DNBArena are really branching out..!

[ThePapa]

 

[johnnyj]

wow.. this place sure has gone downhill

 

[d-low]

check my nipples

 

[Attire]

...wow.

 

[sam the dnb man]

What is the point of data above 20KHz if you can't even physically hear it? Surely the second is better as there is a flatter response overall. Also would have been a fairer test if you'd used the same song for both formats....

Yeah any frequencies above 22.05 KHz on a CD are rolled off anyways as they can cause alialising.

 

[dirty breaks]

 

[RocksteadyUK]

because it is archived in my itunes folder... But you can see the extension is .mp3 whereas for the other its .m4a



yeah I'm sorry I don't buy the same song on itunes and on another site And it's the all itunes songs I tested had the same peaks...




Are you saying .mp3 is better than a .wav file then? I'm not an expert on that matter but I'd say .wav is better?

Well then you failed... did you never do science at school?

 

[evermind]

I don't really see your point. How do I fail at science just because of this post? But if you say so ... You don't know me though

 

[Attire]

I don't really see your point. How do I fail at science just because of this post? But if you say so ... You don't know me though

Because Science at school should have taught about fair tests.
Keeping certain things constant whilst only varying the one you want to find out about.

Catch the drift?

 

[evermind]

I don't really see where you're going... Maybe it's because english is not my first language. What do you want to find out in a music file keeping which factor constant?

Anyway what I am saying is to me itunes quality isn't worse than 320 mp3, just because the bitrate is 256 doesn't mean the quality is inferior.
If I'm wrong, then oh my I don't care itunes is cheaper and the sound quality is fine to me And trust me I probably did more science than most of you here.

 

[richie_stix]

Also would have been a fairer test if you'd used the same song for both formats....

this

I would have clicked the thanks button but its gone

and this

 

[richie_stix]

just because the bitrate is 256 doesn't mean the quality is inferior.

lol

 

[d-low]

I don't really see where you're going... Maybe it's because english is not my first language. What do you want to find out in a music file keeping which factor constant?

Anyway what I am saying is to me itunes quality isn't worse than 320 mp3, just because the bitrate is 256 doesn't mean the quality is inferior.
If I'm wrong, then oh my I don't care itunes is cheaper and the sound quality is fine to me And trust me I probably did more science than most of you here.

 

[Attire]

So does the quality differ between two copies of a track from two different websites?

ie Beatport and play.com ?

 

[groelle]

So does the quality differ between two copies of a track from two different websites?

ie Beatport and play.com ?

omg. if you buy a 256kbps version of one site and a wav of the other, sure.

and at that guy who said he did more science then we. obviously theoretical physics or neuro-biology or any of that high elitist hocus pocus. but non of what i call maths. cant you count? if data is saved in 256 kilobytes per second, it surely is inferior to a 320kbps version. thats so obvious, i dont even know why i bother writing this.

 

[groelle]

also. wheres the thanks button? -.-

 

[Attire]

omg. if you buy a 256kbps version of one site and a wav of the other, sure.

and at that guy who said he did more science then we. obviously theoretical physics or neuro-biology or any of that high elitist hocus pocus. but non of what i call maths. cant you count? if data is saved in 256 kilobytes per second, it surely is inferior to a 320kbps version. thats so obvious, i dont even know why i bother writing this.

No mate, I meant buying 320 kbps each time

It's a stupid question I know. Don't hate me

 

[TheDutcher]

"if data is saved in 256 kilobytes per second, it surely is inferior to a 320kbps version. thats so obvious"

Ha, this made me laugh, since it's so incorrect.

 

[evermind]

if data is saved in 256 kilobytes per second, it surely is inferior to a 320kbps version

aight. I know that the number 256 is smaller than 320, my maths go as far as this. What you didn't keep in mind when you wrote this is that the format is not the same... Clearly if you take an mp3 file with 256 it will be of inferior quality to a 320 mp3. m4a just treats the data differently than the mp3 format.

mp3 is a few years older than AAC, in this time improvements in this topic have been made... The compressing algorythm of AAC is better, that's why at a lower bitrate you get the same quality as a higher bitrate mp3. Who says small file size and same/better quality aren't compatible?

An example: FLAC and wav. A FLAC version of a wav file is half the size, but has the same quality. They're both lossless formats though. fiyah

this

lol

why thank you lol to you too

and at that guy who said he did more science then we. obviously theoretical physics or neuro-biology or any of that high elitist hocus pocus. but non of what i call maths. cant you count?

And to do the elitist hocus pocus, you need to do the basic stuff aswell And math too believe it or not!

... I wonder how many thanks I would have gotten with this post... probably none (or epic facepalm if I'm wrong xD) Probably some funny guy will post TLDR or cool story bro, good for you.

 

[groelle]

"if data is saved in 256 kilobytes per second, it surely is inferior to a 320kbps version. thats so obvious"

Ha, this made me laugh, since it's so incorrect.

errm ok. nevermind. in regards to mp3s it surely is that way, but if you know so much better, why not enlighten us?


and evermind, yeah youre probably right if the one is mp4 and the other mp3, but then again id not play a 256kbps mp4 out in a club but do with 320 mp3s. let alone that my cd deck doesnt play mp4. lol.

can someone do a proper test then between an 256kbps mp4 and a 320 mp3?

surely the difference couldnt be that big, otherwise more people would use mp4, amirite?