Mantahoe
Which is the best format to store my music files? Mp3, AAC or WAV. Let me know what you think?
geposted Thu 01 Dec 05 @ 3:02 am
bagpuss
Hi there,
The short answer is mp3. But I reccomend you read my blog (click on my name) as I have written an article on the subject, that should clear things up for you.
Hope it helps.
The short answer is mp3. But I reccomend you read my blog (click on my name) as I have written an article on the subject, that should clear things up for you.
Hope it helps.
geposted Thu 01 Dec 05 @ 3:07 am
Mantahoe
Thanks Bagpuss. You're a saint
geposted Thu 01 Dec 05 @ 8:26 am
bagpuss
Basically my verdict would be to encode as high as you can within the constraints of your HD space, if we all had hundreds of thousands of gigs on our HD's we wouldn't even need to look at compression, however most of us need to use some sort of compression with current HD's.
With mp3 go for a known and reliable encoder like LAME, and if it doesn't hurt to encode at 320kbps then go for it, if you only have enough space for 192kbps then this is still a high quality file/mp3, with little difference between them. Anything below 192kbps isn't worth touching in pro DJ settings.
The final factor is to be future proof, encoding your life times collection of audio material is a very long winded job at best, make sure the first time you do it is the last time!, get it right :).
With mp3 go for a known and reliable encoder like LAME, and if it doesn't hurt to encode at 320kbps then go for it, if you only have enough space for 192kbps then this is still a high quality file/mp3, with little difference between them. Anything below 192kbps isn't worth touching in pro DJ settings.
The final factor is to be future proof, encoding your life times collection of audio material is a very long winded job at best, make sure the first time you do it is the last time!, get it right :).
geposted Thu 01 Dec 05 @ 10:22 am
Mantahoe
All my files are at 128. I'm thinking twice about switching to 192 becasue if I do it, this means i'm gonna loose all my cue points and i'm gonna have to re-analyse all my tracks or maybe there is a way I can get around this. Do you know?
geposted Thu 01 Dec 05 @ 2:22 pm
vpcdj
no way round that sorry.
---
other ppl who use other programs to modify tags should be careful too.
---
other ppl who use other programs to modify tags should be careful too.
geposted Thu 01 Dec 05 @ 5:20 pm
kamakuakane
I prefer wav format over anything else. Your decision needs to be based upon available hard drive space. I have 1.5 TB (terabytes) available,therefore; noworries about running out of space.
geposted Fri 02 Dec 05 @ 4:11 am
bagpuss
Do you personally recognise the difference between a 320kbps (encoded with LAME) mp3 file to a pure WAV?.
geposted Fri 02 Dec 05 @ 10:50 am
Raw-Bear
Has anyone tried encoding to the mp3 format? Apparently it gives CD quality at 64 kps. I guess someone will have to convert one over and play it back on a pro system so we can all know how it sounds. Both are free and extremly easy to use.
http://www.mp3prozone.com/
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/
http://www.mp3prozone.com/
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/
geposted Fri 02 Dec 05 @ 11:06 am
Rune (DJ-In-Norway)
Has anyone tried encoding to the mp3 format?
YES.. I think I have tried mp3 format a couple of times... hehehe... just kidding ;)
I know u meant the mp3 PRO format... ;) Its good for small devices like mobile phones, mp3 players etc that have very limited storage... Its not good compared to mp3 like we use it with VDJ...
YES.. I think I have tried mp3 format a couple of times... hehehe... just kidding ;)
I know u meant the mp3 PRO format... ;) Its good for small devices like mobile phones, mp3 players etc that have very limited storage... Its not good compared to mp3 like we use it with VDJ...
geposted Fri 02 Dec 05 @ 11:53 am
bagpuss
"Has anyone tried encoding to the mp3 format?", Yes, just about everyone :).
"Apparently it gives CD quality at 64 kps", most certainly not, more like 192kbps provides near CD quality, but CD quality to most people is 192kbps+.
"I guess someone will have to convert one over and play it back on a pro system so we can all know how it sounds", been their, done that, next! :), 64kbps sounds like garbage (but garbage at 64kbps not real sound :).
"
"Both are free and extremly easy to use.", yes we know thank you :).
Relax I'm just playing ;).
"Apparently it gives CD quality at 64 kps", most certainly not, more like 192kbps provides near CD quality, but CD quality to most people is 192kbps+.
"I guess someone will have to convert one over and play it back on a pro system so we can all know how it sounds", been their, done that, next! :), 64kbps sounds like garbage (but garbage at 64kbps not real sound :).
"
"Both are free and extremly easy to use.", yes we know thank you :).
