wierd mp3 question

polo2k · Post by **polo2k** » Fri Jun 06, 2003 9:11 pm

ok then ive just had a little downloading spree and one of the files i downloaded was recorded at 320 Kbps and i assume from a cd since cd quality is only 128 kbps is there any point in recording at higher than that as i would imagine it would only make sure that any slight loss in quality was preserved with no quality loss of is it to do with the fact that its quite a bass intensive tune so the extra quality is required to reproduce the bass?

polo2k · Post by **polo2k** » Fri Jun 06, 2003 9:14 pm

for reference the tune was
turbulnce by agent X
i also recomend
killa hertz and decoy by aent X
he also did a very good remix of when you look at me

ps (hi-jacking my own thread) does anyone know of any other artists who do tunes of the same style as theese as i really like them nd find them particularly useful in setting up audio systems but you will not hear all the tune on a stock system as a lot of sub 90Hz is used

ps anyone want a 33Hz test tone

(does that even work?)

Petrified · Post by **Petrified** » Fri Jun 06, 2003 9:44 pm

128 kbps isn't CD quality. If you play a CD then play the mp3 you will notice the difference especially after further audio processing such as reverb and the like...

The difference between mp3 and CD Audio is noticable up to around 256 kbps. Some folks like to encode at 320 because they want the best quality.
I actually encode mine at 192!

James.

KarlM · Post by **KarlM** » Fri Jun 06, 2003 10:03 pm

33Khz DOES work, but you have to have enough DBs to make it work properly!

Have you tried Prodigy - Fat of The Land, some really deep rolling basslines, or EZ rollers - Weekend World - thats a bit more sampled basslines.

I always thought that the recording quality was relflected by the vocals and mid range?

polo2k · Post by **polo2k** » Fri Jun 06, 2003 11:24 pm

karl opn the fat of the land theres 10 tracks right?

Babe RuthLess · Post by **Babe RuthLess** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 12:22 am

Hi,

if you're recording your CD tracks and them compiling them into CD-Rs then the best thing to do is record the music in .wav format. No point compressing the files (and thus losing quality) if you're not going to store them permanently in the PC or share them over the 'net.

However if you'd like to keep your mp3s as well, or if you're downloading them, avoid 128 or 160kbp as the sound quality is noticeably worse - particularly in a car stereo where the sound quality usually is much better than that of a home (integrated) system.

Cheers,

Speedlaw · Post by **Speedlaw** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 12:55 pm

Uncompressed cd-raw is around 1411 kbps iirc. So 256 is actually getting rid of a large chunk of info already. It's my choice for encoding, nothing less will do.

The difference between 192 and 256 hardly noticable though, it just sounds slightly 'clearer', if that makes any sense. If you go below 192, it seems as if the quality gets noticably worse.

ciden · Post by **ciden** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 5:17 pm

My advice....just buy the CD

Speedlaw · Post by **Speedlaw** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 9:54 pm

Encoding can be useful though, if I buy a cd, I make a compressed backup on my computer, to have something to listen to while I'm behind it.

Then there's the backup cd for in the car, I've had too many cd's stolen to bring the real thing in the car again.

KarlM · Post by **KarlM** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 5:18 pm

polo2k wrote:karl opn the fat of the land theres 10 tracks right?

Yep, unless you got the VERY ltd edition 'remix edition' which had 5 extra d'n'b remixes on it. only ever heard it been played in a studio.