128 or 320?

hardware, software, tips and tricks
Forum rules
By using this "Production" sub-forum, you acknowledge that you have read, understood and agreed with our terms of use for this site. Click HERE to read them. If you do not agree to our terms of use, you must exit this site immediately. We do not accept any responsibility for the content, submissions, information or links contained herein. Users posting content here, do so completely at their own risk.

Quick Link to Feedback Forum
Locked
User avatar
ruskie
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:38 pm
Location: Yorkshire

128 or 320?

Post by ruskie » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:42 pm

Ok so its the bitrate yeah? How is a tune produced in one or the other?

dirty
Posts: 971
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:11 pm
Location: NORTH CAMP

Post by dirty » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:22 pm

usually mixdown to wav or aiff then compress to either 320 or 128 mp3
UndergroundSoundz on SUB.FM every other Monday 10pm - 12
Download Latest Show HERE
Image
MYSPACE

inspector
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:51 am
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: 128 or 320?

Post by inspector » Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:15 pm

Ruskie wrote:Ok so its the bitrate yeah? How is a tune produced in one or the other?

Yeah, dubstep is all about 320 kbps. Most techno is done in 192, whereas jungle is known for that special 256 sound. My guess is that the next big thing will be some kind of freaky 512 music with short beakdowns into 64.

two oh one
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:30 am
Location: Croydon ---> Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: 128 or 320?

Post by two oh one » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:17 pm

inspector wrote:
Ruskie wrote:Ok so its the bitrate yeah? How is a tune produced in one or the other?

Yeah, dubstep is all about 320 kbps. Most techno is done in 192, whereas jungle is known for that special 256 sound. My guess is that the next big thing will be some kind of freaky 512 music with short beakdowns into 64.
:lol:
Image
Image
Ahier wrote: I like to push lego up cat bums

User avatar
unempty
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:07 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by unempty » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:51 pm

If you want to get nerdy about mp3 encoding, you are just as good off - if not better, considering the smaller file size - using a very high VBR rate.

-V0 or -V1 in lame is very very good, and indistinguishable from 320 CBR files except in very rare cases.

CBR is old-school. :)

Recommended Lame settings

It'd be cool to start using FLAC or wavpack more generally.

two oh one
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:30 am
Location: Croydon ---> Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by two oh one » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:20 am

I've heard that the practitioners of Swiss bum step prefer 24bit, 192k files. I've been told that they manage to compress these down to 1 bit, regardless of how long the track actually is. I read somewhere that most tracks are around 3 days in length, if they're any good.
Image
Image
Ahier wrote: I like to push lego up cat bums

dirtycash
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:29 pm

Post by dirtycash » Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:14 am

in a blind testing by an esteemed Audiophile magazine nobody could tell the difference between 128 & 320 kb, about 10 testers of varying backgrounds with a diverse range of music played.
interesting...

narcossist
Posts: 720
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 2:21 pm

Post by narcossist » Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:34 pm

be nice ya cnuts :D

Dirtycash - that survey is bollocks mate :D 128's sound shit, they've a nasty digital swoosh that floats about like a badly mixed flanger and the sub or bass nearly always sounds muffled. No ones ever gonna sign a tune based on hearing a 128 cos you genuinely can't tell how good the production on it is.

people put 128's up cos its pretty safe that no one will try and play it out, they put 320kps up if they want it playing, if you're cutting a dub or getting a tune pressed you want a wav or flac file cos they're higher resolution again.

a 128 will sound ropey cos the logarithims [been up all night and can't spell] don't map the sound as accurately, in the same way that a 2megapixel image looks wack when its bigger than a postage stamp whereas a 16megapixel image can look good when projected onto the side of a building.

hope that explained it a bit....

dirty
Posts: 971
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:11 pm
Location: NORTH CAMP

Post by dirty » Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:08 pm

narcossist wrote:be nice ya cnuts :D

Dirtycash - that survey is bollocks mate :D 128's sound shit, they've a nasty digital swoosh that floats about like a badly mixed flanger and the sub or bass nearly always sounds muffled. No ones ever gonna sign a tune based on hearing a 128 cos you genuinely can't tell how good the production on it is.

people put 128's up cos its pretty safe that no one will try and play it out, they put 320kps up if they want it playing, if you're cutting a dub or getting a tune pressed you want a wav or flac file cos they're higher resolution again.

a 128 will sound ropey cos the logarithims [been up all night and can't spell] don't map the sound as accurately, in the same way that a 2megapixel image looks wack when its bigger than a postage stamp whereas a 16megapixel image can look good when projected onto the side of a building.

hope that explained it a bit....
exactly!

people generally use 128 for ipods coz you can't really tell the difference on headphones.
UndergroundSoundz on SUB.FM every other Monday 10pm - 12
Download Latest Show HERE
Image
MYSPACE

