320

fearless · Post by **fearless** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:01 pm

anyone else sick of seeing '320' everywhere..? 'HI QUAL 320' 'FREE 320' 'NEW DUBSTEP 320' '320 MATE'.. what the fuck is it with 320..

VBR probably sounds better anyway.. its all about 64k, proper dark & gritty

do people actually play out MP3s.. who the fuck would play an MP3 over a WAV at a club..

quidz · Post by **quidz** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:08 pm

Chill out mate..no need to get your knickers in a twist over it...

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:18 pm

quidz wrote:Chill out mate..no need to get your knickers in a twist over it...

init, producers need to start somewhere, offering free 320s is one of them.

Malicious · Post by **Malicious** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:20 pm

Wolverine99 wrote:
quidz wrote:Chill out mate..no need to get your knickers in a twist over it...
init, producers need to start somewhere, offering free 320s is one of them.

What they said.

They need to start somewhere...

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:20 pm

Malicious wrote:

LOL

fearless · Post by **fearless** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:01 pm

actually, i find it quite annoying.. sorry to offend you.. sorry it's not all doves and rainbows.. you didn't used to be able to just throw a "320" on the net and pretend that you've grabbed peoples attention.. who started the trend was really my question and will it ever end.. i demand an answerrrrrrgfghfd this is important

NilsFG · Post by **NilsFG** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:12 pm

A WAV file is too large, and a 320 mp3 comes close to the quality of a WAV and is smaller.
So it's quite obvious IMHO why people give their tunes away in the form of a 320 mp3.

gav_35 · Post by **gav_35** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:15 pm

NilsFG wrote:A WAV file is too large, and a 320 mp3 comes close to the quality of a WAV and is smaller.
So it's quite obvious IMHO why people give their tunes away in the form of a 320 mp3.

this guy knows the score

lojik · Post by **lojik** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:19 pm

Fearless wrote:actually, i find it quite annoying.. sorry to offend you.. sorry it's not all doves and rainbows.. you didn't used to be able to just throw a "320" on the net and pretend that you've grabbed peoples attention.. who started the trend was really my question and will it ever end.. i demand an answerrrrrrgfghfd this is important

You are genuinely annoyed by producers who work hard on tunes giving them away for free? Hmm something seems a little wrong there!

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:20 pm

NilsFG wrote:A WAV file is too large, and a 320 mp3 comes close to the quality of a WAV and is smaller.
So it's quite obvious IMHO why people give their tunes away in the form of a 320 mp3.

yea wavs way too big to give out, i doubt anyone would d/l it if you wasnt a well known producer, 320s are convenient, d/l it, if you dont like it, delete it, if you like it burn to cd, boost it on serato etc to play out. simples.

fearless · Post by **fearless** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:18 pm

Wolverine99 wrote:
NilsFG wrote:A WAV file is too large, and a 320 mp3 comes close to the quality of a WAV and is smaller.
So it's quite obvious IMHO why people give their tunes away in the form of a 320 mp3.
yea wavs way too big to give out, i doubt anyone would d/l it if you wasnt a well known producer, 320s are convenient, d/l it, if you dont like it, delete it, if you like it burn to cd, boost it on serato etc to play out. simples.

got it now, thanks for the tip!

rectaldubz · Post by **rectaldubz** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:10 pm

firstly like NilsFG said wav's are alot bigger than mp3's and whats so annoying about good people making tunes and giving them away free of charge.

fearless · Post by **fearless** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:53 am

Neurotik wrote:
NilsFG wrote:A WAV file is too large, and a 320 mp3 comes close to the quality of a WAV and is smaller.
So it's quite obvious IMHO why people give their tunes away in the form of a 320 mp3.
This.

i appreciate the comments. maybe the tone of my first post was a bit harsh and consequently misleading, but i didn't start the thread to find this out.. i understand people aren't going to be sharing WAV files about.. here are some things to think about which are more in line with my original comment..

- maybe if the process currently being used to get your 'track' heard wasn't so simple and accessible, people would put more time/effort/thought into making their tracks.. same can be said for the tools used to make the track..

- maybe you were having fun sharing your '320' to the masses, but as a result did you make this music 2x as disposable as before.. same goes for your 'mixes'

- 2-3 years ago, you didn't find this '320' business as prominent a trend as it is now.. all you have to do is look on any web mp3 store to occasionally see things advertised as being 'now available in 320'

bandshell · Post by **bandshell** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:02 am

Fearless wrote:
- 2-3 years ago, you didn't find this '320' business as prominent a trend as it is now.. all you have to do is look on any web mp3 store to occasionally see things advertised as being 'now available in 320'

So your problem is, actually wait, I don't see what your getting at all. Your sick of seeing the word 320 because it's all over the place now? Are you sick of the word yes as well?

sub-samurai · Post by **sub-samurai** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:40 am

i think his point is, 320 cbr is useless, u don't hear a difference between a good lame VBR rip and 320 cbr and if the so called "320" is made by a crappy ripper and crappy codec like "blade" or some other crappy codecs ,the lame vbr is in theory even better. what's the point,u want to compress something to make it smaller and then it still waste so much bitrate that the file is up to 20mb. Offering flacs would be a great alternative, its lossless and not much bigger than a so called "320".

i don't want to criticize producers who give away their songs for free, I'm happy about all free Dubstep track i can get, it's just he's right about the hype and it would be nice to have at least the alternative between vbr,cbr and flac or something like that, i don't think it would be much more work. My mp3 player has only 16gb, so it really would be nice to have really good compressed mp3's...

fearless · Post by **fearless** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:48 am

bandshell wrote:
Fearless wrote:
- 2-3 years ago, you didn't find this '320' business as prominent a trend as it is now.. all you have to do is look on any web mp3 store to occasionally see things advertised as being 'now available in 320'

So your problem is, actually wait, I don't see what your getting at all. Your sick of seeing the word 320 because it's all over the place now? Are you sick of the word yes as well?

well it's more that its practically become like its own medium.. its replaced the dubplate..

WatchYourStep · Post by **WatchYourStep** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:16 am

You can't have album artwork on a wav

deadly_habit · Post by **deadly_habit** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:44 am

320 flac or wav for me

djrodan · Post by **djrodan** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:54 am

sorry, but i always thought 320 vbr mp3 was the standard.

did i fuck up somehow by buying all my tracks from beatport, junodl, etc in 320 mp3 and is it some type of sacrilege to be playing them in serato... at home... in clubs... on massive systems where there is no audible compromising of quality?

i thought i had a pretty good audiophile ear and knowledge of sound and digital audio theory.... or have i been wrong this whole time.... or is this thread just a big waste of time?

320

320

Who is online