Finally!! We may see 24 bit, high-fidelity downloads!

[Gaffle]

oh god here we go again, mine is better than yours debate

look a client can NOT tell what your using in a LOUD club with 500 people
drunk, talking, trying to sing, and all the background noise going on

oh thats right one will come into a club and make this statement

"Hey this crap isnt 320k @ 24bit sound lets go someplace it is"

what a load of crap


I would love to off a huge amount of money to set up in the USA
(as I have already done here at the UNI of WA 15 years ago)

a Club to show that maybe one person out of say 500 could tell 2% of whats playing

where there is so much noise while the dj is playing , people talking, being drunk falling over in front of you

that you wouldnt have a real clue what the sound quality is and even what MEDIUM was....
that includes using 8-track, reel to reel, cassettes, records (here you would if the records scratched) CDs, and including mp3's

NOT ONE PERSONS EAR, CAN DISTINGUSH FROM WHAT TYPE OF MEDIUM IS PLAYED PERIOD!! - WHAT SO EVER

and dont act big and say you can, because you havent done this sort of experiment before

I have and thats why I am saying it should be done AGAIN to show what the real difference is!!!

have a nice day!

I disagree with most of the above. You must have not been DJ'ing a very long time because you wouldn't make such blanket statements especially if you've used vinyl. A couple of years ago, I played along side a House music DJ who had not yet switched to Serato. He was playing original vinyl (12"s). I was using MP3 (256k-320k). To bring him on my setup, he blended in the vinyl version of the 320k mp3 I was playing... there was a vast difference in the sound. The sound was so much fuller (warmer) and the difference in the bass impact was easily noticeable. We had to turn down the bass because we picked up feedback on the 1200 turntables being used. We went back and forth in sets and my digital music files sounded thin and very brittle compared to his vinyl.

... so yes, there is a difference in the sound with different mediums and the also with the quality of music format we're using in the digital realm (WAV vs. mp3 vs. 64k mp3 vs. 128k mp3 vs. 320k mp3, etc). If you can't tell the difference between a 64K mp3 and a 320K mp3, you need your hearing checked.

Sure, if most of your patrons are sloppy drunk, they're not caring about music sound quality... they're most likely trying to look at tail in the club. I've come behind other DJ's in sets who had questionable Limewire sourced music. Most of my music collection is ripped from CDs at 320K or from quality record pools. I've seen the crowd's energy increase with my better sounding, harder hitting music files compared to theirs. If you're the type of person that cares about your sound, you'd do your best to insure you're getting the best quality music files along with quality equipment. If you're the type that is playing on cheap Nady speakers, you probably won't notice or care about the difference.

So would you buy cheap shoes for your kids feet? ...They're just kids, it doesn't matter, they grow like weeds anyway.

Cheap tires for your wife's car? ...Nobody'll notice, they're on the dirty concrete anyways... it doesn't rain here very often either... she'll just need to go extra slow in the rain.

Cheap dog food for your dog? ...It's just a dog, he'll eat anything.

 

[jokerswild]

oh god here we go again, mine is better than yours debate

look a client can NOT tell what your using in a LOUD club with 500 people
drunk, talking, trying to sing, and all the background noise going on

oh thats right one will come into a club and make this statement

"Hey this crap isnt 320k @ 24bit sound lets go someplace it is"

what a load of crap


I would love to off a huge amount of money to set up in the USA
(as I have already done here at the UNI of WA 15 years ago)

a Club to show that maybe one person out of say 500 could tell 2% of whats playing

where there is so much noise while the dj is playing , people talking, being drunk falling over in front of you

that you wouldnt have a real clue what the sound quality is and even what MEDIUM was....
that includes using 8-track, reel to reel, cassettes, records (here you would if the records scratched) CDs, and including mp3's

NOT ONE PERSONS EAR, CAN DISTINGUSH FROM WHAT TYPE OF MEDIUM IS PLAYED PERIOD!! - WHAT SO EVER

and dont act big and say you can, because you havent done this sort of experiment before

I have and thats why I am saying it should be done AGAIN to show what the real difference is!!!

have a nice day!

I disagree with most of the above. You must have not been DJ'ing a very long time because you wouldn't make such blanket statements especially if you've used vinyl. A couple of years ago, I played along side a House music DJ who had not yet switched to Serato. He was playing original vinyl (12"s). I was using MP3 (256k-320k). To bring him on my setup, he blended in the vinyl version of the 320k mp3 I was playing... there was a vast difference in the sound. The sound was so much fuller (warmer) and the difference in the bass impact was easily noticeable. We had to turn down the bass because we picked up feedback on the 1200 turntables being used. We went back and forth in sets and my digital music files sounded thin and very brittle compared to his vinyl.