User avatar
ruskie
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:38 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Post by ruskie » Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:30 pm

narcossist wrote:be nice ya cnuts :D

Dirtycash - that survey is bollocks mate :D 128's sound shit, they've a nasty digital swoosh that floats about like a badly mixed flanger and the sub or bass nearly always sounds muffled. No ones ever gonna sign a tune based on hearing a 128 cos you genuinely can't tell how good the production on it is.

people put 128's up cos its pretty safe that no one will try and play it out, they put 320kps up if they want it playing, if you're cutting a dub or getting a tune pressed you want a wav or flac file cos they're higher resolution again.

a 128 will sound ropey cos the logarithims [been up all night and can't spell] don't map the sound as accurately, in the same way that a 2megapixel image looks wack when its bigger than a postage stamp whereas a 16megapixel image can look good when projected onto the side of a building.

hope that explained it a bit....
All it needed an answer without sarcasm. Cheers.

paul updat
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:52 pm
Location: Taking a shit on your face.

Post by paul updat » Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:08 pm

Ruskie wrote:
narcossist wrote:be nice ya cnuts :D

Dirtycash - that survey is bollocks mate :D 128's sound shit, they've a nasty digital swoosh that floats about like a badly mixed flanger and the sub or bass nearly always sounds muffled. No ones ever gonna sign a tune based on hearing a 128 cos you genuinely can't tell how good the production on it is.

people put 128's up cos its pretty safe that no one will try and play it out, they put 320kps up if they want it playing, if you're cutting a dub or getting a tune pressed you want a wav or flac file cos they're higher resolution again.

a 128 will sound ropey cos the logarithims [been up all night and can't spell] don't map the sound as accurately, in the same way that a 2megapixel image looks wack when its bigger than a postage stamp whereas a 16megapixel image can look good when projected onto the side of a building.

hope that explained it a bit....
All it needed an answer without sarcasm. Cheers.
Innit. It seems a straight forward way of finding out stuff you want to know. You'd think anyway...

deamonds
Posts: 11392
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:18 pm

Post by deamonds » Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:08 pm

DIRTY wrote:
narcossist wrote:be nice ya cnuts :D

Dirtycash - that survey is bollocks mate :D 128's sound shit, they've a nasty digital swoosh that floats about like a badly mixed flanger and the sub or bass nearly always sounds muffled. No ones ever gonna sign a tune based on hearing a 128 cos you genuinely can't tell how good the production on it is.

people put 128's up cos its pretty safe that no one will try and play it out, they put 320kps up if they want it playing, if you're cutting a dub or getting a tune pressed you want a wav or flac file cos they're higher resolution again.

a 128 will sound ropey cos the logarithims [been up all night and can't spell] don't map the sound as accurately, in the same way that a 2megapixel image looks wack when its bigger than a postage stamp whereas a 16megapixel image can look good when projected onto the side of a building.

hope that explained it a bit....
exactly!

people generally use 128 for ipods coz you can't really tell the difference on headphones.
i render my tunes as 128's 2 go onto my iPod, just cause the files a bit smaller

User avatar
unempty
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:07 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by unempty » Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:42 am

If you want lower bitrate but high quality, encode as 160-190 VBR, which brings you pretty close to 320 CBR but alot smaller files.

A tip is to also encode mp3's from 32-bit float exports also, since mp3 is a float format. Alot of peeps mistakenly think mp3 is a 16-bit format, like CD.

If you first render to 24 or 16 bit WAVs, you're doing unnecessary dithering and shitting all over your mix for no reason and questionable pleasure.

For dynamic bass, this matters. We care about bass.

User avatar
Sharmaji
Posts: 5179
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:03 pm
Location: Brooklyn NYC
Contact:

Post by Sharmaji » Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:35 am

you CAN go to mp3 from a 24 bit mix but there's not a huge point to-- once you got to MP3 you're losing more than what you gain from using 24 bit.

if you're going down to 16 bit, you've gotta dither... if you don't, you're losing the clarity of that bass. w/o the dither you get that nasty, digital sheen.
twitter.com/sharmabeats
twitter.com/SubSwara
subswara.com
myspace.com/davesharma
Low Motion Records, Soul Motive, TKG, Daly City, Mercury UK

User avatar
unempty
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:07 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by unempty » Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:16 am

TeReKeTe wrote:you CAN go to mp3 from a 24 bit mix but there's not a huge point to-- once you got to MP3 you're losing more than what you gain from using 24 bit.
Possibly, but that depends on your target mp3 quality. Dithering (or *ick* just truncating) down to 16-bit can be audible in high quality VBR or 320k CBR files. so there's really no point in going that route when there's nothing to gain from it.

It's also not a good idea to use 16 bit audio as archive format for your finished tracks. Always save 32-bit floats or 24-bit for mastering (Note: there's no need to dither when going from float to 24-bit). From these you can then master 16-bit CD's, mp3s (without going to 16 bit first) and plates.
This leaves headroom for processing during mastering, and leaves media-specific details like dithering (for CD) to the mastering process.

For archiving, using a lossless format like wavpack, monkey's audio or flac is a good idea if you want to save space.

For more useful info mp3 settings, check out the LAME wiki.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests