full collection to FLAC. At least I will not have to re-rip again.
I convert to mp3 “as needed”. I convert to 192 for my iPhone…which is overkill. I initially converted to 224 for DJing…which was “good enough” on my system. After upgrading to a Yamaha 01v digital board to manage the PA…I find that there is a difference between 224 and 320…especially on quiet, acoustical or classical pieces. Since I am primarily a wedding DJ, that is an “interesting” difference. So…I converted my full DJ collection to mp3 @ 320…it took about three days for the computer to finish. BUT…the best part is that I keep the FLAC tags “current”…so I lost (almost) nothing when upgrading my ENTIRE music collection from “whatever” to 320.
[QUOTE]I think it’s ridiculous that some stores charge more for lossless formats…
[/QUOTE]
Bandwidth Costs a lot more for a lossless file - simple really.
Personally I can understand completely why they charge more, I researched building a site hosting DJ mixes / tracks as just MP3 files even and the bandwidth costs via S3 or similar high speed service were astronomical when I ran the numbers even on a pretty small user base.
You know literally nothing about what you’re saying. I was there. I set my monitor’s resolution higher than I’ve seen any consumer LCD go. I am a photographer. I’m dating a girl who actually works in TV. I appreciate a legitimate dynamic range in my screen, and I like the color black. I’m not big on LCDs, but I’ve made my peace with them. HD video is something I’ll never pay for.
HD video is the mp3 of the video world. It fucking blows, but it’s marginally better than the cable tv we grew up with, so we’re happy to have it.
The only difference is that video files at 30MP/frame and 24 frames/sec are legitimately too big to stream over the Internet. FLAC isn’t.
He’s obviously not saying that, what he’s saying is that in 1999 he had a monitor with a higher resolution than 1080p (true) and that his computer was outputting at that resolution (true). 1080p is actually a pretty backwards step comparing it to what old high end CRT tubes were capable of.