... so yes, there is a difference in the sound with different mediums and the also with the quality of music format we're using in the digital realm (WAV vs. mp3 vs. 64k mp3 vs. 128k mp3 vs. 320k mp3, etc). If you can't tell the difference between a 64K mp3 and a 320K mp3, you need your hearing checked.

Sure, if most of your patrons are sloppy drunk, they're not caring about music sound quality... they're most likely trying to look at tail in the club. I've come behind other DJ's in sets who had questionable Limewire sourced music. Most of my music collection is ripped from CDs at 320K or from quality record pools. I've seen the crowd's energy increase with my better sounding, harder hitting music files compared to theirs. If you're the type of person that cares about your sound, you'd do your best to insure you're getting the best quality music files along with quality equipment. If you're the type that is playing on cheap Nady speakers, you probably won't notice or care about the difference.

So would you buy cheap shoes for your kids feet? ...They're just kids, it doesn't matter, they grow like weeds anyway.

Cheap tires for your wife's car? ...Nobody'll notice, they're on the dirty concrete anyways... it doesn't rain here very often either... she'll just need to go extra slow in the rain.

Cheap dog food for your dog? ...It's just a dog, he'll eat anything.

Oh Shyt..... wait you two let me get some popcorn and soda.... this is going to be good..... :triwink:

 

[SoftJock Rick]

Oh Shyt..... wait you two let me get some popcorn and soda.... this is going to be good..... :triwink:

Heck, I'm in the Man Cave, with a 2 hour warmup on the tubes, thermal blackout curtains -- and I still have a hard time discerning a 192 versus 320 mp3...

On the other hand, my WAVs sound very good through the HRT DAC -- not sure I'd waste that on folks dancing though...

 

[jokerswild]

OK im ready I've got a bowl of fresh popcorn and a six pack.... ding ding

 

[Gaffle]

Oh Shyt..... wait you two let me get some popcorn and soda.... this is going to be good..... :triwink:

No attack on that dude... this goes to anyone who thinks sound quality of the music doesn't matter. I'll aim to further set myself apart from you (the competition) with a higher quality sound anywhere possible.

 

[jokerswild]

No attack on that dude... this goes to anyone who thinks sound quality of the music doesn't matter. I'll aim to further set myself apart from you (the competition) with a higher quality sound anywhere possible.

I know that... I was just waiting for the cat fight to ensue.... or the mines bigger than yours argument..... or humanities all time most important debate........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
MP3 vs (insert format of choice)

 

[DJ J Mac]

No attack on that dude... this goes to anyone who thinks sound quality of the music doesn't matter. I'll aim to further set myself apart from you (the competition) with a higher quality sound anywhere possible.

Yeah, but like was mentioned earlier in this thread, a high quality sound file won't do a lick of good if the gear playing it isn't up to par.

 

[Gaffle]

Yeah, but like was mentioned earlier in this thread, a high quality sound file won't do a lick of good if the gear playing it isn't up to par.

Yep... and vice versa.

My setup is quality gear and I want the best music files possible (or feasible) to take advantage of it. Bring on the 24bit files Apple.

 

[SoftJock Rick]

Yep... and vice versa.

My setup is quality gear and I want the best music files possible (or feasible) to take advantage of it. Bring on the 24bit files Apple.

What interconnects are you using Gaffle...?

 

[DjDennis]

I disagree with most of the above. You must have not been DJ'ing a very long time because you wouldn't make such blanket statements especially if you've used vinyl.

so 34+ years is not long enough gee
looks like this guy needs to be a true professional first
then he can show others how its done

look I dont care how others see things I especially dont care how you see it

its the CLIENTS that really dictate it all
and if they are happy hearing it and it sounds good (not how you think they do)

so you have a nice day and buy the highest quality and be told to get more high quality music to please them

I get work all the time and thats because I have done it long enough to know more than you seem to

night all *yawn*
start the mine is bigger than yours aguement, it gets old after 20x years of it!

 

[DJ Freddy]

A DJ should always go for the best quality of sound as possible no matter how many years you've been in the business or what DJ you are Mobile or Club. A mobile can never predict the future, you might get hired one day to play at an event which has live sound concert style and needs you to play some music. I know I have been hired to play Calle 8 on Univision Stage a while ago and I played some songs that needed to be re ripped since the quality was not the best it could be.