Relax I'm just playing ;).
geposted Fri 02 Dec 05 @ 11:58 am
Rune (DJ-In-Norway)
Mp3pro is good for low-end devices with little storage space... like mp3 portable players etc...
For more info on mp3pro vs mp3, look here :
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/mp3pro/
hope that helps ;)
For more info on mp3pro vs mp3, look here :
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/mp3pro/
hope that helps ;)
geposted Fri 02 Dec 05 @ 11:59 am
bagpuss
Yes their are so many different file formats for audio, the only I'd reccomend are Pure WAV and highly encoded mp3, mp3 is not only the best ratio of compression verse audio quality it is also very popular and is one of the most supported audio formats today, if not the most supported audio format.
Always a factor to consider with DJ software and Proffesional hardware.
Some other formats are as good, but lack the idealic compression ratio and seemingly losless (although technically they are lossy) audio quality.
WAV or mp3, my opinion, but that will no doubt alter in time.
Always a factor to consider with DJ software and Proffesional hardware.
Some other formats are as good, but lack the idealic compression ratio and seemingly losless (although technically they are lossy) audio quality.
WAV or mp3, my opinion, but that will no doubt alter in time.
geposted Fri 02 Dec 05 @ 12:06 pm
Raw-Bear
Darn......Does this mean I have to convert back to 128 all my 64 files?...heh....lol
(yep)
(yep)
geposted Fri 02 Dec 05 @ 6:38 pm
acw_dj
Raw-Bear,
You have to RE-RIP your music files, put your CD's and rip them again in 192Kbps minumum. There's no way to get a really better sound of a 64Kbps files, sorry.
Personally I use a 192Kbps VBR MP3 compression.
You have to RE-RIP your music files, put your CD's and rip them again in 192Kbps minumum. There's no way to get a really better sound of a 64Kbps files, sorry.
Personally I use a 192Kbps VBR MP3 compression.
geposted Sat 03 Dec 05 @ 7:28 pm
bagpuss
I cued an mp3 last night, it sounded terrible, checked bite rate and it was 128kbps.., explained it all, probably bad encoder too, to sound that bad.
geposted Sun 04 Dec 05 @ 7:07 pm
kamakuakane
In response to Bagpuss, I used to work at American Bandstand and they had a computer system that I refused to use because it was loadedd with mp3 format files. Everyone asked why I prefered CD's. I demonstrated the difference and it was night and day. I nearly blew out the speakers during the demo. I used Klipsch Pro speakers and the difference is very noticeable to me. Just remember, mp3 is destructive compression.
geposted Tue 06 Dec 05 @ 4:53 am
bagpuss
It depends on the bite rate and encoder, some mp3's are terrible, others sound like CD to humans. Try the blind test with fair variables, most people can not conclude which sounds better, infact some studies show that people favoured the mp3 quality over the CD, and this is through very good systems.
Now in a club, on PA systems people are in much worse surroundings to judge audio quality, plus alcohol and drugs which impair all the bodys senses.
If the test is fair and the mp3's are 'good', then the difference should NEVER be that of night and day.
Now in a club, on PA systems people are in much worse surroundings to judge audio quality, plus alcohol and drugs which impair all the bodys senses.
If the test is fair and the mp3's are 'good', then the difference should NEVER be that of night and day.
geposted Tue 06 Dec 05 @ 7:52 pm
abnorm
For some reason people tend to think that converting a low bitrate file like 64kbps to a 192kbps will bring back the lost sound quality. That is absolutely not the case, and in fact might even make it sound worse. The quality of a good rip doesn't only depend on the bitrate and encoder used, but the actual source. I suggest using at least 192kbps bitrate encoded using Lame encoder at the highest quality setting if you're ripping music from vinyl or CDs.
geposted Wed 07 Dec 05 @ 1:30 am
DjGazUK
Is 128kbps CD quality? What's the point ripping any higher since you are ripping from a CD. I can't see the logic that you will gain anything at 160 or 190 kbps ? Yes if ripping from Vinyl use higer bitrate, bit abouve 128 for CDs seems pointless to me.
I'd sooner have an MP3 I can playback a million + times rather than a CD or Vinyl that might have a scratch I don't notice and start skipping during a song.
MP3 works in much the same way as the .JPG format for images. and the DivX/3viX codec for Video. It groups together all the similar properties thus making the final file smaller in size (hard drive space wise).
I'd sooner have an MP3 I can playback a million + times rather than a CD or Vinyl that might have a scratch I don't notice and start skipping during a song.
MP3 works in much the same way as the .JPG format for images. and the DivX/3viX codec for Video. It groups together all the similar properties thus making the final file smaller in size (hard drive space wise).
geposted Wed 07 Dec 05 @ 3:37 am
