b, 21including all staunch mp3 haters/ vinyl purists, sound engineers and those behind the invention of the mp3/ digital format.
b, 21
b, 21reason being that i play out often, and also put records out.
b, 21
b, 21so many people think xyz, where as i would like definitive proof ending this debate......
b, 21
b, 21sure i've heard cats play mp3s that sound like tin...not talking about that.
b, 21all digital sound would be of course the highest quality.
b, 21
b, 21"you lose the bottom end on mp3s...i cant use that in the club i need a wav, i can tell the difference"
b, 21suuuuuure you can.
b, 21
b, 21
b, 21
h, 21
font class="post"1
b, 21
b, 21you act like tests of this kind have never been done. and that there are definitive answers to this...it's so subjective! why fight it...vinyl always wins. i agree with the post regarding not being able to tell the difference between a rip from a mini jack versus a better set-up but whatever, our ears can't pick up the frequencies that are lost but we know they are gone. it's inherent in the equation when the file gets converted and compressed.
b, 21
b, 21just because our ears don't hear much difference on a home stereo doesn't mean there is no difference. i mainly notice the difference in clubs...if you happen to be at a club with a good sound system and there are multiple dj's...and there's at least one vinyl dj you will hear the difference when the switch from Microwave to vinyl happens...trust me!
b, 21
b, 21i'll give one real world situation i experienced recently. i was at APT to see my friend dj Duane play...maybe you are friends with him too. anyways, Duane has the sickest record collection but now he's all Microwave and he still kills it with Microwave. but this night his guest was Dam-Funk and he plays wax. so towards the end of the night they were drunk and having a blast and trading off djing back and forth. anyways, Duane drops this dub version of Rah Band "messages from the stars"...and this is a big Dam-Funk tune...he referenced it in his WaxPo article. so the dub plays...dam-funk takes over and mixes into the vocal version of the same tune from his vinyl copy and BOOM the track suddenly sounds HUGE!!! Was this a coincidence? Did he just gain up the track with the trim knob? Maybe...i doubt it. Truth is...12" vinyl will always kills an mp3.
b, 21
b, 21why fight it? PLAY VINYL PLAY VINYL PLAY VINYL PLAY VINYL!
b, 21
b, 21
h, 21
font class="post"1b, 21b, 21" Did he just gain up the track with the trim knob? Maybe...i doubt it. Truth is...12" vinyl will always kills an mp3." b, 21b, 21That statement alone proves what im talking about. Maybe...i doubt it ? b, 21So after all is said and done, you still dont know....then say "truth is vinyl always kills an mp3".b, 21could be...could be not.b, 21b, 21b, 21b, 21dont forget apt doesnt have some analog sound system (love) b, 21b, 21b, 21im speaking on this difference in the club. given the fact that people KNOW theres a switch from digital to vinyl...sems like some placebo effect. does it really really sound better just cuz you know its now being played from vinyl and you want to believe ?b, 21b, 21ive played from s.erato while amir has played various 45s/ and lp cuts.....that in comparison to my ripsb, 21sounded like shit in the club. maaaaad low end feedback, just sounding like ass.. just cuz its VINYL.b, 21in which case i think digital won.b, 21b, 21and as far as "psycho acoustics" if it's meant for you not to notice...uhhh...then you really will never know...will we ?b, 21b, 21i still think the test should go down in a club with a bangin sound system.b, 21super high quality 320, a wav, and vinyl all from the same jam....against a few people who think they are really going to know the difference.b, 21b, 21nobody gets to see what is what. i'd be willing to bet....heads will not know.b, 21b, 21b, 21i wish there were some read deal engineers on here.....off to the internet, to find some real definitive info.
i'm a real deal engineer! i went to SAE and have been working in studios for five years now. b, 21b, 21anways, it sounds like you already know the answer...in your mind there is no difference and you should continue using Microwave. none of it really matters at the end of the day...people in the crowd could care less except for the handful of dj's in the crowd.b, 21b, 21we are all just arguing to defend our preferences...sell me your vinyl and i'll give you my mp3's img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" 21b, 21b, 21but seriously...rah band sounded way better on wax and it wasn't because he gained it up...louder does not equal full frequency devestation! b, 21b, 21and think about this...with vinyl the signal stays analog and the only factors are the different stages of gain...the preamp and output amp on the mixer and the final amplification stage for the soundsystem. with digi files what you are hearing is the original turntable set-up it was ripped with thru the converters it was recorded with then the converters of the soundcard you are using to dj with and then the mixer and soundsytem...multiple layers of analog to digital to digital to analog...that's not a good recipe for fidelity.
