Dubstepforum.com

Constrobuz wrote:

airtight wrote:hmmm.

you got something in your eye boy?

grow up.

how can you say for an entire genre of music that the tracks are too long?"!

all my mp3s are plastic

Oh seriously, shut it.

Who the fuck buys mp3 when there is FLAC or WAV?

note to self: never accept tunes from Constrobuz, they will be low quality in more ways than just the production value.

P.S. I'm an audiophile and I call absolute bullshit. I'll go a step further and say that if it's not a specific encoder, then 320 might as well be 96. So maybe on some fucked up planet you have some idea of what you are talking about, but I honestly believe that somewhere there is a village of retarded aliens who are missing their idiot.

danny bwoy wrote:

Constrobuz wrote:dubstep tracks are unnecessarily long anyway.

LOL

This is the guy who said Al Green is shit, for a reference. He obviously cannot be trusted.

He's right that 99.99999% of listeners won't here an appreciable difference between a -V0 and a 320 but it's a fucking stupid point to belabor with storage as cheap as it.

.spec wrote:He's right that 99.99999% of listeners won't here an appreciable difference between a -V0 and a 320 but it's a fucking stupid point to belabor with storage as cheap as it.

If you understand how sound travels, you'll understand why there is a difference.

Anyone who mixes down tunes in general, be they a serious producer, or even a bedroom producer could tell an immediate difference. It's not always obvious, but I could tell the difference between the encoder on 320's in some cases.

How it works in my understanding, is that as the quality of the mp3 decreases, the cost is to the high end, which generally is in the inaudible spectrum for human hearing. However, you don't need to see the wind to know it's blowing. It's invisible, but it can make the leaf on a tree blow and you can see that. So you can't hear this missing high end, but it does skew the way the low end travels, thus making an audible difference, if only slightly. So at the end of the day, the mix will be muddy and unclear.

That's why real producers and digital DJ's would bypass sites that sell 320 or 192 and go straight for wav or flac any day of the week.

Another example would be a swimmer under water causing the ripple on top of the water... again, you don't have to touch the top of the water to cause the ripple, sometimes it just takes moving within to cause a noticeable shift.

Also keep in mind that 99% of Dubstep listeners, at least on this forum, are a DJ or producer in some capacity. Not the average listener. They post here, but I bet you can count them on 1 hand lol

glad i caught this thread...

Surface_Tension wrote:Oh seriously, shut it.

Who the fuck buys mp3 when there is FLAC or WAV?

note to self: never accept tunes from Constrobuz, they will be low quality in more ways than just the production value.

P.S. I'm an audiophile and I call absolute bullshit. I'll go a step further and say that if it's not a specific encoder, then 320 might as well be 96. So maybe on some fucked up planet you have some idea of what you are talking about, but I honestly believe that somewhere there is a village of retarded aliens who are missing their idiot.

1. unless you have expensive equipment, you cant hear a difference between high quality .mp3 and lossless, this has been proven time and time again. unless you have that kind of equipment, why have every album be 500mb when it could be 50 and it'd sound exactly the same?

2. there is clearly a difference between 96 and 320 regardless of equipment, stfu.

3. 80s al green does suck

sorry i have an opinion guys. also sorry i dont just have money i can throw around on hard drives. how stupid of me to make a thread on a discussion board.

Surface_Tension wrote: How it works in my understanding, is that as the quality of the mp3 decreases, the cost is to the high end, which generally is in the inaudible spectrum for human hearing. However, you don't need to see the wind to know it's blowing. It's invisible, but it can make the leaf on a tree blow and you can see that. So you can't hear this missing high end, but it does skew the way the low end travels, thus making an audible difference, if only slightly. So at the end of the day, the mix will be muddy and unclear.

This isn't really how VBR encoding works, but whatever. I would love to do a blind listen to a song encoded with FLAC -V0 and 320 with you. I feel pretty fucking confident that you nor most the people on this forum (myself included) could tell a difference.

