Dubstepforum.com

Pretty much 320 only, maybe 256.
I cant believe people use Itunes They only give u a 256 haha, what a rip off.

larose wrote:Pretty much 320 only, maybe 256.
I cant believe people use Itunes They only give u a 256 haha, what a rip off.

I use iTunes, I don't buy from the iTunes store.

zeno wrote:If you're talking to DJs, FLAC isn't even an option. Serato doesn't play em. From what I've heard FLAC decompression is pretty CPU heavy compared to MP3. I don't have a source on this info, however, so take it with a grain of salt. Obviously WAV is not compressed, so it doesn't take any CPU to decompress. I can certainly see a difference in Serato on one of my ancient laptops b/t Wav & MP3. For most computers these days, this is a non issue. But with the inevitability of Serato djs joining up with Ableton, CPU may become an issue for some in the future. Shrug. I do know that converting FLAC to WAV can be a real pain in the arse if you don't have the right app.

I've never heard that FLAC decompression is slower than mp3. I use FLAC on traktor and I have less problems with it than I do with mp3. It wil be more CPU heavy compared to mp3 because there is more data involved.

converting FLAC to WAV isn't that hard. You can use foobar, dbpoweramp, or you can even do it with the flac program available here: http://flac.sourceforge.net/download.html

I use pretty much all 320 because a good portion of my set is unreleased stuff and producers dont normally give out wavs. I am happy you guys all play on top of the line rigs where you can tell the difference between 320 and wav but sadly I do not.

I usually go for 320s, I know WAVs are better but on my system there's not a lot of difference

plus WAVs usually cost more and take up more room

If I have to and if nobody's looking I might stoop down to 256s

Vinyl.

DZA wrote:Vinyl.

Vinyl/WAV/FLAC/320 in that order of preference.
If converting from vinyl to a digital format, pretty much always raw wav.

Never tried lower than 320 really but I can see 256 being fine in a club where it's extremely loud, and hard to hear details. On monitors I can hear a difference, and I especially stay away from VBR encoding as they sound pretty bad in a monitoring situation i've noticed.

DZA wrote:Vinyl.

beat me to it

i appreciate higher bitrates. but i'd prefer to listen to vinyl and i won't play out digital, so...

DZA wrote:Vinyl.

Well a Vinyl is pressed from a mastered WAV, so technically it's the same bitrate?

tobo wrote:

DZA wrote:Vinyl.

Well a Vinyl is pressed from a mastered WAV, so technically it's the same bitrate?

NO

Tangka wrote:

tobo wrote:

DZA wrote:Vinyl.

Well a Vinyl is pressed from a mastered WAV, so technically it's the same bitrate?

NO

Oh shit I see where this thread is going and I don't like it

Technically speaking vinyl doesn't have a bit rate because it isn't digital! But yeah it doesn't improve the sound quality any by making a record out of a wav, actually the sound quality is worse! because it is one generation off from the wav but the audio is degraded in an aesthetically pleasing way. higher sound quality doesn't necessarily mean that it sounds better! And whether or not is does sound better is relative to the person hearing it which makes these pissing contests retarded. Things can be learned from vinyl to make digital sound better tho and your smart mastering engineers have already figured these things out. Like rolling off the top and the bottom of the spectrum as one of the more obvious things.

Not sure how audible it is as I have never done tests but where I think vinyl excels over any digital format is when the dj changes the pitch. With analog it is the same exact signal just slower or faster but with digital there is a lot of math going on there when you pitch and I would assume you lose some quality there.

format means shit as long as it's properly mastered for it's medium
original wavs sent for vinyl released as digi masters sound so harsh

abZ wrote:

Tangka wrote:

tobo wrote:

DZA wrote:Vinyl.

Well a Vinyl is pressed from a mastered WAV, so technically it's the same bitrate?

NO

Oh shit I see where this thread is going and I don't like it

Technically speaking vinyl doesn't have a bit rate because it isn't digital! But yeah it doesn't improve the sound quality any by making a record out of a wav, actually the sound quality is worse! because it is one generation off from the wav but the audio is degraded in an aesthetically pleasing way. higher sound quality doesn't necessarily mean that it sounds better! And whether or not is does sound better is relative to the person hearing it which makes these pissing contests retarded. Things can be learned from vinyl to make digital sound better tho and your smart mastering engineers have already figured these things out. Like rolling off the top and the bottom of the spectrum as one of the more obvious things.

Not sure how audible it is as I have never done tests but where I think vinyl excels over any digital format is when the dj changes the pitch. With analog it is the same exact signal just slower or faster but with digital there is a lot of math going on there when you pitch and I would assume you lose some quality there.

don't fear, you nailed it with an outstanding post, I was just being lazy

what you said at the end there about pitch is a crucial way of explaining some of the properties of vinyl in plain english. this is what people mean when they say with vinyl the audio is a tangible object rather than just 0's and 1's. you are hearing the 'warm viscous liquid pressed shapes' that the needle rides on. this transcends bitrate.

