Strumpling Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 our friend vasyachkin doesn't seem to think there's a difference between MP3 and CD quality. Please back me up - HUGE difference. 128-196 kbps mps = crap. -=- Matt/Strumpling -=- PURCHASE your psytrance whenever possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strumpling Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 oh now that i've posted this - he's saying he doesn't CARE about the difference... -=- Matt/Strumpling -=- nevermind, i guess.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mE 1 Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 196? can't tell the diffrence.. sorry. hm... 128 i can tell... uh i think... or mabye i've been brainwashed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lÿsërgïç Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 i cant tell with 192mp3 to CD BECAUSE my speakers arent probaly good enough to tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hujaboy Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Big diffrence! I hope your friend isnt a dj! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mergi Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 I rarely download mp3s which has a bitrate below 192 kbps... 128 kbps really does no good, @!#$#y quailty... 160 is acceptabel... CD is better than mp3s, for sure, but sometimes it's hard to purchase because the constant lack of money. So if I need to download, it will always be 192, 256, 320, anything that deviates from those I wont download... if I'm not very desperate to have a track, that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JanUa Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 those little tiny error's in the song's you hear ... losing all warmth ... high tones not crispering in your ears ... that's what you have with MP3 ... i'm not saying it isn't easy to check out new song's ...3ô... . . ....J... . ... . . .... . . . . .. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest llazi Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 I see a problem on most of you judging the 128kb/s format of mp3. I suggest you making a little research and you will find out that Fraunhoffer Institute (the one who made mp3) did made a test compearing with experts the difference between 128kb/s mp3 and cd audio. And the results were : NO CHANGE AT ALL FOR THE HUMAN EAR, mp3 is a format that cut's off frequencies that human's can't hear. So cut the crap about that bit rate and just say it would be better if you could afford to buy the CD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Brain Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 "MP3 at 128 kbps is sometimes referred to as CD-quality. But anyone who refers to 128 kbps as CD-quality either has poor hearing or has never done a side-by-side comparison. There are so many other factors, such as the type of music and the encoding algorithm that affect sound quality, it’s best not to infer that a specific bit-rate is equal to a certain quality level. Fortunately, mainstream MP3 encoders like Xing continue to improve, and if MPEG AAC encoders become available for a reasonable price, CD-quality sound at 128 kbps will become a reality for the average user." (The Mp3 and Internet Audio Handbook) 256 kbps = Cd quality... -Stay Psychedelic- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest [tom jaimz] Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Listen people, you can, if you really want, get lossless encoders for music. These things will take out all the empty sound from a WAV file - there's a page about these kinda things at the First Principles web site. Using these, you'll notice at best you can get about a 2:1 compression - so a WAV that's originally 100Mb will be compressed down to 50Mb. What does this mean? It means if you take out any audio below this, you are taking out perceivable audio. A file compressed by, let's say 8:1 compression, which is roughly what 256kbps MP3 is. So you've dropped a 100Mb down to about 12.5Mb. This is a pretty major drop from 50Mb - you've just taken out 75% of the perceivable audio. Now, it's very true that most of this audio is not detectable by the human ear. You can listen to an MP3 and it'll sound fine. But I'm telling you right now, it's not as good as it can be. It's a lower quality substitute. Play it on a loud system and it will collapse - it will sound muddy, it will sound blunt, and it will sound @!#$. The psytrance MP3 trading scene is finally evolved to the point where I'm seeing more and more DJs whose collection consists entirely of MP3s. These people are pushing a lower quality sound in order to cut corners for themselves - they don't want to spend the money on new CDs. Christ, they can't even be bothered to find a friend who has an original CD and burn that, instead they have to burn MP3s? And why? Because 'it sound fine'. Dickheads. They're cheapening psychedelic trance. They don't care. Quality is no longer important to them, just ego, making sure they have the good tunes, and who cares if they sound a little bit blunt or a little bit muddy? No-one's gonna notice, they're all on drugs.. Fuckers. The scum of the psytrance universe. And don't give me 'we can't afford to buy CDs' @!#$. I was buying psytrance when I was in University. I had no job, and all I was getting was about $US75 a week from my parents, and I had to pay my rent, pay my phone bills, buy books for school, buy food, buy clothes, and I was still buying fucking psychedelic trance. Get a job, stop your winging, and stop playing MP3s a parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest llazi Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 where did u get that info, caus i could write some handbook too that tells you anythinf you want. My source is Fraunhoffer Institute the mp3 makers and i am willing to belive them, not some unknown source Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest [tom jaimz] Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 CD-R vs MD vs MP3 [256] vs MP3 [128] from HiFi Choice Magazine [April 2000]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest llazi Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 to tom jaimz I don't think you are willing to make a discusion with all this insults, thet goes nowhere so check your language a try saying something that really argues your thoughts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest [tom jaimz] Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Ok, Llazi. I'll play nice. I think MP3s are a great medium for people to find psychedelic trance. I think MP3s are a great medium for people to listen to new music before they decide to buy it. I think people who burn MP3s, at any bit rate, to CD and then play those CDs at a party, are giving people less than they deserve, and are cheapening the whole psytrance scene. Those are my thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 9+2 Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 listen to gathering on mp3 outside pumping then listen to it on cd in the same arena....so many little sounds and squelches lost in mp3 and as tom said it becomes muddy....