This goes double for a tune played in a club/at a party. By and large most huge sound systems are only good for playing shit loud, not pinpoint sound representation. I'm sure we could all hear a 192 vs 320 on a big system but the difference between a -V0 and 320 is about 64k/sec i.e. negligible.

Constrobuz wrote:

Surface_Tension wrote:Oh seriously, shut it.

Who the fuck buys mp3 when there is FLAC or WAV?

note to self: never accept tunes from Constrobuz, they will be low quality in more ways than just the production value.

P.S. I'm an audiophile and I call absolute bullshit. I'll go a step further and say that if it's not a specific encoder, then 320 might as well be 96. So maybe on some fucked up planet you have some idea of what you are talking about, but I honestly believe that somewhere there is a village of retarded aliens who are missing their idiot.

1. unless you have expensive equipment, you cant hear a difference between high quality .mp3 and lossless, this has been proven time and time again. unless you have that kind of equipment, why have every album be 500mb when it could be 50 and it'd sound exactly the same?

2. there is clearly a difference between 96 and 320 regardless of equipment, stfu.

3. 80s al green does suck

sorry i have an opinion guys. also sorry i dont just have money i can throw around on hard drives. how stupid of me to make a thread on a discussion board.

Can't you get 128k or 192k on Juno? Problem solved.

abZ wrote:

Constrobuz wrote:

Surface_Tension wrote:Oh seriously, shut it.

Who the fuck buys mp3 when there is FLAC or WAV?

note to self: never accept tunes from Constrobuz, they will be low quality in more ways than just the production value.

P.S. I'm an audiophile and I call absolute bullshit. I'll go a step further and say that if it's not a specific encoder, then 320 might as well be 96. So maybe on some fucked up planet you have some idea of what you are talking about, but I honestly believe that somewhere there is a village of retarded aliens who are missing their idiot.

1. unless you have expensive equipment, you cant hear a difference between high quality .mp3 and lossless, this has been proven time and time again. unless you have that kind of equipment, why have every album be 500mb when it could be 50 and it'd sound exactly the same?

2. there is clearly a difference between 96 and 320 regardless of equipment, stfu.

3. 80s al green does suck

sorry i have an opinion guys. also sorry i dont just have money i can throw around on hard drives. how stupid of me to make a thread on a discussion board.

Can't you get 128k or 192k on Juno? Problem solved.

but you see, that involves purchasing music...

I always thought it was the largest mp3 bitrate, thus it sounds better when cranked up.. Wav and Flac are better but mp3s are smaller and do the job?

I guess I should know the real reason but I don't, I just bounce 320s and give them to DJs.

Legendary wrote:I always thought it was the largest mp3 bitrate, thus it sounds better when cranked up.. Wav and Flac are better but mp3s are smaller and do the job?

I guess I should know the real reason but I don't, I just bounce 320s and give them to DJs.

Yeah that is about right. You don't want to go giving out wavs before shit has the chance to get signed. Then again some labels will just put out your 320's wihtout permission but that is another thread I play out mostly 320's because of this fact. Dubs aren't usually available at any higher quality. Even my purchased tunes are 320's usually. Let's face it, this isn't live jazz we are talking about. Dubstep doesn't really have the nuances to really warrant being overly anal about imoimoimo.

abZ wrote:Let's face it, this isn't live jazz we are talking about. Dubstep doesn't really have the nuances to really warrant being overly anal about imoimoimo.

yep,

...then again people who collect digital data should also be prepared to store it.

abZ wrote: Let's face it, this isn't live jazz we are talking about. Dubstep doesn't really have the nuances

precisely why 320 shouldnt be the standard. i'm glad you see things my way.

Constrobuz wrote:

abZ wrote: Let's face it, this isn't live jazz we are talking about. Dubstep doesn't really have the nuances

precisely why 320 shouldnt be the standard. i'm glad you see things my way.

I may be thinking along the same lines as you but I do think that 320 should be the standard. If it is really that much of a problem for you, you can always download the wav and then convert to 256 yourself. If you do a batch convert it should take too much out of your day.

Agree that dubstep tracks are often unecesseraly long. I can easily get bored with songs that lack vocals...