im stupid whats a 320?

saxenhammer · Post by **saxenhammer** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:38 pm

asking for a 320 is the reason this forum exists.

Jubz · Post by **Jubz** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:43 pm

Amen-Ra wrote:Why do peeps get prang about askin q's?? At one point in my life i didnt know what a 320 was- i found out- not from some divine revelation but through HEARING ABOUT IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE. Simple- no shame in askin

oh my god you FREAK.

metalboxproducts · Post by **metalboxproducts** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:44 pm

bert wrote:From Wikipedia:

Audio (MP3)

32 kbit/s — MW (AM) quality
96 kbit/s — FM quality
128–160 kbit/s — Standard Bitrate quality; difference can sometimes be obvious (e.g. bass quality)
192 kbit/s — DAB (Digital Audio Broadcasting) quality. Quickly becoming the new 'standard' bitrate for MP3 music; difference can be heard by few people.
224–320 kbit/s — Near CD Quality. Sound is near indistinguishable from most CDs.

As far as I know actual CD quality is near 1Mbits/s ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate

Mmmm. A 320 is still compressed five or so times so the sound quality can not be as good from a mp3.
If you consider that a track of cd quality audio of about 5 mins is the equivilant of about 50mb. The same track once converted to mp3 is about 10 mbs. Where has the 80% of infomation gone?

stanton · Post by **stanton** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:54 pm

metalboxproducts wrote: Mmmm. A 320 is still compressed five or so times so the sound quality can not be as good from a mp3.
If you consider that a track of cd quality audio of about 5 mins is the equivilant of about 50mb. The same track once converted to mp3 is about 10 mbs. Where has the 80% of infomation gone?

Thats why people are banging on about FLAC files now innit? Though assuming most people on here spend at least one night a week with their head in a bass bin I'm surprised they can tell the difference.

barryhercules · Post by **barryhercules** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:11 pm

Thomas wrote:320 without any more infomation means, only a number, a day in the year or if you live long, an age.

Understandable people, even involved in music, wouldnt know it.

too right... up until last 6 months i aint used an Mp3 in my life and i've been producing for about 6 years. i'd avoided em cos the ones I'd heard sounded shit as absolute fuck. didnt know you could get decent quality ones. i've noticed peeps are getting a bit fucking shirty round here lately and motherfuckers should shut the fuck up

EDIT: god... i think i'm having a bad day, didnt mean to be so shirty myself so sorry about that, you lot are good eggs. just been reading a forum where people were calling each other stnuc etc and got a bit fucked off. i need a camomile tea

barryhercules · Post by **barryhercules** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:13 pm

metalboxproducts wrote:
bert wrote:From Wikipedia:

Audio (MP3)

32 kbit/s — MW (AM) quality
96 kbit/s — FM quality
128–160 kbit/s — Standard Bitrate quality; difference can sometimes be obvious (e.g. bass quality)
192 kbit/s — DAB (Digital Audio Broadcasting) quality. Quickly becoming the new 'standard' bitrate for MP3 music; difference can be heard by few people.
224–320 kbit/s — Near CD Quality. Sound is near indistinguishable from most CDs.

As far as I know actual CD quality is near 1Mbits/s ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate
Mmmm. A 320 is still compressed five or so times so the sound quality can not be as good from a mp3.
If you consider that a track of cd quality audio of about 5 mins is the equivilant of about 50mb. The same track once converted to mp3 is about 10 mbs. Where has the 80% of infomation gone?

they work on the principle that some frequencies are masked by others so even on a 44.1khz 16 bit wav you dont percieve 100% of the information

jason burns · Post by **jason burns** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:26 pm

stanton wrote:I know, it wasn't that he didn't know, it was that he's called dubengineer and didn't know. I was trying to be friendly, it genuinely made me laugh and I did tell him what a 320 was. I posted a similar reply on seafishingforum.com when a chap called grimsbyfishermonger came on and asked what a haddock was.

people were "engineering dub" long before mp3's were invented though.

eh? eh?

blizzardmusic · Post by **blizzardmusic** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:48 pm

so 1411 is just a wave file?

dubengineer · Post by **dubengineer** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:13 pm

Wauu things are moving fast in here... so 1411 it is

nice to know

What was the q about hip hop cd´s ? I will answer questions about all sorts of live issues if you ask me, have 12 yrs of experience f.o.h, monitor and system engineering + off course a big heart for subwoofers and old scool soundsystems.

