Are 320s really the best you can get?

[d-i-z]

After recently looking at what the quality of the mp3s are on my deep medi vol 1 compilation are (around 1400 kbps), I wondered:

is there a big difference between a 320 and 14000kbps at home, on say even a computer,

or is just something that you find would make a difference on serious soundsystem?

What would the quality of a dubplate equate to in terms of kbps?

d-i-z

[ShutThatShitDown]

You can get .wav and .flac which are better than a 320

[Dumb Plates]

320kbps will only cut off pretty extreme frequencies which are virtually undetectable outside of a side-by-side comparison with lossless formats, especially when just played on a computer with a half-decent sound system.

But with a good set-up there is a difference between lossy/lossless, especially in dubstep where a lot of action takes place in frequencies you can only feel.

[dopocc]

320kbps will only cut off pretty extreme frequencies which are virtually undetectable outside of a side-by-side comparison with lossless formats, especially when just played on a computer with a half-decent sound system.

But with a good set-up there is a difference between lossy/lossless, especially in dubstep where a lot of action takes place in frequencies you can only feel.

this

Although I think a well-tuned ear might only feel it/hear it on a well tuned system above 10 KW or on some ultra hi-fi purist's home system above 10 grand.
I still rip my plates on wav for my serato set-up but I think it's only my mind that tricks me into thinking wav is better than 320s for the club gigs I play which are <600 crowd raves, mostly with untuned soundsystems.

On the other hand if I had the free space, a faster laptop, the gear +plus serato could play it back, i'd rip my plates on a very good deck (not a 1200) with an expensive cartridge at 88.2 KHz - 24 bit

[prisoner]

the deep medi cd doesn't have mp3s

those are all wav files which is pretty much the highest quality you can get.

[dopocc]

What would the quality of a dubplate equate to in terms of kbps?

d-i-z

approximately 48KHz - 24 bit. Not sure what the equivalent Kbps are but I think it's somewhere around 2304 Kbps if I remember correctly.

this is just comparing numbers though since digital (wav) is only a Representation of analog(vinyl or acetate) in I & Os

[boogiemeister]

an analog signal theoretically has infinite "bitrate". you can record an analog source at any quality you want (like 192 kHz, 24 Bit) and the signal will never cut off. A vinyl cutting lathe does have a physical limitation as to which frequencies will be represented on the record but the analog signal itself is basically infinite.
That being said you will not hear any difference between an analog source and a 320 mp3 unless it's on a very very very fine tuned system or if you play the song very loud. Digitally limited files sound a lot harsher in a club when played loud whereas records sound "smoother" (after all we're talking of volumes like 100 db and more which is not really smooth). I don't think you could actually hear a difference in a club if you played a record compared to a digital recording of the record (without any changes done like additional mastering etc.).

[dopocc]

the deep medi cd doesn't have mp3s

those are all wav files which is pretty much the highest quality you can get.

this has been discussed millions of times before and this forum is definitely NOT the most appropriate for this talk but I have to say that the 44KHz-16 bit WAVS we buy on CD is DEFINITELY NOT the highest quality you can get. It's just a compatibility choice of the big companies.
One of the amazing aspects of this scene supporting vinyl, among others, is that the buyer gets the 12" "master" in a much higher sound quality than a 44-16 audio CD. (Assuming the producer worked on the project at 48/24 and the mastering was done at this or a higher sampling rate - which most do these days with modern soundcards).
I don't mean to say that an 1200 MKII will play back vinyl better than a cdj1000 will playback an audio CD (some will argue, I also prefer and spin vinyl and serato) BUT what I want to say is that the actual medium you buy as a master (12" @ 45 rpm) is of a much higher quality than CD, WAV, FLAC & 320s (44/16).

[boogiemeister]

of course the sound quality of a CD is in a way compromised but like I wrote above nobody can seriously tell me that they hear a difference between a record (which in some cases has even been cut from mp3's) and a 320 of that very record, even as low as 192 depending on the codec used. Many people will already have trouble hearing isolated frequencies of 18 Khz and more.
The only difference I can tell is what I wrote above, banging digital material vs. banging a record in a club at a very high volume. Then again you shouldn't forget that the music usually is squeezed through a limiter and monoized anyway depending on the club which also has an influence on the sound.

[egoless]

Playing on a big rig - probably not

Home listening on average hi-fi system - probably yes

Airplay - yes

Few years ago I was reading some article where they performed a blind test onto some studio heads that are in the music business... The result was that they were at most cases unable to recognize the difference between mp3 and wav... I'll try to find some more info about that experiment if I manage to find it online...

[boogiemeister]

yeah I believe there even was something on youtube with Steve Albini being interviewed (he runs an all analog recording studio) etc.
Now this will sound crazy but some years ago I needed to have my ears cleaned out at a ear, nose and throat doctor (one of my ears was kinda clotted up). You won't believe what you are able to hear after the procedure. Walking barefoot over a carpet was a whole different experience soundwise lol.

[dopocc]

of course the sound quality of a CD is in a way compromised but like I wrote above nobody can seriously tell me that they hear a difference between a record (which in some cases has even been cut from mp3's) and a 320 of that very record. Many people will already have trouble hearing isolated frequencies of 18 Khz and more.
The only difference I can tell is what I wrote above, banging digital material vs. banging a record in a club at a very high volume. Then again you shouldn't forget that the music usually is squeezed through a limiter and monoized anyway depending on the club which also has an influence on the sound.

True and discussed already allot.
I was just referring to the medium as in the "master", the 12" @ 45 rpm actual "product" we buy VS the same tune in digital form at 44/16

That said I still feel that a pro DJ (clean dubs, neat gains) on 1200s & a pro mixer sounds better than a CDJ on the same mixer setup with 1000s, even through a club's digital compressors and limiters.

maybe this feeling only got magnified after experiencing a Mala set @ my last night out who was followed by Benga and Skream on CDJs. But that is not a very scientific way to compare vinyl, acetate and digital

[dopocc]

yeah I believe there even was something on youtube with Steve Albini being interviewed (he runs an all analog recording studio) etc.
Now this will sound crazy but some years ago I needed to have my ears cleaned out at a ear, nose and throat doctor (one of my ears was kinda clotted up). You won't believe what you are able to hear after the procedure. Walking barefoot over a carpet was a whole different experience soundwise lol.

haha, yeah true, although not for everyone, some ears don't have the tendency to keep the wax inside so after cleaning you don't feel much other than some "freshness"

[dopocc]

Playing on a big rig - probably not

Home listening on average hi-fi system - probably yes

Airplay - yes

Few years ago I was reading some article where they performed a blind test onto some studio heads that are in the music business... The result was that they were at most cases unable to recognize the difference between mp3 and wav... I'll try to find some more info about that experiment if I manage to find it online...

all true

[dopocc]

All that said, I have been present at a test of a 96K-24bit vs 320-16 master in an acoustically treated SSL studio, on main Genelec monitors and the difference in the lo-end plus the clarity of the mid-hi's amazed me. also the thermal spectral analyzer that was running, showed an impressive difference in the low-end on the visual side.

[prisoner]

the deep medi cd doesn't have mp3s

those are all wav files which is pretty much the highest quality you can get.

this has been discussed millions of times before and this forum is definitely NOT the most appropriate for this talk but I have to say that the 44KHz-16 bit WAVS we buy on CD is DEFINITELY NOT the highest quality you can get. It's just a compatibility choice of the big companies.
One of the amazing aspects of this scene supporting vinyl, among others, is that the buyer gets the 12" "master" in a much higher sound quality than a 44-16 audio CD. (Assuming the producer worked on the project at 48/24 and the mastering was done at this or a higher sampling rate - which most do these days with modern soundcards).
I don't mean to say that an 1200 MKII will play back vinyl better than a cdj1000 will playback an audio CD (some will argue, I also prefer and spin vinyl and serato) BUT what I want to say is that the actual medium you buy as a master (12" @ 45 rpm) is of a much higher quality than CD, WAV, FLAC & 320s (44/16).

i was talking on CD smarty pants.

(the OP was talking about digital mediums not a vinyl comparison...)

[dopocc]

i was talking on CD smarty pants.

(the OP was talking about digital mediums not a vinyl comparison...)

what's with the attitude man? did you skip this part?

What would the quality of a dubplate equate to in terms of kbps?
d-i-z