Suggestion: posting of bitrate in mixe title

fusion01 · Post by **fusion01** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:58 am

How about in the post title it's a case of: [MIX TYPE] title [FORMAT (BITRATE)]

???

Seems obvious enough. Mandatory rule for post? Surely I'm not the only one whom doesn't want to dl a mix less than 320 kbps (or ~256 kbps at a stretch).

Nice to know I'm not going to get a nasty surprise after the bandwidth suck. Thanks.

will schiller · Post by **will schiller** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:45 pm

Not sure I entirely get what your on about but bitrate in the title would be nice. Its all about the better quality mixes.

will schiller · Post by **will schiller** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:45 pm

Not sure I entirely get what your on about but bitrate in the title would be nice. Its all about the better quality mixes.

freezeframe · Post by **freezeframe** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:45 am

yes it would be fantastic if people would do that. so many of these mixes are only 128 kbps, which is just a waste of time to download in my opinion.

q_vazk · Post by **q_vazk** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:00 am

I really have to object. I personally incline towards 128 kbs mixes.
When you're a dubstep fanatic with little money harddrive space
is a decisive variable. Not only that, but 'poor' blokes like myself with
only our iMac speakers and iPod ear pieces as 'sound systems'
actually find lower bitrates more attractive at high volumes. What I'm
saying is that it would be nice to be given an option - either 320, 128.

skrewface · Post by **skrewface** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:18 am

q_vazk wrote:I really have to object. I personally incline towards 128 kbs mixes.
When you're a dubstep fanatic with little money harddrive space
is a decisive variable. Not only that, but 'poor' blokes like myself with
only our iMac speakers and iPod ear pieces as 'sound systems'
actually find lower bitrates more attractive at high volumes. What I'm
saying is that it would be nice to be given an option - either 320, 128.

It should be by courtesy to offer 2 bitrates, one low and one high.
Not everyone has 2mbit - 24mbit access.

q_vazk · Post by **q_vazk** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:39 am

skrewface wrote:
It should be by courtesy to offer 2 bitrates, one low and one high.
Not everyone has 2mbit - 24mbit access.

... Exactly... I really don't care actually. As long as 'they' keep releasing
them mixes I'm peaced and pleased.

... I only wanted to state that 128 aren't all that 'nasty'... And to the
average ear 320 may sound worse - depending on what speakers one
has. And that's my personal experience.

Atari-420 · Post by **Atari-420** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:24 pm

128k is used on the sub fm archive as this allows a good enuff quality to hear the tunes and enjoy the mixes, but does not allow for tracks to be ripped out of mixes by unscrupulous people to share on torrents etc (which is damaging to the whole scene)
you would be very unlikely to get a 320 mix featuring any dubplates, but wud more likely be a set full of released tracks, where the damage to any future sales etc is reduced
its a balance to give the people fresh music without that access to fresh music being damaging to any possible sales
we feel that 128k is right at this time

moujah · Post by **moujah** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:24 pm

i don't care too much as far as the mix itself is good. i was enjoying the first shitty rip of kode 9 sonar mix for weeks before it was posted in 320. not saying that it's not even more enjoyable to listen to it now, but it's all about the music. i definitely prefer good mix in a lower bit rate to average mix in 320 so it doesn't make any difference if the bit rate information is there or not.

lukki · Post by **lukki** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:01 pm

Atari-420 wrote:128k is used on the sub fm archive as this allows a good enuff quality to hear the tunes and enjoy the mixes, but does not allow for tracks to be ripped out of mixes by unscrupulous people to share on torrents etc (which is damaging to the whole scene)
you would be very unlikely to get a 320 mix featuring any dubplates, but wud more likely be a set full of released tracks, where the damage to any future sales etc is reduced
its a balance to give the people fresh music without that access to fresh music being damaging to any possible sales
we feel that 128k is right at this time

Took the words right out of my mouth. I wont ever host a 320 mix unless I have drops by the artists or something on the track to prevent ripping and sharing. Thats the price ya pay DL a mix of all dubs.

q_vazk · Post by **q_vazk** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:26 am

... I don't understand how could one "rip" out a track squeezed tight
right in the middle of a mixset... Tracks usually have intros butchered
and outros misplaced - and the pulp of the track - usually the dj's
should meddle with it just a tad

... Anyway - who would take for
granted a crippled&ripped track? People are awfully eerie these days...
And if they are willing to make that compromise - wouldn't it be fair to
say they would do the same with 128kbps mixes?
... I'm thinkin' about what Atari said... They wouldn't make vinyls or
cd's out of them tracks, now would they?!

gravious · Post by **gravious** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:19 am

A 128 mp3 made with a decent encoder (e.g. Soundforge or the like) actually sounds perfectly decent in my opinion.

