Oldskool Tune formats (i.e. 320kbps MP3 vs Lossless)?

[Art Awreet]

Hi All,

I know this topic has been partially discussed before, but I want to avoid the pitfalls I've made before with ripping from vinyl to electronic format (i.e. the poor quality 128kbps MP3 file mistake)

I've been reading a lot recently in Hi-Fi mags about the arguments for/against between lossless (e.g. Apple and FLAC) and high quality MP3 formats. However these argeuments generally do not differentiate between different music types which might have different bit rate requirements

I know that some audiophiles steer clear of even 320kbps MP3 files if possible, but does oldskool house etc have as much to lose in compression to 320kbps MP3 as other music which might have much more going on (e.g. instruments, dynamics in classical etc)?

I guess the question at the end of the day, is whether anything audible is lost in compressing House music to 320kbps

 

[SCR101.5]

It depends what you're going to do with them.
I always buy lossless & rip vinyl as such. I'm not going to pretend that my ears can distinguish between the nuances in waveforms, and it might be difficult to tell different (qualities) of format(s) apart in, say, itunes but I can seriously tell the difference in ableton live when the tempo starts to deviate away from the song's natural BPM. The quality of MP3s tends to degrade much more quickly.

 

[adamw]

Also depends where you are playing them, and how you intend to use them...

320Kbps mp3 is OK for bedroom DJing and even up to small club environments but after that it's got to be WAV. It's all to do with compression - mp3 is a compressed file and will always lose on quality - WAVs FLACs etc are uncompressed and therefore by their very nature will always be superior quality files....

 

[Geeky]

We recently had a thread on this. ILP uploaded a track that changed from 128k to 320k part way through and nobody could spot the change. I'd imagine WAV to 320k would be even harder to spot.

The most important things needed to make a good vinyl rip are clean vinyl, a good quality turntable/needle and a decent sound card.

 

[JACKG]

Im no audiophile but I can tell you what I do know for sure.

Its certainly best to rip to wav and using the best equipment possible. Iv had wav rips sound worse than a 192 mp3 as the equipment used to rip the mp3 was superior. If your needles are fooked and u use a crap mixer etc the old saying garbage in garbage out applies...

Rippin to wav ensures you will always have the best copy possible as once you have ripped to MP3 there are certain frequencies that are lost forever.

I have a good friend who has played at all the best clubs around the world and he will not play any MP3 below 320 and said he only plays a 320 if he hasnt got a wav file (but has used 320s plenty of times as do other DJs)

I can tell the difference when mixing between different files .. obviously when you compare a 128 to a 320 a difference its easy to spot..often just on loudness but the high frequencies especually.... high hats never sound true.

A 320 v wav is harder to spot and 99% of u will struggle to hear a difference but in certain tunes I have.

The reason mp3s were a big thing was due to storage space but now that doesnt seem there big advantage... Its just that they are now the 'standard' format for music files for the average person.

The biggest Advantage with mp3s for me is that every player supports them and you can 'tag' other bits of info to the file, eg adtist, album, genre etc.

You can rip say a CD to mp3 and the software will find n fill in lots of handy detail whereas if you rip to wav the format doesnt allow for taggin and is blank:|

 

[Ed]

Im no audiophile but I can tell you what I do know for sure.

Its certainly best to rip to wav and using the best equipment possible. Iv had wav rips sound worse than a 192 mp3 as the equipment used to rip the mp3 was superior. If your needles are fooked and u use a crap mixer etc the old saying garbage in garbage out applies...

Rippin to wav ensures you will always have the best copy possible as once you have ripped to MP3 there are certain frequencies that are lost forever.

I have a good friend who has played at all the best clubs around the world and he will not play any MP3 below 320 and said he only plays a 320 if he hasnt got a wav file (but has used 320s plenty of times as do other DJs)

I can tell the difference when mixing between different files .. obviously when you compare a 128 to a 320 a difference its easy to spot..often just on loudness but the high frequencies especually.... high hats never sound true.

A 320 v wav is harder to spot and 99% of u will struggle to hear a difference but in certain tunes I have.

The reason mp3s were a big thing was due to storage space but now that doesnt seem there big advantage... Its just that they are now the 'standard' format for music files for the average person.

The biggest Advantage with mp3s for me is that every player supports them and you can 'tag' other bits of info to the file, eg adtist, album, genre etc.

You can rip say a CD to mp3 and the software will find n fill in lots of handy detail whereas if you rip to wav the format doesnt allow for taggin and is blank:|

I think Jack pretty much nails it here.

 

[Art Awreet]

Im no audiophile but I can tell you what I do know for sure.

Its certainly best to rip to wav and using the best equipment possible. Iv had wav rips sound worse than a 192 mp3 as the equipment used to rip the mp3 was superior. If your needles are fooked and u use a crap mixer etc the old saying garbage in garbage out applies...

Rippin to wav ensures you will always have the best copy possible as once you have ripped to MP3 there are certain frequencies that are lost forever.

I have a good friend who has played at all the best clubs around the world and he will not play any MP3 below 320 and said he only plays a 320 if he hasnt got a wav file (but has used 320s plenty of times as do other DJs)

I can tell the difference when mixing between different files .. obviously when you compare a 128 to a 320 a difference its easy to spot..often just on loudness but the high frequencies especually.... high hats never sound true.

A 320 v wav is harder to spot and 99% of u will struggle to hear a difference but in certain tunes I have.

The reason mp3s were a big thing was due to storage space but now that doesnt seem there big advantage... Its just that they are now the 'standard' format for music files for the average person.

The biggest Advantage with mp3s for me is that every player supports them and you can 'tag' other bits of info to the file, eg adtist, album, genre etc.

You can rip say a CD to mp3 and the software will find n fill in lots of handy detail whereas if you rip to wav the format doesnt allow for taggin and is blank:|

Cheers for that. Sounds like good quality 320kbps MP3's are okay - even for use in low level bars/clubs/parties. Just out of interest, which do you think is the weaker link: a brand new cheapo Ion USB turntable, or the 320kbps bit rate (what I'm trying to say is whether a Ion USB turntable is capable of exceeding the performance of 320kbps MP3, perhaps lossless)?

 

[Geeky]

Cheers for that. Sounds like good quality 320kbps MP3's are okay - even for use in low level bars/clubs/parties. Just out of interest, which do you think is the weaker link: a brand new cheapo Ion USB turntable, or the 320kbps bit rate (what I'm trying to say is whether a Ion USB turntable is capable of exceeding the performance of 320kbps MP3, perhaps lossless)?

ION USB turntables are crap when using the USB input. If you use the phono jacks directly into a decent soundcard the quality is so much better.