Are 192kbps MP3s of a high enough quality that they can stand up to playing
on a monster club sound system? I've heard recommendations of a higher
bitrate but would 192 suffice?

TIA.

Jase wrote:
Are 192kbps MP3s of a high enough quality that they can stand up to
playing on a monster club sound system? I've heard recommendations of
a higher bitrate but would 192 suffice?

hmmm... if Club is running Bose/JBL/Peavey then maybe, if it's running Opus
/ EAW / Turbosound / Meyer then you'll be able to tell the difference
bitween 192 and 320 or uncompressed. YMMV.

"Tim S Kemp" wrote in message
...
Jase wrote:
Are 192kbps MP3s of a high enough quality that they can stand up to
playing on a monster club sound system? I've heard recommendations of
a higher bitrate but would 192 suffice?

hmmm... if Club is running Bose/JBL/Peavey then maybe, if it's running
Opus
/ EAW / Turbosound / Meyer

Are you talking about speakers or other equipment?

then you'll be able to tell the difference
bitween 192 and 320 or uncompressed. YMMV.

How exactly will you tell the difference? Will it just be poor quality or
will there be any unwanted "effects"?

In article ,
says...

How exactly will you tell the difference? Will it just be poor quality or
will there be any unwanted "effects"?

Both.
------------
Alex

"Alex Rodriguez" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

How exactly will you tell the difference? Will it just be poor quality or
will there be any unwanted "effects"?

Both.
------------
Alex


You all must go to pretty fancy clubs where everyone is quiet and the music
is played softly enough that you can even understand what the singer is
singing. The acoustics in most clubs combined with the ambient noise makes
for such a poor listening experience to begin with that I doubt anyone would
notice the difference between an MP3 and a CD. You might notice a loss of
bass with some tracks though.

citronzx wrote:

You all must go to pretty fancy clubs where everyone is quiet and the music
is played softly enough that you can even understand what the singer is
singing. The acoustics in most clubs combined with the ambient noise makes
for such a poor listening experience to begin with that I doubt anyone would
notice the difference between an MP3 and a CD. You might notice a loss of
bass with some tracks though.

Excuse my ignorance but how are you going to lose bass
with any bitrate of mp3?

Last time I made some mp3s I used LAME and tried various
bitrates until SWMBO said it was ok. We settled on variable
bitrate with a minimum of 128kbps.

--
Roger.

"Old Fart at Play" wrote in message
...
citronzx wrote:

You all must go to pretty fancy clubs where everyone is quiet and the
music
is played softly enough that you can even understand what the singer is
singing. The acoustics in most clubs combined with the ambient noise
makes
for such a poor listening experience to begin with that I doubt anyone
would
notice the difference between an MP3 and a CD. You might notice a loss
of
bass with some tracks though.

Excuse my ignorance but how are you going to lose bass
with any bitrate of mp3?

Last time I made some mp3s I used LAME and tried various
bitrates until SWMBO said it was ok. We settled on variable
bitrate with a minimum of 128kbps.

--
Roger.


To tell you the truth I don't know enough about the compression algorithm to
say why. My evidence only anecdotal. If I rip a cd and compare the mp3
ripped version to the original off the cd both played from my computer there
seems to be a reduction in bass in the mp3 version. Now, I am very willing
to admit that this my just be a psychological effect but that is way that it
seems to sound to me.

citronzx wrote:

To tell you the truth I don't know enough about the compression algorithm to
say why. My evidence only anecdotal. If I rip a cd and compare the mp3
ripped version to the original off the cd both played from my computer there
seems to be a reduction in bass in the mp3 version. Now, I am very willing
to admit that this my just be a psychological effect but that is way that it
seems to sound to me.

I've never heard actual loss of bass with the LAME encoder, but I have heard
a substantial loss of bass definition. Stuff goes from being clean and well
defined to being flabby and centered on one note. But then again, on a club
system you probably can't tell.

And forget about bass imaging. But then, few playback systems have any real
bass imaging anyway, let alone club rigs.

I think what you'll notice first is weirdness on the top end, but it might
be just fine for dance stuff.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 10 Feb 2004 19:02:08 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

citronzx wrote:

To tell you the truth I don't know enough about the compression algorithm to
say why. My evidence only anecdotal. If I rip a cd and compare the mp3
ripped version to the original off the cd both played from my computer there
seems to be a reduction in bass in the mp3 version. Now, I am very willing
to admit that this my just be a psychological effect but that is way that it
seems to sound to me.

I've never heard actual loss of bass with the LAME encoder, but I have heard
a substantial loss of bass definition. Stuff goes from being clean and well
defined to being flabby and centered on one note. But then again, on a club
system you probably can't tell.

And forget about bass imaging. But then, few playback systems have any real
bass imaging anyway, let alone club rigs.

I think what you'll notice first is weirdness on the top end, but it might
be just fine for dance stuff.
--scott
I'm interested in this weirdness in the top end aspect of MP3s,
because I was tasked with replacing some museum systems (originally
minidisc) with CF card MP3 players. The thing is that these systems
used left for mono sound and right for 20KHz tones to sequence the
lights. Even the highest quality LAME VBR completely failed to work
the lights wheras 256k fixed rate LAME worked just fine. How much
information is lost in the squishing ?
M

me wrote:

On 10 Feb 2004 19:02:08 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


citronzx wrote:

To tell you the truth I don't know enough about the compression algorithm to
say why. My evidence only anecdotal. If I rip a cd and compare the mp3
ripped version to the original off the cd both played from my computer there
seems to be a reduction in bass in the mp3 version. Now, I am very willing
to admit that this my just be a psychological effect but that is way that it
seems to sound to me.

I've never heard actual loss of bass with the LAME encoder, but I have heard
a substantial loss of bass definition. Stuff goes from being clean and well
defined to being flabby and centered on one note. But then again, on a club
system you probably can't tell.

And forget about bass imaging. But then, few playback systems have any real
bass imaging anyway, let alone club rigs.

I think what you'll notice first is weirdness on the top end, but it might
be just fine for dance stuff.
--scott

I'm interested in this weirdness in the top end aspect of MP3s,
because I was tasked with replacing some museum systems (originally
minidisc) with CF card MP3 players. The thing is that these systems
used left for mono sound and right for 20KHz tones to sequence the
lights. Even the highest quality LAME VBR completely failed to work
the lights wheras 256k fixed rate LAME worked just fine. How much
information is lost in the squishing ?
M
It depends on the bitrate. 320k MP3 seems to be generally accepted as CD
quality, 128K is about the equivalent of FM radio. I record FM
broadcasts and make them into 192 MP3s simply because I think the lower
bitrates take too much life out of the music. I don't even bother with
320K, I just keep my files in WAV or AIFF in that case. Takes up lots of
space, I know, but CD-Rs are cheap

CD