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Brain Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Tom is right , the quality on some parties is very poor sometimes because of the music medium.. Mp3 is good for home listening , car, and maybe for a small private party in a house... Thats All.. Big events happen here in Greece and some Djs play the set mostly with mp3s. Thats bad... In addition if u like listening this music with Headphones then you will notice the difference easily.. On the other hand here in Greece the cds are too expensinve for most of us .They cost around 20-30 euro . So if for example you buy 2 cds(very low) per week you give =160 euro minimum/monthly, and now if we add the club admission for psytrance party we have: 25 euro per week = thats minimum... so 4*25 = 100 +160 = 260(party+cds) minimal expenses for the month. ... the basic salary here in greece is 400-450 euro ... so you left with...140-190 euro to pay bills , food...( iam lucky i dont pay rent but many others pay) So the possible solutions are : 1) Be rich somehow(lottery,family,inheritance) , 2) dont go to parties and buy cds , 3) go to parties and dont buy cds, 4) wait some years to get raise on salary, 5) forget music.. 6) mp3 exchange + parties .... 7) buy second hand cds which is mostly old stuff....and go to some parties.. Imagine if u are student , the things become worst ...... The labels MUST drop the prices in the cd industry they are the main responsible for what is happening in the music scene with the Mp3... Cds are more expensive than food(meat,fish,vegetables) , Gasoline, electricity, water and some medicines... Music Cds is a luxury product and it is not reachable for most people around the globe... Thats a bigger problem than illegal Mp3 exchange... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest clive frog Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 There are good arguments on both sides, music is pricey these days, but if you can't afford the tools don't do the trade. A good DJ doesn't need every release, just good DJ skills. Work with what you have. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dam10n Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 >The labels MUST drop the prices in the cd industry they are the main responsible >for what is happening in the music scene with the Mp3... labels will punt a CD for about £6.50 (which i think is about 10 euro's) to the stores, that's AFTER distribution is taken in. So it's the retailer that really makes the biggest cut, not the labels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Brain Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Ok call them whatever you wanna call them Labels ,Retailers , anyway all the people that distribute and sell music with very high prices without considering that many people cannot afford this prices... its bad... and it MUST change .... -stay psychedelic- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vasyachkin Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 just want to clarify, i never said there was no difference. i did say that i don't care about the difference even though i hear it. i can still hear all the "little sounds" on mp3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zero the Hero Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Some guys running labels are making so little money, they can't even afford buying CDs themselves! I'm not joking!! Please, stop to say that labels are responsibles for the high prices of CDs, try to look a little further to the whole economic system... Tom is 100% right. Damion is aware about the music industry. You may better reading to them twice, kids, they tell the truth !! Boom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest asdf Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 from http://www.r3mix.net/ (http://users.belgacom.net/gc247244/quality.htm) Facts: 128 kbit/s is not cd quality 256 kbit/s is cd quality (x) (in case of Lame or some Fraunhofer, not Xing) In february 2000 c't magazin organised a blind listening test. 300 Audiophiles were involved, finalists tested 17 1-min clips from different artists (classic and pop): original CD recording 128 Kbit/s Joint Stereo [MusicMatch (FhG) v4.4] encoded PC decoded Mac 256 Kbit/s Joint Stereo [MusicMatch (FhG) v4.4] encoded PC decoded Mac all on cdrs and played in a Recording Studio on: B&W Nautilus 803, Marantz CD14 with amp PM14 (Straightwire Pro cabling and extra's) [DM30000- so bit more than $15000] Sennheiser Orpheus Electrostatic Reference-headphones with tweaked accompanying amp (digital and analog out) [>$10000] Conclusions: 90% of the 128 Kbit material was picked out MP3@256 was rated to have the same music quality as cd! If you find MP3@256 to be of inferior quality compared to the original cd, you're very likely to be doing something wrong with the test (correct decoder, no objective double blind testing, DSP filters distorting the process, ...) Maybe this is something for you. You can always read the article in the german c't 6/2000 on p92. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest asdf Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 from http://www.r3mix.net/ (http://users.belgacom.net/gc247244/quality.htm) Facts: 128 kbit/s is not cd quality 256 kbit/s is cd quality (x) (in case of Lame or some Fraunhofer, not Xing) In february 2000 c't magazin organised a blind listening test. 300 Audiophiles were involved, finalists tested 17 1-min clips from different artists (classic and pop): original CD recording 128 Kbit/s Joint Stereo [MusicMatch (FhG) v4.4] encoded PC decoded Mac 256 Kbit/s Joint Stereo [MusicMatch (FhG) v4.4] encoded PC decoded Mac all on cdrs and played in a Recording Studio on: B&W Nautilus 803, Marantz CD14 with amp PM14 (Straightwire Pro cabling and extra's) [DM30000- so bit more than $15000] Sennheiser Orpheus Electrostatic Reference-headphones with tweaked accompanying amp (digital and analog out) [>$10000] Conclusions: 90% of the 128 Kbit material was picked out MP3@256 was rated to have the same music quality as cd! If you find MP3@256 to be of inferior quality compared to the original cd, you're very likely to be doing something wrong with the test (correct decoder, no objective double blind testing, DSP filters distorting the process, ...) Maybe this is something for you. You can always read the article in the german c't 6/2000 on p92. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dam10n Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 where's elysium brokovich when you need him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elysium Project Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Ok my thoughts :-) I agree 100% with Tom. mp3 was never intended for anything else than a hardisk playing through a pair of Computer speakers! I wont go into technical details but if people can't see that mp3 is a much lower quality than CD's then I suggest they get their school money back! last: It is not the record labels fault that music is so expensive. It is the distribution networks and the shops that make it so expensive! They raise the price between 200-300%. Last last: If a DJ that get paied to play at parties do not want to buy his music he should get his ass kicked out of this scene! Thats all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.