I for one will always try to go for the highest and best quality possible and it does not take 50 years in the business to learn that! :tribiggrin:

 

[Sounds To Go]

There are convincing points on both sides of the isle.

Err too far to the "good enough" is GOOD ENOUGH side, and you run the risk of getting left behind and stuck in a rut - and eventually becoming obsolete. Err too far on the side of the "latest and greatest," and the most you risk is spending more money than you possibly "should have" and maybe jumping on one or two band wagons that don't make it all the way out of the station.

At the end of the day you can be successful with either approach. As long as you are meeting and exceeding your clients' expectations in all you do, that's all that matters.

And only your booking calender can attest to whether or not you are doing that - regardless of the bit-rate of your files.

 

[Gaffle]

so 34+ years is not long enough gee

Evidently, in 34+ years, you haven't learned there's a sound quality difference between sound media: vinyl, cassette and mp3... if you were so experienced, you wouldn't have been spouting the nonsense you mentioned earlier.

I get work all the time and thats because I have done it long enough to know more than you seem to

You don't know what I get. I DJ part time (as a money-paying hobby) and I'm sure I'm better at you in all respects as it relates to DJ'ing.

 

[Gaffle]

What interconnects are you using Gaffle...?

I use Mogami balanced XLR with Neutrik connectors purchased from Ebay vendors. I'm privy to the only good as your weakest link rule.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Personally speaking, I think we've been settling for "good enough" for too long! What happened to the United States that develops and uses the BEST ! Audio today sucks!
I have never liked CD's, I definitely do not like mp3's, to my ear it's loud harsh lifeless crap with no character or nuance, just annoying artifacts.

Gee, lookit that! After years of calling me names because I have stated how bad MP3s sound to me, it seems a few are finally coming out of the audio closet. How nice!

I've always rated it as follows:

Vinyl for most complete range.

CDs for clarity

High end tapes have a bit less range than vinyl, but more than CD. However, are second to CDs for clarity.

After that, WAVs and similar files for the PC.

MP3s were never MEANT to be anything but sampler files for use in earlier slower transmission rate mediums and stored in what was expensive memory at the time. One was supposed to listen to them, decide if they like the music, then go buy the real thing.

If one doesn't have the capability to hear the difference, the use of a scope will tell the tale- ESPECIALLY when it comes to MP3s.

As for noticing the differences: It's not hearing ability, but the range of one's hearing that enables one to be able to tell or not.

Hearing studies suggest that between 15-20% of the genpop has the capability. Whether they care or not is something else.

MP3s lack a HUGE part of the original audio information. While mixers are wonderful things ( and MUCH more depended on in the "K" profession), they can only enhance what is there, not add what isn't.

In my case, I hear MP3s as tinny and flat, but others who's extended range goes the other way, hear them as one who hears a mic eating vocalist- lacking clarity and richness.

So I guess that ANY improvement has to be a plus.

 

[DjDennis]

Well Joe looks like its that same old war - Mines bigger than yours!!

happening all over again

 

[DougF]

If Phillips hadn't bought and buried the patents for the laser pickup cartridge for turntables and standard LP's 45's EPs, 12" Singles etc... we'd have a whole different ball game today.

Laser turntables still exist but use different and very expensive technology not covered by the buried patents. So we have $10K Laser turntables, instead of the ballpark of a 1200.

 

[Sounds To Go]

Bravo Joe!

 

[maestro]

I have been thinking of re-ripping just my popular tracks as WAV files but haven't got around to it. Over the years, I have received so many compliments about my sound that I don't see it to me a pressing matter. I play mainly MP3's ripped at 192 kbps and use my Gateway's on-board sound card to feed my mixer. Monitoring is done through a tiny, no-name external USB sound-card. I do still plan on getting around to the re-rip one day. Just the main tracks like Billie Jean, Yeah and the like. Do you think it would be worth while?

 

[Sounds To Go]

I have been thinking of re-ripping just my popular tracks as WAV files but haven't got around to it. Over the years, I have received so many compliments about my sound that I don't see it to me a pressing matter. I play mainly MP3's ripped at 192 kbps and use my Gateway's on-board sound card to feed my mixer. Monitoring is done through a tiny, no-name external USB sound-card. I do still plan on getting around to the re-rip one day. Just the main tracks like Billie Jean, Yeah and the like. Do you think it would be worth while?

I think that would be a great idea. I keep all my music on an external because I have a old laptop that doesnt have a high capacity HD. But I do have a folder on my desktop with the Mobile Beat Top 200. Then I just add the new tracks each year so it is obviously creeping over 200 each year by a few tracks. I would re-rip this list to WAV.