What bitrate are you using to encode your mp3's?

Assuming of course, you use mp3s....

I use 320 CBR.

320 CBR as well.

192 CBR using Audio Grabber to rip and Lame to encode.

Normally 192, but sometimes 160.

Groovielou

192 193 whatever it takes.....

320 CBR here also. Hard drives are getting cheaper all the time, so why not? :)

320 CBR Stereo, High Quality 41000hz

LOL Mr. Mom (Chuck) Nice refference. :)

Joker.... Didn't you mean 44.1K?

I use VBR joint stereo 100.

320 here

LOL Mr. Mom (Chuck) Nice refference. :)

Joker.... Didn't you mean 44.1K?

I use VBR joint stereo 100.

hmmm....yuppers your right.... I tried 48 but OtsDJ Boombox wont play that high.... yeah 44.1k is what I ment to say... but, I only mess with that setting when using Ots Studio anyway... when I use Audiograbber I use the highest setting for CBR....

VBR is to unpredictable if you ask me... but whos askin huh?

I use 256 CBR. I was going to go with 192 but.....

I can't tell the difference. I keep my entire library on the internal 160GB hard drive. It's actually only half full with 10,000 songs...

320 CBR. You're already degrading the sound by using lossy encoding...why make it worse by encoding at anything less than 320 CBR?

320 CBR. You're already degrading the sound by using lossy encoding...why make it worse by encoding at anything less than 320 CBR?

The only reason I can remember for ever going below 320 CBR was because at one time hdd space was limited and expensive... now you can pick up 500gb for less than $120.00....

I see no reason not to rip to the highest available... but, what I did was ripped to wav and saved the wav files to DVD-R for safe keeping and to an External HDD.

Why a dvd - r and not a cd r?

Why a dvd - r and not a cd r?

I can fit alot more wav files on DVD-R over CD-R... less to store in the firesafe and those are a back up to the backup hdd anyway

Most of mine are 256 CBR, But lately i've been trying windows "lossless"
wma. files.

Me thinks they sound great. (256 and wma) I still have an empty 320 gig h/d
to fill......

I bet John The 1 Saves his to 420 LOL oh yeah and also Rocket Rick.

I bet John The 1 Saves his to 420 LOL oh yeah and also Rocket Rick.


pfft 420 is for kids....

I'm savin mine all to 585.... now what!

God Bless the clueless Rob.

God Bless the clueless Rob.

Jon, aren't you ripping at 1280 CBRIDICULOUS? :sqerr:

Jon, aren't you ripping at 1280 CBRIDICULOUS? :sqerr:

Of course he is with his togoodtobetrue CD-R drive.

no but Im doing Maestro Gigs with a Bose two times now.

Bwahaha actually one tomorrow.

He has a new P-RESC-RIP-TION-MED-I-CATION external drive that he is proud of! :sqbiggrin:

BOSEis now offered by the Maestro!!

I'm typing this at Meadow Gardens, I've got unsecured internet !

BOSEis now offered by the Maestro!!

Over your dead body! :sqmad:

I still love ya buddy! :sqwink:

ok so hopefully someone hacks in and realizes you dont bring Bose to just any event. I typically rip to Wav!

what gig do you have there?

Christmas party dude! :sqbiggrin:

I intially ripped most of my library at 192, but switched to 320 using EAC with the LAME encoder.

When I was DJ'ing, it was 192

Now, everything is at 128 on my Zune. Saves space and I honestly can not tell the difference between the two on a small mp3 player.

Now, everything is at 128 on my Zune. Saves space and I honestly can not tell the difference between the two on a small mp3 player.
And that's the key, my friend. If you're listening on a high-resolution system, the difference cannot be ignored.

And that's the key, my friend. If you're listening on a high-resolution system, the difference cannot be ignored.

Oh I agree 100%, that is why I said that.

I could not tell a huge difference between 192 and 256 when DJing, but there is a noticeable difference between 192 and 128.

Nobody should be using less than 192 for DJing, there is almost zero bass response.

I would argue that it's the treble that takes a major hit the lower the bitrate goes. Bass too, but in my experience, it's the high end that suffers most. The resulting sound is limited bandwidth like an AM signal.

And you see, the point we agree on is my entire point about using as high a bitrate as possible on a DJ rig, unless your system is not very high end (high resolution)!

320 here but honestly I can't really hear a difference in 192 and 320

what better medium to hear the truth when enclosed in ear buds through a system filled with 128 or above songs? IF you cant hear it that way there is no way your going to hear it in a venue especially when the guests are talking or even less chance when they are dancing. Sort of like the stereo /mono factor at a gig.

I use 192 but I prefer to fit every last song I own on a 500 gig HD.

All mine are done at 192....

320 baby 365 days a year.... yeah baby!

I would argue that it's the treble that takes a major hit the lower the bitrate goes. Bass too, but in my experience, it's the high end that suffers most. The resulting sound is limited bandwidth like an AM signal.

And you see, the point we agree on is my entire point about using as high a bitrate as possible on a DJ rig, unless your system is not very high end (high resolution)!

