Dubstepforum.com

you would if you sat down on a stool a bit quickly

fooishbar wrote: you think that's bad, try living in australia.

this. 1990's d/l speeds.

I never thought I'd see a bit-rate taking a slagging on this forum. Bizarre

why don't you all buy vinyl instead and then not have to worry about it.

DJ Coup wrote:why don't you all buy vinyl instead and then not have to worry about it.

for the record (HA!) i only play vinyl/acetate -- this is about dubs. don't have any time for people who download everything for free, let alone the ones who complain about the quality afterwards.

This guy is bitching about free music being released in a decent quality bit rate? STFU asshole. I am here to bitch about people posting anything shy of 320kbps mp3's. That's right, if you upload any of that VBR bullshit or even 256's, I'll straight ink blast you in the eyes and rip 'em out with my tentacles.

Dubstep sounds like shit in when it's crammed into shitty bit rates, just like every other genre of music, maybe even more so than some, due to the dynamic bass/midbass/midrange that is so prevelent in the genre.

I get so pissed off to download a mix with a killer tracklist only to realize it's a 192. You ever wonder why basslines get muddy and mucked together?

Shitty. Lossy. Files.

Tunes sound fucking garbage when you compress them wrong.

Not to sound like a total asshole, but for everyone encoding into 320 MP3's (AS YOU SHOULD IF YOU'RE TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY LISTEN TO IT, IT SOUNDS BETTER!) make sure your encoder isn't cutting below 20hz or over 16khz. It may not be "audible", but it's certainly noticeable when the highs and lows are cut from shitty encoders when I jam in my car or on my home system. If someone uploads a mix and it's in a higher quality format, I'm much more likely to listen to it and if I hear a track that I enjoy, I will purchase it in original lossless format (if available) to enable maximum listening enjoyment.

Also, not to knock anyone with killer surround systems, but anything more than 2.1 is completely pointless for MOST music. I say most to exclude DVD audio that's recorded for playing on 5.1/7.1/whatevers.

2.1+high quality audio files FTMFW.

Constrobuz wrote:its a recession asshole

I am still buying music, and so are all the very nice people who just bought our release. Oddly enough, recession or not, if it's good, it will sell. Eat shit.

I'm always going to play out Skream's 96 kbps and not the 320 of Love Don't Come Easily because of this thread.

Ive been dropping 64kbps mp3 myspace rips on huge soundsystems to critical acclaim.

320k MP3 all the way for me.

Anybody who says they can tell the difference between WAV and 320 is chatting rubbish, unless they have an acoustically-perfect setup at home.

I never understand the love for the vinyl sound either. I'd sooner not have crackling noises and not have to lug around a huge disc for no good reason.

Constrobuz wrote:its a recession asshole

and yet some of us still manage to put aside a teeny bit to buy a tune here or there on occasion. cutting back just means you have to be pickier.

if you are not able to buy any music, then how are you having problems with not enough storage? the math doesn't work.

just read this whole thread

taxi for Constrobuz.

i'll take free music, then complain about it. mug. will someone lend him the taxi fare?

Danny Stamp
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:21 am Post subject:
320k MP3 all the way for me.

Anybody who says they can tell the difference between WAV and 320 is chatting rubbish, unless they have an acoustically-perfect setup at home.

I never understand the love for the vinyl sound either. I'd sooner not have crackling noises and not have to lug around a huge disc for no good reason.

just go and have a thing about what u just said mate.....your chatting pure breeze right there man

vinyl forever, mp3 never

69Basslines wrote:Ive been dropping 64kbps mp3 myspace rips on huge soundsystems to critical acclaim.

DROKKR wrote:just read this whole thread

taxi for Constrobuz.

i'll take free music, then complain about it. mug. will someone lend him the taxi fare?

Dont worry about lending him taxi fair, he'll proberbly bump it anyways lol.

Anybody who says they can tell the difference between WAV and 320 is chatting rubbish

u can when u have been in the mixdown for five hours then bounce to 320. trust me. The hats are the give-away.

but yeah this thread is whack

if often find with 320s that the highs are 'brittle' sounding?

any one know why?

just listen to dubstep.fm all damn day.. its 192k and it wont fill up your hard drive =]

i can tell the difference between wavs and 320s, dont care what anyone says. Especially my own stuff. i have reasonable but not obscenely expensive monitors (mackie hr824s). you need to learnt the art of critical listening.

I honestly thought id heard it all, but moaning about free tunes being too big, lolapalooza. and too long!



why not take it to its logical conclusion and not have any music at all ! problem solved, a shiny clean empty hard drive.

westernsynthetics wrote:

Anybody who says they can tell the difference between WAV and 320 is chatting rubbish

u can when u have been in the mixdown for five hours then bounce to 320. trust me. The hats are the give-away.

This true - I can hear it and I'm no super-ultra-I-know-everything-about-audio-dude