Open the door, get on the floor, Everybody Walk the Dinosaur.
GJ
GJ
New Format other than MP3 (maybe better)
- Thread starter DjDennis
- Start date
maybe...maybe...if I did those parties where everyone has headphones...i would worry about a new improved format.
but with loud speakers playing for large crowds, people can't detect the format, or the bit rate. So it's not something I worry about
but with loud speakers playing for large crowds, people can't detect the format, or the bit rate. So it's not something I worry about
While I agree with you in a broad sense that loud PA and the resulting ear fatigue covers a large swath of audio imperfection it still becomes painfully obvious when your bit rate drops below 256. So, while you do not need to be concerned much about format you should be concerned about bit rate.
I think we notice it. I used to use 128K as recently as 6-7 years ago, and no one heard much difference .. and we did some tests with the CD. If you actually listened for a difference, it was there, but if you didn't know, I don't recall anyone ever identifying it. Heck, I remember when MP3 players first came out in the late 90s and we had songs in 32K and 64K to fit a dozen songs on the 4 or 8Mb memories that were in the players.
I agree that if you are listening for it, and you know one is different, you can tell. If the dj played the same song twice and asked which one was the 320....some people could get it right. But they could be easily fooled by an increase in volume.
I thinks it's nearly impossible for someone in a crowd to hear a song and notice a bit rate
Most today of mine are 256 or 320, but I still have songs I ripped years ago that are still fine.
I thinks it's nearly impossible for someone in a crowd to hear a song and notice a bit rate
Most today of mine are 256 or 320, but I still have songs I ripped years ago that are still fine.
You all do realize that in a few years, bit rate will become a thing of the past as actually "owning" music you buy on-line will be changed from having an mp3 on a drive to having it available in the clouds.
I still can't wrap my head around this whole "cloud" concept..nor do i trust it...yet.
The technology available to us in this business and the way we get, keep and play our music for events will change drastically (IMHO) as well.
I'm not preaching all fire and brimstone here...just speculating on what the future holds for us as far as the way we buy, keep and play music and movies (and books for that matter)...
It's exciting and a little scary at the same time. What say you?
I still can't wrap my head around this whole "cloud" concept..nor do i trust it...yet.
The technology available to us in this business and the way we get, keep and play our music for events will change drastically (IMHO) as well.
I'm not preaching all fire and brimstone here...just speculating on what the future holds for us as far as the way we buy, keep and play music and movies (and books for that matter)...
It's exciting and a little scary at the same time. What say you?
I actually still enjoy buying CD's and vinyl. After ripping and modifying the tracks they go into storage with a lock and key. The digital WAV files go to storage with multiple backups (Learned this from everyday use of high performance race engines) and the mp3's also go into multiple backups just in case and they're also under lock and key.
As mentioned before I'll start on FLAC conversion from my WAV files and enjoy things.
Change is good, but the change has to be in a forward direction with the best quality in sound. While the vast majority of people can't tell the difference with different bit rates, our ears seem to have an edge over them so bad sound kills our hearing
As mentioned before I'll start on FLAC conversion from my WAV files and enjoy things.
Change is good, but the change has to be in a forward direction with the best quality in sound. While the vast majority of people can't tell the difference with different bit rates, our ears seem to have an edge over them so bad sound kills our hearing
It may just be the nature of using much larger sound systems than what is used for weddings and so on but I do not need to be listening for it to hear when a DJ is using shitty files.
As a systems administrator who works with "cloud" technology daily it's not that scary don't worry
I'm not sure we'll ever seen music/media purchases ever go fully cloud as there are still outlier instances where offline files are necessary and if you look at the video game industry there is always massive resistance to "always online" technology. If the industry tries to force cloud stored music over file downloads hackers will come up with a way to rip it and store it and then piracy will redouble so I don't see them doing that.
It may just be the nature of using much larger sound systems than what is used for weddings and so on but I do not need to be listening for it to hear when a DJ is using shitty files.
As a systems administrator who works with "cloud" technology daily it's not that scary don't worry
Not sure it's the size of the sound system, but more likely the targeted use. In a partially noisy room, with general PA components (non audiophile), the equipment and the venue/clients will be a limiting factor in listening to nuances. In a near-field situation, yes, most can hear even the small drop-off to 320K when cuts are played successively. But in a real world PA environment, I'll stand with what I said, that the vast majority of those listening won't hear a difference down to 256K and will accept 128K, if not given a reference.
As for the cloud, my company sells cloud solutions, software, hardware, services, hosting .. everything. Jim, think of the cloud as just an external hardrive that's just located out of sight. Or think of it as your laptop, where you have a remote control to it. We all use web applications, and that's all cloud to us ... google docs, google mail, yahoo mail, bing, all cloud based services. Music has been cloud enabled for a while .. think Rhapsody, Pandora, GrooveShark, Sirius/XM on your PC .. it'll just be more fine tunable. Instead of downloading your pool cuts, you simply select them and play them remotely.
Not quite there due to issues with data/WiFi availability, but within a few years, it will be uncommon to not be able to access everything, everywhere.
Maybe .. but I find that hard to believe when there are areas within an hour of DC that barely have good cell service and still don't have cable or DSL.
Look I already told and asked if anyone is willing to do a TEST on how I did one for uni many years ago
but it seems all djs (sorry) are to ignoramus to how to go about handling things
I went to a university for a student to take trials in how sound travels and how we so called PUBLIC can read what format something is played on..
the formats are:
78 records (but anyone can tell on these)
--
Reel to Reel
Cassette
Vinyl
CD
DVD
MP3 (320kbps)
--
now we set up over 100 people in a Club for 3hrs only
to get a test result on what they can work out what is what and if it was A computer playing
where they had to match to see on if they could tell any difference
they could make as much noise themself over the 3hrs talk scream whatever as long as the result was
written down after they was told the song being played
each song was played 6x times for just on 1.5mins
each song had a number - eg 1, 2, 3 etc
after it was over they spend a few days going over 150 answers (wish I still had the last results)
when I looked at them not 1 (that is) NOT 1 of them could tell the Difference (except a Vinyl record)
if it was played on the following
Reel to Reel
Cassette (metal)
CD
DVD
MP3 (320kbps)
if you think its crap then you do the same type of experiment and release the results
unfortunately the results I had, I lost when I moved house in 2000
lost a heap of things then but as I saw I may have to go and try this again here
to see how it rates today
as for playing or testing at home - there is no contest....
it was set up to see if the general public could tell what format etc is playing
while there is a LOT of noise and talking going on
well up to you but no one has the guts to try it in the USA / Canada etc..
have a nice day all
but it seems all djs (sorry) are to ignoramus to how to go about handling things
I went to a university for a student to take trials in how sound travels and how we so called PUBLIC can read what format something is played on..
the formats are:
78 records (but anyone can tell on these)
--
Reel to Reel
Cassette
Vinyl
CD
DVD
MP3 (320kbps)
--
now we set up over 100 people in a Club for 3hrs only
to get a test result on what they can work out what is what and if it was A computer playing
where they had to match to see on if they could tell any difference
they could make as much noise themself over the 3hrs talk scream whatever as long as the result was
written down after they was told the song being played
each song was played 6x times for just on 1.5mins
each song had a number - eg 1, 2, 3 etc
after it was over they spend a few days going over 150 answers (wish I still had the last results)
when I looked at them not 1 (that is) NOT 1 of them could tell the Difference (except a Vinyl record)
if it was played on the following
Reel to Reel
Cassette (metal)
CD
DVD
MP3 (320kbps)
if you think its crap then you do the same type of experiment and release the results
unfortunately the results I had, I lost when I moved house in 2000
lost a heap of things then but as I saw I may have to go and try this again here
to see how it rates today
as for playing or testing at home - there is no contest....
it was set up to see if the general public could tell what format etc is playing
while there is a LOT of noise and talking going on
well up to you but no one has the guts to try it in the USA / Canada etc..
have a nice day all
I think the issue is the old chicken and the egg .. until the media suppliers and the media players support a new format, AND there is a significant benefit to change to it, then it's just not worth the effort. Not sure the "significant" benefit is there for standard playback. Maybe as we move to a streaming model it may handle that better, and then the suppliers and players adapt.
From what I hear, there just isn't a reason to move from .mp3 to another lossy format.
As for a lossless format, the jury is out, since .wav is possible due to cheap disc space, but doesn't do Tagging well, and no other format has been a clear heir apparent.
From what I hear, there just isn't a reason to move from .mp3 to another lossy format.
As for a lossless format, the jury is out, since .wav is possible due to cheap disc space, but doesn't do Tagging well, and no other format has been a clear heir apparent.
I don't think I'd try it not because of a lack of "guts" but because I am never going to play cassette, reel to reel, or dvd audio in any professional setting. Reel to Reel is dead and impractical, cassette is dead and impractical, and I don't know where one could buy DVD audio and if you're burning your own it will be indistinguishable from the source (320 Kbps MP3 to DVD is still 320 Kbps MP3.) The only real format debate is digital vs vinyl and it's well established that vinyl has the distinct sound with its clicks and pops, wow and flutter, and subjectively a "warmer" feeling.
The actual debates are Lossless vs Lossy, VBR vs CBR, and bitrate. Which have been studied... Countless music sites and blogs have run their own "studies" with self-selected samples and self-reported results, actual researchers have performed testing in labs, and there is a mountain of anecdotal evidence all over forums and online communities.
There is an objective difference between various formats and bitrates and you can look at the technical specifications of each to see those objective differences. For example it is a fact that a 128 Kbps MP3 has discarded information from the audible part of the data... It is a subjective question however whether or not people will notice.
In this day and age with storage as cheap as it is I don't understand why anyone would buy anything other than 320Kbps or Lossless.
I think at some point, people (or vendors) will avoid locations that don't offer WiFi .. that or data plans will be affordable enough to cover the vast majority of places you would need it.
There will always be outliers, and the technology will adapt. The new all you can eat music plan from VDJ is like that. Access any cut they have anytime .. if you think you will be off the grid, you can download what you need and it will work offline for some period of time before you need to reconnect and verify your service contract.
Maybe .. maybe not. I don't think most customers are asking if a location has wifi before they book their party nor do I think most of them care. They're having a party, not an online social event. I get that about VDJ but access and connectivity may still be issues. I rely on one connection - my own - and even that is not 100% reliable.
I would need something I could download and fully depend on all the time. If you can't be fully dependent on it, how on earth can you convince your customers that it is. Also, currently a large amount of places require a fee to access their wifi's. While you may add this in to your cost - this is yet another untrusted and unknown connection which may or may not have its own access and reliability issues.
Just saying ... my opinion .. that streaming and always available access (whether by WiFi, cellular or satellite) will be a given in not many years.
I would suspect there will be a good number of DJs that will at some point only accept jobs where they can be connected and a number of venues that will be avoided if they don't provide it. DJs will charge extra (same as a place that has no power) for an internet alternative if needed.
That's what my crystal ball comes up with.
I don't disagree - but why not just be prepared and have the music you need. Why the need for a dependency? IMO, this makes you unprepared and less valuable.
Using your scenario, what will these people do when that link goes down because someone knocked out the Internet?
Using your scenario, what will these people do when that link goes down because someone knocked out the Internet?
I need WiFi for other reasons. I offer live video streaming of events and to do this I need WiFi or a connection to a router.
Unfortunately anything can break, so the key is redundant backup. If you're going to stream from the internet and can get WiFi access at the venue great, if you can't time to look at the cell phone big internet plans, maybe 2 cell phones but those can also break so some CD's and if those fail or the iPod fails then a harmonica and some bongos Nah, seriously forget about the last two
Nah, seriously forget about the last two 
There is no question that I notice, without trying (and am bothered by) anything 128Kbps or lower. I'm talking MP3 here, not wma or anything else. There is a very distinct difference, and I have a feeling a big part of people not noticing is the older folks who are missing frequencies, notably the higher frequencies, of their hearing.
I would never claim to be able to tell a 256Kbps MP3 from a wav file. That would be tricky, and would likely require specific tracks to hear any difference that most (and by most I mean anyone at random) would be able to discern.
I find it hilarious how many old people buy Bose Wave Radios at obscene prices, and they can't even hear the "quality" of it. Heck, most are happy with AM radio.
I'd love to be able to download my digitally-purchased music, someday, as lossless files -- more on principal than anything else, as they're all respectable quality as far as MP3 goes, but if people are going to come in here and say that 128Kbps MP3s are acceptable, they're dreaming. For older files, maybe. Footloose and older I'd say. For anything newer, it's obvious.
I would never claim to be able to tell a 256Kbps MP3 from a wav file. That would be tricky, and would likely require specific tracks to hear any difference that most (and by most I mean anyone at random) would be able to discern.
I find it hilarious how many old people buy Bose Wave Radios at obscene prices, and they can't even hear the "quality" of it. Heck, most are happy with AM radio.
I'd love to be able to download my digitally-purchased music, someday, as lossless files -- more on principal than anything else, as they're all respectable quality as far as MP3 goes, but if people are going to come in here and say that 128Kbps MP3s are acceptable, they're dreaming. For older files, maybe. Footloose and older I'd say. For anything newer, it's obvious.