A few years back I was exclusively using 160k MP3s. I couldn't tell the difference between the MP3s and CDs. I had our main engineer & our music programmer out at different events and did a side-by-side with them (because they said they'd be able to hear the difference). They weren't able to tell the difference either.

I think each DJ has their own opinion of 'high-end' system but I think my system at the time (which is the same system I run now) is pretty good. I use a Rane MP44 mixer, QSC PLX 3402 mixer & EV SX-300 speakers.

Is that system not high-end enough to be able to tell the difference between low quality MP3 & CDs?

I've been re-encoding what I can to 256CBR. Some of my older MP3+g files were 192CBR from the manufacturer, so not much I can do there....

A few years back I was exclusively using 160k MP3s. I couldn't tell the difference between the MP3s and CDs. I had our main engineer & our music programmer out at different events and did a side-by-side with them (because they said they'd be able to hear the difference). They weren't able to tell the difference either.

I think each DJ has their own opinion of 'high-end' system but I think my system at the time (which is the same system I run now) is pretty good. I use a Rane MP44 mixer, QSC PLX 3402 mixer & EV SX-300 speakers.

Is that system not high-end enough to be able to tell the difference between low quality MP3 & CDs?
In a noisy environment it is far less likely that someone would be able to hear a difference unless the sources were encoded with ridiculously low bit rates. What I was referring to was the low-budget equipment such as Realistic and things like that which you typically find non-serious beer-money people using.

I have no idea if your system is high-end enough, Jim. I haven't heard it. Reciting brand names and model numbers doesn't advance the argument, but I'm pretty sure your QSC unit is an amplifier! ;)

Doh! I've been listening to my mp3s at 320 and not happy at all... I ripped using normalization and I think that ruined some and helped others.... dang it.... i'm gonna rip to wav w/o normalization then encode to mp3 320.... lessen learned.... don't get me wrong they are ok... but i'm a little nerotic when it comes to quality.

i'm a little nerotic when it comes to quality.
Join the club, Rob!

Let me add a secret piece to the puzzle. If the original format is of low quality yes even on Vinyl or on CD the end results cant improve no matter the bitrate. Food for thought!!

In computereze, it's Garbage In, Garbage Out!

Bryan
COMPUTEREZE>????? I dont find any dictionary recognizing that as a word though it would be an acceptable score count in Scrabble if it were.

which you typically find non-serious beer-money people using.

I resemble that -- as Fred would say... :sqwink: :sqlaugh:


I test my stuff using studio amps, with studio monitors. Freq. response is roughly 10-100Khz on the amps, 18-50, or thereabouts on the monitors.

I have yet to find anyone who can tell the diff between a 320 MP3, and a CD in a fairly quiet environment.The firmware on the CD player, is also a factor.

In my listening room, running all tube (amps, CD player, pre-amp), yes, you can tell. But, that costs more than most folk's houses, and it would take a few days to bring it to a gig, and warm everything up.


I'm getting ready to pull the floor downstairs in the bar, replace it, and build a new showroom and listening room this spring. It will give folks the opportunity, to hear in different environments and noise floors. It's not really a place to showcase my products, more of a "My Room" place, so once completed, I hope many will come and enjoy :)

I am sooo tired of hearing the argument, that I am willing to invest the money to put the matter to rest :sqbiggrin:

Bryan
COMPUTEREZE>????? I dont find any dictionary recognizing that as a word though it would be an acceptable score count in Scrabble if it were.
Alright, so much for my little wordplay... "Computerese." No, "Computereeze." No, wait, "Compooterease." Wait, wait... :sqlaugh:

In a noisy environment it is far less likely that someone would be able to hear a difference unless the sources were encoded with ridiculously low bit rates. What I was referring to was the low-budget equipment such as Realistic and things like that which you typically find non-serious beer-money people using.

I have no idea if your system is high-end enough, Jim. I haven't heard it. Reciting brand names and model numbers doesn't advance the argument, but I'm pretty sure your QSC unit is an amplifier! ;)

The enviornment for the side-by-side blind test wasn't noisy...it was before the event started.

I guess I'm confused as to how you can say only 'high-end' equipment can you tell the difference but you can't qualify what high-end equipment is. If that's the case, you can't really say 'only on high-end equipment'. It seems it would be appropriate to say in your opinion 'on some systems' you can tell the difference.

I'd love to see a blind test done sometime at a DJ convention. There are so many DJs who say they can tell the difference I think it would be interesting to see how accurate they are.

perhaps we could convince a supplier to help us out for this test in Vegas Jim.

Good idea. Ben, are you reading this? Any way to make this part of your academy?

Jim phone Ben .

I guess I'm confused as to how you can say only 'high-end' equipment can you tell the difference but you can't qualify what high-end equipment is. If that's the case, you can't really say 'only on high-end equipment'. It seems it would be appropriate to say in your opinion 'on some systems' you can tell the difference.
I guess I'm confused as to how you can say that I said "only 'high-end'" anything. I never said that.

Jim, if I need to qualify what high-end equipment is for you, we're in serious trouble. I think you're just picking for a fight, and I'm not going to take the bait.