debate, appreciation, interviews, reviews (events or releases), videos, radio shows
-
laurent__duval
- Posts: 2221
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:54 pm
- Location: nottingham
-
Contact:
Post
by laurent__duval » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:12 am
2ndBass wrote:It depends on the system, and who your playing out for. If your DJing a house party, I dont think a bunch of wrecked teenagers are gunna notice at all, but if your playing on a huge rig and you drop a 128kps right after a .wav, your gunna hear and feel the difference.
this is what i'm thinking.
if i was regularly playing out on big rigs and was able to have a serato only laptop i would make the effort to get the best quality possible. but to be honest ive never been able to tell the difference. and like those other people say, ive played plenty of 192's on decent sized rigs and they sound pretty clear to me. the people at the party didnt seem to mind that much either. i take what everyones saying but i'm inclined to disagree. i dont think it makes that much difference. soz.
-
spire
- Posts: 3666
- Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:50 pm
- Location: Sacramento, CA
-
Contact:
Post
by spire » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:01 am
a good portion of the tunes i do have digitaly (be it ripped, bought, or otherwise) are 320's, but NEVER anything below 192.
and i also agree that not all mp3's are coded equally. ive heard some horrible sounding "320's" that i did pay for/bought legit, and ive heard some 192's that sounded clean and clear as anything else.
-
eddy_seven
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:00 am
Post
by eddy_seven » Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:26 pm
if someone was to play a 96kbps mp3 of one of my tune in a dance, trust me, it would sound shit. especially to me haha
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests