trip_likeido
I know this has been talked about before. I have tested and played around files with different bitrates. With my sensitive ears, I have noticed NO audible difference between 128 and 192 KBps ... BUT why do some pro DJ's swear that High-Quality MP3's should be encoded AT LEAST 192 ????
Does the bitrate affect the buffer of atomix (or in other words ... Will the bitrate affect the overall "speed" of the program) ?
Does it affect any High/Mid/Low frequencies ?
Does it affect the output when DSP effects are applied ?
Thanks for all your help guys !!!!
-- Dave --
Does the bitrate affect the buffer of atomix (or in other words ... Will the bitrate affect the overall "speed" of the program) ?
Does it affect any High/Mid/Low frequencies ?
Does it affect the output when DSP effects are applied ?
Thanks for all your help guys !!!!
-- Dave --
Inviato Tue 02 Apr 02 @ 7:21 am
mama
No, but some DJs swear they could hear a difference, especially when a song is played loud in the disco. I personally can´t hear any difference too.
Inviato Tue 02 Apr 02 @ 9:41 am
I'm not even a pro by far but I know there is an audible difference between 128 and 192.. the 128's I have hiss and sound kinda blurry/f***ed up.
Maybe it depends on how they are encoded and with which encoder but generally I stay at 192 or above just to be sure..
(Think of it this way.. a JPEG image that was originally made at full quality and with next to none compression gets blurry and less clear as you lower the quality... say what you will but 128 kbps is NOT top notch so it will more than likely degenerate the quality)
Maybe it depends on how they are encoded and with which encoder but generally I stay at 192 or above just to be sure..
(Think of it this way.. a JPEG image that was originally made at full quality and with next to none compression gets blurry and less clear as you lower the quality... say what you will but 128 kbps is NOT top notch so it will more than likely degenerate the quality)
Inviato Tue 02 Apr 02 @ 12:42 pm
jup 128 is like radio quality it has a more bluffy sound, 192 cd quality is much better clear sound
Inviato Tue 02 Apr 02 @ 1:30 pm
crundle
also it makes a difference what method and speed is used to rip the audio...
but I would rather play using 192 than 128 any day of the week, it's the little sounds that don't come out and grab you right away that get lost with 128, and they add a 'richer' feel to the music.....
just my opinion =)
but I would rather play using 192 than 128 any day of the week, it's the little sounds that don't come out and grab you right away that get lost with 128, and they add a 'richer' feel to the music.....
just my opinion =)
Inviato Tue 02 Apr 02 @ 1:55 pm
atrius
Why does it matter anyways .. You,as a DJ or as someone who cares about how his music sounds, should do, even overdo, the maximum in order to maximize your performance.
The smallet doubt should upper your standards. Thats it .
BTW : Varied-Bitrate MP3 files (ie those that don't have one bitrate, but it changes through the track) are impossible to play with AtomixMP3.
The smallet doubt should upper your standards. Thats it .
BTW : Varied-Bitrate MP3 files (ie those that don't have one bitrate, but it changes through the track) are impossible to play with AtomixMP3.
Inviato Tue 02 Apr 02 @ 3:52 pm
64k j-stereo @ 22050hz
is fine for me
sounds no different from 96k
cept when u try to add an 'wide' fx to it, it'll sound all 'swooshy'
is fine for me
sounds no different from 96k
cept when u try to add an 'wide' fx to it, it'll sound all 'swooshy'
Inviato Tue 02 Apr 02 @ 8:04 pm
trip_likeido
Okay ..... which CD rippers/MP3 Encoders are the best ? Or are they all essentially the same ?
Also, What are the advantages to having files with a VBR (Variable Bit Rate) ?
And also .... so you can hear the difference in the bitrate when listening in clubs and loud systems ?
-- Dave --
Also, What are the advantages to having files with a VBR (Variable Bit Rate) ?
And also .... so you can hear the difference in the bitrate when listening in clubs and loud systems ?
-- Dave --
Inviato Tue 02 Apr 02 @ 8:08 pm
DJtalon
The closer to 1228kbps, the better... :D
Inviato Tue 02 Apr 02 @ 9:21 pm
DJ Rick
The trade off in disc space for a 192 bit file is a bit much. I've been using Atomix in clubs now for over a year with 128 bit files. It sounds great. Often I've mixed directly from Atomix into a CD, no audible difference. But, that's just my opinion. Each of us may have a different idea about it, and we are entitled to it. Listen to several files and choose the way you want to do it for yourself.
Rick
Rick
Inviato Wed 03 Apr 02 @ 1:44 am
trip_likeido
Well ... I have heard the difference .... my question is whether how it sounds in clubs and going through high-power systems ?
Inviato Wed 03 Apr 02 @ 2:55 am
ShaggyT
I would NOT reccomend encoding to 128, especially with inferior encoders. The only advantage to 128 is disk space, and storage drives are currently so cheap, I can't understand why this would be a big issue.
Recomended encoder/setting: LAME encoder; 192kbp/s or higher (I use variable bit rate - VBR - set to 180-256); joint stereo (definately). Refer to this page for detailed info: http://www.r3mix.net/
Note that if you monitor you audio with cheap speaker and/or headphones, you probably won't notice the difference between 128 and higher bit rates. But why spend valuable time ripping and archiving if you're just going to end up with less-than-perfect sound?
Recomended encoder/setting: LAME encoder; 192kbp/s or higher (I use variable bit rate - VBR - set to 180-256); joint stereo (definately). Refer to this page for detailed info: http://www.r3mix.net/
Note that if you monitor you audio with cheap speaker and/or headphones, you probably won't notice the difference between 128 and higher bit rates. But why spend valuable time ripping and archiving if you're just going to end up with less-than-perfect sound?
Inviato Wed 03 Apr 02 @ 3:50 pm
Mikey
hi, one question trip_likeido asked and has not yet been answered is this one:
"Does the bitrate affect the buffer of atomix (or in other words ... Will the bitrate affect the overall "speed" of the program)?"
I'd really like to know if anyone has the answer.
thx
Mike
"Does the bitrate affect the buffer of atomix (or in other words ... Will the bitrate affect the overall "speed" of the program)?"
I'd really like to know if anyone has the answer.
thx
Mike
Inviato Thu 04 Apr 02 @ 3:21 am
ikke
Can I give my opinion? I hope someone will read it... ;) lol
Normally (and that's proven, in labs with professional spectral analysers and I-don't-know-what-other-instruments) there's no audible difference between 128 kbps and at a higher bitrate ripped mp3's. Only in some tracks (almost all classical tracks, e.g. some sonatas of Scarlatti ;)) you can hear SOME differences if you really have a very good trained ear.
About VBR: first of all, take care of this: Atomix has sometimes problems to play VBR encoded files well, and that has one simple explination: there is in fact no VBR standard. VBR is only used to make your files smaller, and it works like this: before ripping, your original file is analysed, and according to the frequency spectrum at a given period, your file is ripped at that place at the lowest bitrate and samplerate you can use without losing quality. As you maybe know, samplerate must be at least twice the frequency spectrum at a given time, otherwise you loose quality. So the guy who ripped his files @ 22 kHz, You'd better rip them @ 44.1kHz, because at 2 you only have a maximum freq s^pectrum of 11kHz, and @ 44.1kHz it's +-22kHz. The human ear can hear tones from 5Hz to +-20kHz, so you need a freq spectrum in your file of +-20kHz. 11kHz isn't enough, 22kHz is loads better, so you better use a samplerate of 44.1kHz than 22kHz.
About the quality of the output of the DSP effects: there will normally be no difference, because these effects only do a mathematical equation on the given input-byte (e.g. to double the volume, you do always input-byte*2).
One thing about the bitrate of mp3 files: everyone is talking about it, but I dont think everyone knows what it means. SO here it is. If you understand what it really means, you'll also better understand what it does to the qound quality.
First of all, when sound is ripped, you have to take care of 2 parameters. The samplerate (given in Hz(Hertz)) which means how many samples of the input signal are taken per second. On a CD, it's 44100Hz, DAT uses 48kHz (=48000Hz) and so on. The second parameter is the bitrate of the ripped file. This has consequences on the little volume changes you can hear in your file. Normally (CD and DAT) this is 16 bit (so you can get values in the integer range 32768-32767). These values give you the height of you sinusoidal sound-curve. The bigger this range, the better volume (amplitude) differences are ripped.
Now the xxxkbps of your mp3 file is the amount of bits taken per second (kilobits per second). So e.g. the kbps of a CD is: 44100 samples of 16 bit each taken per second, so 44100*16=705600 bps (=705.6kbps). A file ripped at 128 kbps (=128000 bps) could be ripped at 12800 Hz (=samplerate) and 10 bit (=bitrate).
Hope this was usefull, and I also ope you understand it, because I don't know if I explained it well... If you have questions, mail me (dj_ikke@hotmail.com) or just post it here.
Greetz, ikke
Normally (and that's proven, in labs with professional spectral analysers and I-don't-know-what-other-instruments) there's no audible difference between 128 kbps and at a higher bitrate ripped mp3's. Only in some tracks (almost all classical tracks, e.g. some sonatas of Scarlatti ;)) you can hear SOME differences if you really have a very good trained ear.
About VBR: first of all, take care of this: Atomix has sometimes problems to play VBR encoded files well, and that has one simple explination: there is in fact no VBR standard. VBR is only used to make your files smaller, and it works like this: before ripping, your original file is analysed, and according to the frequency spectrum at a given period, your file is ripped at that place at the lowest bitrate and samplerate you can use without losing quality. As you maybe know, samplerate must be at least twice the frequency spectrum at a given time, otherwise you loose quality. So the guy who ripped his files @ 22 kHz, You'd better rip them @ 44.1kHz, because at 2 you only have a maximum freq s^pectrum of 11kHz, and @ 44.1kHz it's +-22kHz. The human ear can hear tones from 5Hz to +-20kHz, so you need a freq spectrum in your file of +-20kHz. 11kHz isn't enough, 22kHz is loads better, so you better use a samplerate of 44.1kHz than 22kHz.
About the quality of the output of the DSP effects: there will normally be no difference, because these effects only do a mathematical equation on the given input-byte (e.g. to double the volume, you do always input-byte*2).
One thing about the bitrate of mp3 files: everyone is talking about it, but I dont think everyone knows what it means. SO here it is. If you understand what it really means, you'll also better understand what it does to the qound quality.
First of all, when sound is ripped, you have to take care of 2 parameters. The samplerate (given in Hz(Hertz)) which means how many samples of the input signal are taken per second. On a CD, it's 44100Hz, DAT uses 48kHz (=48000Hz) and so on. The second parameter is the bitrate of the ripped file. This has consequences on the little volume changes you can hear in your file. Normally (CD and DAT) this is 16 bit (so you can get values in the integer range 32768-32767). These values give you the height of you sinusoidal sound-curve. The bigger this range, the better volume (amplitude) differences are ripped.
Now the xxxkbps of your mp3 file is the amount of bits taken per second (kilobits per second). So e.g. the kbps of a CD is: 44100 samples of 16 bit each taken per second, so 44100*16=705600 bps (=705.6kbps). A file ripped at 128 kbps (=128000 bps) could be ripped at 12800 Hz (=samplerate) and 10 bit (=bitrate).
Hope this was usefull, and I also ope you understand it, because I don't know if I explained it well... If you have questions, mail me (dj_ikke@hotmail.com) or just post it here.
Greetz, ikke
Inviato Mon 08 Apr 02 @ 11:11 am
Put it this way ;
Encode a track or tracks at 128 kbps, then encode the same at 192.
Have a listen to them to make comparisons (if you use atomix as a dj on a p.a system try it there).
Make you own conclusion and use your own judgement on the sound quality.
I use EAC with LAME 3.91 at 192 kbps in joint stero to encode my tracks to mp3 & they sound fantastic (to me AND my audience).
Ann Onimouse
Using V2 with an advertised serial xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Encode a track or tracks at 128 kbps, then encode the same at 192.
Have a listen to them to make comparisons (if you use atomix as a dj on a p.a system try it there).
Make you own conclusion and use your own judgement on the sound quality.
I use EAC with LAME 3.91 at 192 kbps in joint stero to encode my tracks to mp3 & they sound fantastic (to me AND my audience).
Ann Onimouse
Using V2 with an advertised serial xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Inviato Wed 10 Apr 02 @ 7:29 am