That is worrying. Sound engineers should know better if they are getting paid top dollar. I guess its down to opinion and experience then... Which ultimately means its anyone's game - The arguement will continue forever
The sound quality debate.
- Thread starter smoothassilk
- Start date
That is worrying. Sound engineers should know better if they are getting paid top dollar. I guess its down to opinion and experience then... Which ultimately means its anyone's game - The arguement will continue forever
Andy C plays 64kbps youtube rips at a dnb.
thanks scotty.
that was all my research came up with aswell. millions of people telling you they can hear a difference, and when tested blindfolded they cant do more then just guess, just like everyone else.
i mean, the mp3 format was developed by phyisicists for EXACT that purpose. to convey sound as best as possible with minimal sound quality reduction.
why do you think theres no mp3 with a higher bitrate than 320? because its impossible?! no. because its fucking impossible to hear differences between 320 and 450 kbps mp3s...
that was all my research came up with aswell. millions of people telling you they can hear a difference, and when tested blindfolded they cant do more then just guess, just like everyone else.
i mean, the mp3 format was developed by phyisicists for EXACT that purpose. to convey sound as best as possible with minimal sound quality reduction.
why do you think theres no mp3 with a higher bitrate than 320? because its impossible?! no. because its fucking impossible to hear differences between 320 and 450 kbps mp3s...
Mason John
21st Junta
But these guys were sound engineers, not random people off the street. You'd think they would be more confident and understanding about the technicals of it to not let some tester's word sway them into a false sense of thinking.
I'm more curious as to what type of sound engineers were used. Were they top-of-the-line, or more of the "tinker a knob every now and then when the boss can't do it?" sort? Could also explain a lot.
Stevie Dee
Member
320's sound like shit when you start EQing them in the mix, just a muddy wall of noise. There's something comforting about about the future proof element of Lossless formats. Like if I'd spent money over the years on shite AAC 256kbps then I'd be pissed but I'm sure it's absolutely fine for an average top 40 fodder tweener. It's relative to what you want to get out of the product. [/stirringthepot]
Yup, you've nailed it Scotty. All the DJ's we all go out to see every weekend are playing 320's. Out of HUNDREDS of DJ promo mailouts I've done, I have not once, ever, EVER had a reply from one of the hundreds of top DJs I service requesting a WAV instead of an MP3. It's funny so many people claim to be able to tell the difference about how shit MP3's are, yet nobody ever runs up to the DJ booth during sets saying "oi mate stop playing these shite MP3's and spin some WAV's!" lol
haha I don't mean cunts like Guetta I mean every DJ in DNB that you can name who's on my list. Amazing that not a single one of them has ever wanted a WAV. Just seems funny that all these big producers who spend their lives in clubs and studios don't need WAVs if there's such a huge difference.or maybe the top DJs don't play Viper tunes out so they don't need the .wavs
nah jk, great stuff.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 1,500
didn't get my joke
I haven't got much experience with burning CDs, but maybe it takes a lot longer with bigger files? Or takes longer to load onto CDJs from usb. Owning a wav is just like a vinyl... With tracks I really like I buy the wav (and or vinyl), but I can live with 320 or 256 (omg itunes is shit etc.). Haven't got a proper soundcard and monitors, just playing stuff off my normal laptop jack. Curious to see if I will notice a difference once that changes, hopefully soon.
I haven't got much experience with burning CDs, but maybe it takes a lot longer with bigger files? Or takes longer to load onto CDJs from usb. Owning a wav is just like a vinyl... With tracks I really like I buy the wav (and or vinyl), but I can live with 320 or 256 (omg itunes is shit etc.). Haven't got a proper soundcard and monitors, just playing stuff off my normal laptop jack. Curious to see if I will notice a difference once that changes, hopefully soon.
I used to buy mp3s only, a few months ago I started to buy wavs only (if possible). I even mailed some of the producers if I can get their free tunes I play out a lot in wavs. So if I'd be on your mailing list, I'd definitely be the first one as it seems. Now I'm not claiming I can hear a difference (not in every single tune anyways, although I've came across a good few tunes which strangely enough have a different master in 320mp3 and wav), but - as have been already said in this thread - why would I go for the "worse" option when I can get the better? And why do you even sell anything else than mp3s then? (Well to that I can easily answer - to cash poor fuckers like me as most of the labels/stores charges more for wavs)
as most of the labels/stores charges more for wavs)Mason John
21st Junta
This is a good way to start the night xD.
- Joined
- May 19, 2012
- Messages
- 581
Personally I am unable to hear the difference between 320kbps MP3 or a WAV. However I can hear the difference between vinyl and digital, especially when I'm mixing.
That's because a vinyl wavs and digi wavs are mastered differently and you have pops n crackles on the records etc...
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,882
maybe my ears aren't what they were but I wouldn't even fancy my chances telling the difference between a 192 and a 320 of the same track to be honest.
128s are usually noticeable, the treble turns a bit 'mushy'.
128s are usually noticeable, the treble turns a bit 'mushy'.
Ok then... Correct me?
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,882
mp3's are 62.0005364226 times better than wavs.
I stand corrected.........
Similar threads
