[redevice001] V/A "Greed Treatment Program"
Well, this is an issue I have considered a lot in the past...especially whenDelano wrote:Great stuff !
I wish that all netlabels will rls their music at 256Kbps (like unfoundsound).
Since we all have highspeed internet and 100+ GB harddrives, size doesn't matter...
I had my own webpage to post tracks. For most techno I hear, 160Kbps
usually does a good job. I have found many tracks at 320K that would
sound almost identical to an mp3 at lower encoding quality.
So, I did a little test. I took a 2 bar loop out of my track on the compilation.
This loop was taken straight from the 24bit wave master. I dithered down
to 16 bits and encoded at 4 different rates: 256, 192, 160 and 128.
I then decoded the mp3s back into a 16 bit wave and put them into one
file in a non-sequential order:
http://www.boomklik.com/test/exp_mp3Encode.wav
If you can point out which one is 256, I will be very impressed.
I probably can't pick out the 256 Kbps one at home over my cheap speakers.jpls wrote:Well, this is an issue I have considered a lot in the past...especially whenDelano wrote:Great stuff !
I wish that all netlabels will rls their music at 256Kbps (like unfoundsound).
Since we all have highspeed internet and 100+ GB harddrives, size doesn't matter...
I had my own webpage to post tracks. For most techno I hear, 160Kbps
usually does a good job. I have found many tracks at 320K that would
sound almost identical to an mp3 at lower encoding quality.
So, I did a little test. I took a 2 bar loop out of my track on the compilation.
This loop was taken straight from the 24bit wave master. I dithered down
to 16 bits and encoded at 4 different rates: 256, 192, 160 and 128.
I then decoded the mp3s back into a 16 bit wave and put them into one
file in a non-sequential order:
http://www.boomklik.com/test/exp_mp3Encode.wav
If you can point out which one is 256, I will be very impressed.
But in the club over a bad ass sound system you can hear differences in mp3s, maybe it's just a slight difference between 192 and 256 Kbps.
But since filesize isn't an issue anymore, I just like to play the best quality mp3's that I can get...
this is hard. it´s easier if some hihat sounds are also in it. but i would say the last...jpls wrote:Well, this is an issue I have considered a lot in the past...especially whenDelano wrote:Great stuff !
I wish that all netlabels will rls their music at 256Kbps (like unfoundsound).
Since we all have highspeed internet and 100+ GB harddrives, size doesn't matter...
I had my own webpage to post tracks. For most techno I hear, 160Kbps
usually does a good job. I have found many tracks at 320K that would
sound almost identical to an mp3 at lower encoding quality.
So, I did a little test. I took a 2 bar loop out of my track on the compilation.
This loop was taken straight from the 24bit wave master. I dithered down
to 16 bits and encoded at 4 different rates: 256, 192, 160 and 128.
I then decoded the mp3s back into a 16 bit wave and put them into one
file in a non-sequential order:
http://www.boomklik.com/test/exp_mp3Encode.wav
If you can point out which one is 256, I will be very impressed.
techno made me do it
Delano wrote:jpls wrote:I probably can't pick out the 256 Kbps one at home over my cheap speakers.Delano wrote:
So, I did a little test. I took a 2 bar loop out of my track on the compilation.
This loop was taken straight from the 24bit wave master. I dithered down
to 16 bits and encoded at 4 different rates: 256, 192, 160 and 128.
I then decoded the mp3s back into a 16 bit wave and put them into one
file in a non-sequential order:
http://www.boomklik.com/test/exp_mp3Encode.wav
If you can point out which one is 256, I will be very impressed.
But in the club over a bad ass sound system you can hear differences in mp3s, maybe it's just a slight difference between 192 and 256 Kbps.
But since filesize isn't an issue anymore, I just like to play the best quality mp3's that I can get...
Actually, some years ago Hawtin did a test in a very known club with a crazy sound system where he played 12", 192kbps, 256kbps and 320kbps mp3 (from his FS)... He asked 5 people to be there and point out if they can identify the source format. He mainly did that to see if it was worth to use FS.
And guess what...
The 5 guys failed, badly. There was 2 sound tech, John Acquaviva and some other qualified guys.
That explains why he plays mp3s ever since.
