I see a lot of dance music download sites sell either 192kbps or 320kbps and all at constant bit rate. I know the CBR is better because apparently VBR doesn't allow for porper pitch control when DJ'ing, but on a big sound system will people hear the difference between 192 and 320...? Can anyone help before I start buying?

Depends on the encoder they use and what type of music it is (trance/techno/electro/downtempo?). If I were you, I'd download a few tracks and listen for myself.

Seems highly unlikely that people dancing would ever notice the difference. I base that on the following:

1) For most regular people (i.e non HA members) 192 kbps is pretty much transparant under normal listening conditions, even with headphones.
2) Loudspeaker listening makes it more difficult to spot the difference
3) People dancing are probably focused on dancing instead of finding MPEG artifacts.
4) In that kind of environment, MPEG artifacts must be the least annoying disturbance.
5) People may be drunk which really doesn't improve you hearing...

Why should VBR cause any problems? Been using VBR with Traktor / Final Scratch since the first release, never ran into trouble. I'd love to see more people using VBR (respectively lame--a-p s) cause it simply rules.

Ronny

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

In what "kind" of environment? Are all DJ/dance environments annoying and disturbing? To everyone?

Wow! Are people dancing to a DJ (or the DJ himself) statistically all that much more likely to be drunk, as well?

No trollism intended, and no offense meant. I simply couldn't let these points pass unchallenged.

Regards,
Madrigal

i workied 5 years as a barman, and 90% of the people go and drink, which doesn't make them drunk per se, but more relaxed for sure ... i think he refers to the noisy environment 99% of the dance club have today.

Maybe, but it seems to me that this sort of stereotyping and generalization is, at the very least, disrespectful to the original poster.

Regards,
Madrigal

Which encoder and what settings are being used?

hmm I'd tend to agree with 90% of the posts (on the social aspects) but bear this in mind.
If the 320 option is there I would take it over 192 even if it sounds transparent. As when something is amplified over multiple thousands of watts you'd be impressed by either
a)how many artifacts may become apparent
b)music detail gained, or
c)how mangled the music sounds (family disco setups lol)

I've heard mp3s played in a club and it was only noticeable in that it didn't sound as dynamic or transparent even though the human ear generally gets used to loudness over time(though this was me not everyone in the club is a sound nut). Also in terms of hardware a club is a very different beast from just a powerful hifi or separates. In most nightclubs they use horn tweeters which translates to lots of powerful treble but not so much in terms of fidelity as a good set of speakers but then again they aren't meant to be, so the high end can be sacrificed a small bit.
and not forgetting bass. Clubs usually have the first priority as making sure the bass fiends are happy.
There is still the old argument now-days that most DJ's prefer vinyl over cd's as the bass sounds warmer and more dynamic over a cd when amplified over a much louder volume. and a similar argument is now growing with mp3's and cd's
With vinyl it mostly comes from the same mastering process. but I would tend to prefer it as long as there is a good cartridge ie not a Stanton AL-500.

So if the 320 is there and same price I would take it, but the best option is to try yourself it if storage and portable use are a factor and see if you can actually notice it as hardware setups do vary allot. The 192vbr does seem to be aimed at more casual listeners than DJ's

I asked and apparently they use LAME with the highest quality(?) setting possible at 320kbps...

I was planning to then burn these to CD and use them on the Pioneer CDJ100... my concern really stems from whether if I'm playing on a club system there might be any kind of distortion from the 192's that wouldn't occur with 320's.

Thanks

If the 320's are the same price and you have the storage space, I'd get those.

This is simply incorrect. I'm sorry but somone had to say it. You will not have any "pitch control" problems with VBR.

There can be seeking issues though

Only if he is using poor software.

I'd say that the 320k versions are going to be detectably higher quality on at least some songs (e.g. --preset standard typically uses a quite a few frames over 192k on most music). Whether people are going to notice or care in a DJ setting could be debated until the end of time. Probably, 192k will be either transparent or nearly transparent most of the time. 320k will be transparent more often (even --preset standard, which is VBR and almost always transparent, isn't quite as good as 320k would be on some problem samples.) Unless there's a big difference in cost or you have serious bandwidth or space concerns, I would go with 320k. I'd wager you'd have few people notice if you went with 192 though.


Please be aware that you're encroaching on rule #8. Words like "dynamic" and "transparent" have meaning, but you're just sticking them in the middle of a sentence to make a vague and meaningless statement about quality.

"everyone, stop your dancing! I want to do a abx test!!





ok, i'll get my coat"

I don't know about DJ'ing in general but Andy webmaster on Hybridized.org encode's a lot of DJ set's artists give him using the --alt-preset-extreme. Those are just for downloading and listening though ;-D. In a club a don't think it would make a huge difference really. In practice though it's always good to make the best decisions especially from technical stadpoint. If you were talking about encoding DJ set's then I may tell you it would be really important to be concerned subjectively especially if it was from a soundboard mix ;-D.



