MP3 Bit Rate

To many ads? Support ODJT and see no ads!
B

bballgt00

New DJ
Jun 4, 2009
79
0
Cincinnati
Help educate me.

I've been out of DJ for the last 4 years, and I've always used full uncompressed wave files - either CDs or drop to computer as wavs. With 1100 Watts, it sounded crunched, muddled if I didn't...but this was back in the day of 128 kbps and 192 was upper end with I guess less sophisticated compression technics.

Today, with 256 kbps common.... hmmmm -I'm not sure anymore. In fact, past 192 kbps, I think it becomes hard to tell.

Whats the standard? Are Computer DJs (as this forum is titled) using full wavs (since hard drive space is cheap) or are we now happy with mp3 at 256...or even 192
 
I've been saving my files at 320 kbps CBR. I'm inching my way to using them, but I'm still CD based, for now.
 
While WAV and other lossless formats are ideal for playback as they have the least amount of data loss (music loss) most times unless you are listening on a very high end system you would probably be hard pressed to tell the difference between a WAV file and an MP3 at 320kbs CBR

There are some major benifiets to mp3

#1 Tagging of files.... unfortunately you can not attach readable tagging information to a WAV file that DJ programs will pick up on.

#2 File loading.... it takes much longer to load a 30-40MB file into most DJ software players buffer than it does to load say an 8-12mb file... the larger the file the more resources it's going to take to play.

Now there are other Lossless formats that do allow you to tag them and some but not all of the most popular DJ programs read or even play them and the top two are FLAC and OGG... also there is the ACC format which is Apples.... all four of these formats do allow for tagging but as I mentioned not all of the top DJ programs will even play them.

So where does that leave us.... mp3 at the highest bit rate possible.... it's taggable and easy to load into many if not all popular DJ programs...
 
I rip at 320 because space is cheap but honestly I can't hear a difference beyond 192
 
I rip to FLAC, and keep that archive at the house. Then I convert to 224 CBR on a smaller hard drive that I take with me to events. I can't tell a difference between 320 and 224, and I have the original FLAC's on a hard drive at home in case I ever want to convert to 320.
 
I can tell the difference between .wav/.flac files versus 192 encoded when listening on headphones. But having my library in .wav leaves enough flexiblity to play them on any device now, and convert it to any future format.

Hard drives are cheap. Music isn't (ask that mom in Minnesota)
 
320 and wavs for me.
 
I use exclusively 320 and I have convinced myself I can hear the difference between 320 and 192 or lower. I find that the details of the music (rhythm guitar, snare drums etc) deteriorate especially in the treble...and occasionally the bass is not as smooth. I listen to Pandora, for example, and have a paid subscription which guarantees higher quality audio (192) and I believe I can tell the difference between it and CD quality or 320kbps...
 
I rip to flac also and use that with my dj program. If I have to buy a track I try to get 320. Harddrives are cheap now so fill it up with quality.
 
most of mine are from and between 160 and 320 not VBR but will be set at CBR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back