B

slim · Post by **slim** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:34 pm

Maybe one for the production thread but what do people think about sampling mp3s? Most acapellas are given as 192 or 128 on sites, and i can't imagine that would be much of a problem, as mp3 was modelled around an acapella track anyway, but i've heard of people intentionally using other low bitrate samples like hats to get a certain sound. I've also heard of people who make tunes mostly out of samples only to find that they have been using mp3s and when re-encoded it sounds like shite.

amen-ra · Post by **amen-ra** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:52 pm

Jubscarz wrote:
Amen-Ra wrote:Why do peeps get prang about askin q's?? At one point in my life i didnt know what a 320 was- i found out- not from some divine revelation but through HEARING ABOUT IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE. Simple- no shame in askin
oh my god you FREAK.

LOL. Pretty shockin innit. Way ahead of my time mate

username2 · Post by **username2** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:26 pm

and the most important question: whats the difference between flac and 320k-mp3

slim · Post by **slim** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:38 pm

FLAC is lossless and doesn't "compress" (not in the sense of dynamics, in data size) the actual sound while compressing the data, while a 320 loses information that is considered useless from the audio in order to reduce the size of the file, so is considered lossy.

Am i right? anybody wanna elaborate, i don't know the typical bitrate of a FLAC.

I really want someone to ask what bitrate vinyl is.

scarecrow · Post by **scarecrow** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:03 am

Lol!
I'm guessing you know what a 320 is now mate? Haha.
Anyways.. Your tunes..... V interesting mate..... I can hear they've been mixed on a desk. Nice style mate, Minimal, techie Dubdy sh*t, really feeling 'Dub Two', real nice, dark + all that......

big up!! Tunes sound nice man.
Dont be afraid to ask bro, I think that's what these cats are trying to tell you,

P.S can you send me 320 of your tunes bro? LOL, (Mans wanted some irony) but Im being serious.........

marsyas · Post by **marsyas** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:08 am

Scarecrow wrote:
big up!! Tunes sound nice man.

same !
interesting stuff there.

bert · Post by **bert** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:16 am

Slim wrote:Am i right? anybody wanna elaborate, i don't know the typical bitrate of a FLAC.

From the FLAC Faq on sourceforge -

'...With FLAC you do not specify a bitrate like with some lossy codecs. It's more like specifying a quality with Vorbis or MPC, except with FLAC the quality is always "lossless" and the resulting bitrate is roughly proportional to the amount of information in the original signal...'

http://flac.sourceforge.net/index.html

7" · Post by 7" » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:27 am

a 320?

dubengineer · Post by **dubengineer** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:18 pm

A 320...

thomas · Post by **thomas** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:24 pm

dubengineer wrote: What was the q about hip hop cd´s ? I will answer questions about all sorts of live issues if you ask me, have 12 yrs of experience f.o.h, monitor and system engineering + off course a big heart for subwoofers and old scool soundsystems.

Assuming, you can put any bit rate onto a CD. How likely is it that CD albums are going to be around 1100kbit?

Do pressing plants for CD's only work or request a lossless format of the music, as I assume is done with vinyl? or when talking about pressing CD/vinyl do you work with something other than Kbits. It seems to me allot of people think it’s the be all and end all of quality, but how true is that?

My knowledge of this is dangerously low, so excuse any ignorance.

dubengineer · Post by **dubengineer** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:02 pm

The standard is 16 bit 44.1 khz so i guess it will always be the 1411 kbps that some brilliant brain calculated/found yesterday..
--

im stupid whats a 320?

haa what a lot of debate the q´ started.. i have researched

Re: haa what a lot of debate the q´ started.. i have resear

Who is online