A question about audio conversion.

- ask away
User avatar
Alex M
mnml maxi
mnml maxi
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:48 pm
Location: Berlin

Post by Alex M »

Just to clear it out, I do buy all my music. This question was only intended for some free samples I collected which are not at 320kbps. At the moment im still very far from completing a decent sounding loop but im having fun experimenting. Do I always need to use high quality samples if I want my final product to be at 320kbps or am I just wasting too much time worrying about the quality of my samples?
Robot Criminal
mnml moderator
mnml moderator
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Est0n14

Post by Robot Criminal »

omnipresence wrote:If you convert a 192 kbps mp3 to 320 kbps the quality won't improve, in fact it will make it a little bit worse.
indeed, from the re-encoding.

anyway why are u using data-compressed stuff to make stuff?
don't. wav or aiff or whatnot
Image we are all atomic and subatomic particles and we are all wireless...
G3rard
mnml mmbr
mnml mmbr
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 3:29 pm
Location: Wales, UK
Contact:

Post by G3rard »

miniMAL_420 wrote:Just to clear it out, I do buy all my music. This question was only intended for some free samples I collected which are not at 320kbps. At the moment im still very far from completing a decent sounding loop but im having fun experimenting. Do I always need to use high quality samples if I want my final product to be at 320kbps or am I just wasting too much time worrying about the quality of my samples?
If its for producing then you should really use wav files unless you cant find the source material in anything better than a 320kpbs mp3 or if you are just having a mess around.

320kbps is usually the standard used for djing.
192kbps is probably the standard most people use when uploading dj mixes and live sets.
prussell
mnml mmbr
mnml mmbr
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:55 pm
Location: detroit
Contact:

Post by prussell »

G3rard wrote:
miniMAL_420 wrote: Do I always need to use high quality samples if I want my final product to be at 320kbps or am I just wasting too much time worrying about the quality of my samples?
If its for producing then you should really use wav files unless you cant find the source material in anything better than a 320kpbs mp3 or if you are just having a mess around.

320kbps is usually the standard used for djing.
192kbps is probably the standard most people use when uploading dj mixes and live sets.
agreed, only use 320k MP3s for producing when no other options exist; remember, your finished track will be compressed again eventually.
try to use WAVs/AIFFs of the highest quality, 24/96 or 24/48 if you can. look at it this way: the more information that is present, the more your original sample(s) will maintain integrity when you put it through all that processing.
User avatar
trak660
mnml maxi
mnml maxi
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:54 am
Location: Indiana, USA

Post by trak660 »

They may be 192, but if they sound good to you, upconvert them.

Go ahead and take it to 32 bit WAV.

There will be absolutely no increase in the "quality," but you will have more ability to timestretch and pitch bend the audio.
User avatar
Alex M
mnml maxi
mnml maxi
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:48 pm
Location: Berlin

Post by Alex M »

Cool, thanks for the tips guys.
prussell
mnml mmbr
mnml mmbr
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:55 pm
Location: detroit
Contact:

Post by prussell »

trak660 wrote:They may be 192, but if they sound good to you, upconvert them.

Go ahead and take it to 32 bit WAV.

There will be absolutely no increase in the "quality," but you will have more ability to timestretch and pitch bend the audio.
"upconverting" a 192k to 320k degrades the quality due to an added layer of compression, as was said before.
i fail to see how converting a 192k file to a WAV gives you any more flexibility in production or DJing....care to elaborate?
User avatar
trak660
mnml maxi
mnml maxi
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:54 am
Location: Indiana, USA

Post by trak660 »

I was sort of joking, but not really. A 32 bit WAV rendering of the 192 will at least sound the same, only there will be more data to stretch. I'd call that "better," but it still sucks. :lol:

As far as the first reply i put up about converting 192 to 320 for DJing, replacing the missing data with noise is actually what makes it work. It's less than you would hear during your set manipulating it as a 192 in scratch software. It also depends on the track and how it sounds. Technically though, you are adding noise, and lots of it. I thought the same as you until my friend convinced me to do a few and compare them. My ears say that it usually works, and I trust them. Like I said before, I only do it when I want to play a netlabel track that's only available at 192.

Personally, I would never use a compressed format for composing. You should start with the highest sample rate that your gear can handle. Most PCs from the past decade can at least handle 16 bit 44.1khz WAV. :)
prussell wrote:
trak660 wrote:They may be 192, but if they sound good to you, upconvert them.

Go ahead and take it to 32 bit WAV.

There will be absolutely no increase in the "quality," but you will have more ability to timestretch and pitch bend the audio.
"upconverting" a 192k to 320k degrades the quality due to an added layer of compression, as was said before.
i fail to see how converting a 192k file to a WAV gives you any more flexibility in production or DJing....care to elaborate?
Post Reply