It would be interesting to do some blind testing and see if people could really tell the difference all the time between them and higher bitrates!

I know I'd be hard pushed to tell the difference on my walkman headphones.

It is a good idea to offer higher bitrates too though I suppose, for home and car use, or for the fidelity junkies!

As for not downloading a mix just because of the bitrate, surely not!? For me its all about the music. I'd rather listen to a wicked mix at 48kbps than a shit one at 320.

gravious · Post by **gravious** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:20 am

moujah wrote:i don't care too much as far as the mix itself is good. i was enjoying the first shitty rip of kode 9 sonar mix for weeks before it was posted in 320. not saying that it's not even more enjoyable to listen to it now, but it's all about the music. i definitely prefer good mix in a lower bit rate to average mix in 320 so it doesn't make any difference if the bit rate information is there or not.

Umm, should have read your bit first before posting!
AGREED

narcossist · Post by **narcossist** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:59 am

if someone has gone to the bother of making a mix/doing a radio show etc and sharing their music with you (for whatever reason) it really comes across as a bit much to start worrying what bitrate its in.

if you were paying for it then fair does but for most people posting mixes here is a labour of love so just be grateful for free music innit

phurious · Post by **phurious** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:13 pm

narcossist wrote:if someone has gone to the bother of making a mix/doing a radio show etc and sharing their music with you (for whatever reason) it really comes across as a bit much to start worrying what bitrate its in.

if you were paying for it then fair does but for most people posting mixes here is a labour of love so just be grateful for free music innit

Well said sir.

slim · Post by **slim** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:44 pm

moujah wrote:i don't care too much as far as the mix itself is good. i was enjoying the first shitty rip of kode 9 sonar mix for weeks before it was posted in 320. not saying that it's not even more enjoyable to listen to it now, but it's all about the music. i definitely prefer good mix in a lower bit rate to average mix in 320 so it doesn't make any difference if the bit rate information is there or not.

Where can i get hold of that? I've got the 94kbps rip, 320 version would be insane!

lukki · Post by **lukki** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:21 pm

q_vazk wrote:... I don't understand how could one "rip" out a track squeezed tight
right in the middle of a mixset... Tracks usually have intros butchered
and outros misplaced - and the pulp of the track - usually the dj's
should meddle with it just a tad ... Anyway - who would take for
granted a crippled&ripped track? People are awfully eerie these days...
And if they are willing to make that compromise - wouldn't it be fair to
say they would do the same with 128kbps mixes?
... I'm thinkin' about what Atari said... They wouldn't make vinyls or
cd's out of them tracks, now would they?!

Its just a common courtesy thing when playing dubs that are coming out on bigger labels. People dont want to step on any toes or be the source of a leak, you know?

Probably not as necessary as in DnB tho...

enik · Post by **enik** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:34 am

" I'd rather listen to a wicked mix at 48kbps than a shit one at 320"

agreed....and to flip it " I would love to hear all dope mixes at 320 and none at 48 kbps"

The quality does enhance the richness of a mix and its overall impact.... This is quality music and deserves full range sound quality..maximum respect to the 192kbps and up massive!!!
Peace..

gravious · Post by **gravious** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:23 am

Having said above that I couldn't tell between a 128 and a 320 on my walkman headphones, i experimented, and found that I could!

From now on I think I'll try and post higher bitrates as well.

Althought the difference isn't huge, you can hear the strnge distortions around the high end, the high hats and reverbs especially.

jim · Post by **jim** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:31 am

Always thought 192 is a fair compromise between quality and filesize for mixes.

Suggestion: posting of bitrate in mixe title

Suggestion: posting of bitrate in mixe title

agreed

Who is online