Neither do I. In fact in terms of the MP3 codec in general I would probably think that it would be the most lenient in terms of audio post-processing due to it's subband nature. (I read it in a research paper on it once). Of course practice is different from theory.



How is that possible? Doesn't MP3 use exact packet header seeking? shouldn't seeking be effcient? I know Vorbis uses granular positioning and page sizing which slightly different mechanism.

If my post was seen as disrespectful, then I am sorry. That was not my intention.

But I must say I can't see where in my post I did "this sort of stereotyping and generalization". As you agreed on pts 1-3 I assume there is something i 4 and 5:

4. You misunderstood me. kwanbis got it right, I meant that the environment is quite noisy, as in someone screaming in your ear, vibrating interior, etc. Its just not a good envrionment to be listening for MPEG artifacts as there are other "artifacts" that may be louder.

5. Well i wrote "may be drunk". Thats not really a generalization. It wasn't meant to be anyway. In all clubs I ever attended most (but not everyone) were drunk anyway.

My point was that I find it so hard to believe that anyone would ever notice the artifacts of a 192kbps encoding in a club and I tried to give as many reasons as I could. Maybe I should have dropped the last one.

And maybe I am being too nitpicky and need to lighten up a little.

I apologize for being so harsh and critical. Your points were all well made.

Regards,
Madrigal

Same here! I've been using Traktor since V2 with lame APS without problems.

I have had problems in V2.6 with AAC files though.

magic75 > 5) People may be drunk which really doesn't improve you hearing...

They may be stoned tho... If by chance they have really high quality versions of what Ossie buys and their memory is not too dulled then they may be able to detect the difference...I think I could.

Hah...I've never really noticed having my hearing improved when I've gotten high...but I could be a minority on this one...

Too funny though.

Hearing can potentially improve with certain (recreational) drugs,
Hallucinogens - Psilocybin, LSD, Peyote
Drugs which increase sympathetic activity - Cocaine, Dexedrine..
Certain Opioids... (anecdotal)

Cannabis and Alcohol should decrease hearing acuity, by impairing attention.

Harish

No.


http://www.foobar2000.org/FAQ.html#FAQ_t4

Yea, VBR seeking is sometimes problematic (as is file length) on my Iaudio I5 and the above sounds like the basis for the problem.

EDIT: Also, most of the stores that I believe the OP is referring to actually charge a higher premium for higher bitrate due to the added bandwidth cost. Some of those include Beatport, EDMDigital, Fiberlineaudio and DJDownload.

I will testify to that, brother. Everything seems to be improved with LSD, except for your ability to concentrate on more than one thing at a time. When you're tripping, whatever you are doing, you are doing completely. Extremely narrow focus.

Err.... so I've heard.

could be that you perceive THE TRUTH while tripping in the mojo-club
as long as i've heard

In such a situation I would go for as much headroom as possible. Imagine a difficult to encode song. At 192kbps maybe 5% in the club will notice and will be annoyed of being blasted with artifacts at 100dB. At 320kbps perhaps only 0.5% will notice. As a DJ it is your responsibility to make sure people are having a great time and I would minimize the risk of someone getting pissed off about sound quality.

Usually you will have some postprocessing in the club from equalizing to multiband dynamic compression. Postprocessing allways bears the risk of exposing artifacts which were previously masked. 320kbps will give you some more headroom.

Then there is the high volume. At these levels the perception of equal loudness is different than under normal listening conditions. I have no idea if that also changes the masking thresholds. I assume this has been researched. Perhaps someone can shed some light on this?

Please be aware that you're encroaching on rule #8. I suggest we set-up an ABX test for that.

I'm going to have agree otto on this one. While expierimenting with a certain, all natural, green drug, I swear I can hear digital music better. Maybe we should split this to Scientific/R&D thread for more analyis.
It could be interesting.

But seriously, most people in a dance club can't ABX a 192kbps mp3 from a 320kbps in the given setting. If HD space is no object I would just go for 320kbps for your listening enjoyment or just use lossless.

just to stay on-topic

in my time as a dj (who did not?) i sometimes played death-metal
with 128kbps xing mp3s. the ringing on hi-hats is obvious but
at a noisy club the drunken ones don't care.

drugs just make you hear different not better.

Or even hear things that aren't there

LOL, idk about drugs but I'm sure that alcohol doesn't affect hearing. Sure it affects how much one cares about what they're hearing, but thats it

I know this from experience because I often listen out for compression artifacts, when I'm sober and when I'm drunk.

As for the DJ environment, most night club speakers aren't designed for quality anyway, just loudness. 192kbps should be fine, but I'd personally go for 320kbps