Tangka wrote:

tobo wrote:

DZA wrote:Vinyl.

Well a Vinyl is pressed from a mastered WAV, so technically it's the same bitrate?

NO

I study music and in particular digital recording/composing. Part of our course is understanding the physics behind digitalisation of sound, so I understand how it works better than most.

The fact is that all (/the vast majority of) music that is pressed to vinyl is created digitally, i.e. on a computer. This means that no matter how accurate the pressing is, it will not be of higher quality (or bitrate) than the .wav which was used to press it. 'Bitrate' is just a unit of data over time, the amount of data transfered in a second. It is used in computing, but it can be applied hypothetically to any medium. Something with a higher bitrate is simply transferring more data in a second. Analog sound has an infinite bitrate (well, technically not as there are only a finite amount of air particles to carry the waves), but when it is converted to digital it is turned into a series of discrete samples, this is just the way computers work.

This image shows a simple example.


A vinyls groove that is pressed from a digital source, if looked at very closely, would look like the bottom wave in the image.
The only advantages of a vinyl over a wav is having the physical object itself, and changing pitch is more accurate.

Changing pitch digitally requires the computer to break the wav into thousands of tiny 'grains' which are then moved slightly closer together/further apart and then averaged. On a vinyl, the needle simply moves faster/slower over the grooves.

So as far as bitrate goes (which is the point of this thread, remember?), vinyl is the same as .wav

tobo wrote:

Tangka wrote:

tobo wrote:

DZA wrote:Vinyl.

Well a Vinyl is pressed from a mastered WAV, so technically it's the same bitrate?

NO

I study music and in particular digital recording/composing. Part of our course is understanding the physics behind digitalisation of sound, so I understand how it works better than most.

The fact is that all (/the vast majority of) music that is pressed to vinyl is created digitally, i.e. on a computer. This means that no matter how accurate the pressing is, it will not be of higher quality (or bitrate) than the .wav which was used to press it. 'Bitrate' is just a unit of data over time, the amount of data transfered in a second. It is used in computing, but it can be applied hypothetically to any medium. Something with a higher bitrate is simply transferring more data in a second. Analog sound has an infinite bitrate (well, technically not as there are only a finite amount of air particles to carry the waves), but when it is converted to digital it is turned into a series of discrete samples, this is just the way computers work.

This image shows a simple example.


A vinyls groove that is pressed from a digital source, if looked at very closely, would look like the bottom wave in the image.
The only advantages of a vinyl over a wav is having the physical object itself, and changing pitch is more accurate.

Changing pitch digitally requires the computer to break the wav into thousands of tiny 'grains' which are then moved slightly closer together/further apart and then averaged. On a vinyl, the needle simply moves faster/slower over the grooves.

So as far as bitrate goes (which is the point of this thread, remember?), vinyl is the same as .wav

I think what the guys are trying to say, that the sound that comes of a pressed tune sounds better. Even though it lost quality (in a good way).

kejk wrote:I think what the guys are trying to say, that the sound that comes of a pressed tune sounds better. Even though it lost quality (in a good way).

Whether or not a vinyl sounds better is irrelevant to what I was saying, what sounds better is completely subjective.

tobo wrote:

kejk wrote:I think what the guys are trying to say, that the sound that comes of a pressed tune sounds better. Even though it lost quality (in a good way).

Whether or not a vinyl sounds better is irrelevant to what I was saying, what sounds better is completely subjective.

I agree with you on that, but that is where the communication failed.

I know he litterally talked about bitrates, but I'm sure he meant what he thinks sounds better...

Also - We're on a forum, don't be bothered by subjective discussions :>

all covered

we can relax now

i love how vinyl junkies get ALL defensive about their shit, and look down on us strictly digital types. you say the experience is different.. that's true. just like the experience of seeing a rock band play their songs live, and hearing the guitars coming out of amps is TOTALLY different from watching a DJ just play records and hearing sounds come out of a PA. i can enjoy both equally. in other words, vinyl/digital is a really stupid issue to divide ourselves with, when we should be trying to find common ground.

narcissus wrote:i love how vinyl junkies get ALL defensive about their shit, and look down on us strictly digital types. you say the experience is different.. that's true. just like the experience of seeing a rock band play their songs live, and hearing the guitars coming out of amps is TOTALLY different from watching a DJ just play records and hearing sounds come out of a PA. i can enjoy both equally. in other words, vinyl/digital is a really stupid issue to divide ourselves with, when we should be trying to find common ground.

I love vinyl but don't care about electronic music being on it. I buy old rock and jazz that was kept completely in the analog domain the entire way though the process. Then vinyl is an experience if you have the right listening equipment. Vinyl people get pissed because they paid 50 bucks for some out of print tune off of ebay only to get to the club and someone with serato grabbed the same tune off rapidshare and played it before they got the chance

Sorry I didn't mean to continue this portion of the discussion just bored lolz.