b, 21i'm a real deal engineer! i went to SAE and have been working in studios for five years now.
b, 21
b, 21anways, it sounds like you already know the answer...in your mind there is no difference and you should continue using Microwave. none of it really matters at the end of the day...people in the crowd could care less except for the handful of dj's in the crowd.
b, 21
b, 21we are all just arguing to defend our preferences...sell me your vinyl and i'll give you my mp3's
b, 21but seriously...rah band sounded way better on wax and it wasn't because he gained it up...louder does not equal full frequency devestation!
b, 21
b, 21and think about this...with vinyl the signal stays analog and the only factors are the different stages of gain...the preamp and output amp on the mixer and the final amplification stage for the soundsystem. with digi files what you are hearing is the original turntable set-up it was ripped with thru the converters it was recorded with then the converters of the soundcard you are using to dj with and then the mixer and soundsytem...multiple layers of analog to digital to digital to analog...that's not a good recipe for fidelity.
b, 21
b, 21
h, 21
font class="post"1b, 21b, 21i know the answer regarding it to be for normal, untrained ears....there are those who dont work in a studio environment claiming to have super human dog ears telling me they now the difference.b, 21b, 21the last part of what you said doesnt seem to hold up when your playing lp cuts and 45s, vs my rips of lp cuts and 45's eq'ed nicely and levels perfected.b, 21 it's like yaaaay hes playing vinyl, but it sounds like shit.b, 21b, 21note what ism posted above your post....mp3 vs wav.b, 21b, 21not saying your not a real deal engineer!!! b, 21i am no engineer, but have been doing studio sessions since 1990...sleeping over at times. i understand its all about the very beginning of how its ripped.b, 21b, 21bbe had us go into the studio on a $10k turntable/needle set up to ensure the highest quality coming out.b, 21b, 21i just want to know what is actually lost/gained, and why there are those (not joe shmoe) who claim nothing is actually lost when its done properly...as well as just how much more of a difference the listener will get when going in on the $10k audiophile tt set up and so on.b, 21b, 21past all that...how many "real deal" studio rats are in the club vs ordinary guys trying to say they can hear the difference ?b, 21b, 21again...this is handy for me on may levels. doing these radio shows, so far ive used all vinyl and bounce as a wav file, only for them to stream and offer dl's at 320. when i bump the shows in my car, wav vs mp3....sonically, i dont hear it. b, 21b, 21sorry to have bothered yall with this.
b, 21im speaking on this difference in the club. given the fact that people KNOW theres a switch from digital to vinyl...sems like some placebo effect. does it really really sound better just cuz you know its now being played from vinyl and you want to believe ?
b, 21
b, 21ive played from s.erato while amir has played various 45s/ and lp cuts.....that in comparison to my rips
b, 21sounded like shit in the club. maaaaad low end feedback, just sounding like ass.. just cuz its VINYL.
b, 21in which case i think digital won.
b, 21
b, 21
b, 21
b, 21
h, 21
font class="post"1b, 21b, 21most clubs are not set up nowadays for people playing vinyl.b, 21unless playing a great sounding 12", the digital file will always sound better, *if it's ripped well* feedback is always an issue lately playing vinyl;b, 21b, 21 I don't see the point unless it's a crowd of die hard diggers, b, 21b, 21or, and I've had this comment, when there are/is a skilled dj('s) cutting up doubles, mixing and scratching and there is live video being screened behind focusing on the "action:, that is definately not as "entertaining" as compared to changing the records, seeing the labels,making it sound great; and as we all know, this is much more challenging to accomplish smoothly and with skill than on Microwave.b, 21b, 21when it's digital, you can crank it, no feedback whatsoever, b, 21so, if you want it to sound great: Microwave (with well ripped vinyl mp3's at least 256) and/or loud pressing 12" or some 7"b, 21if you want to please purists and diggers: bring records, but deal with potential FEEDBACK, loss of low end to deal with such feedback, and maybe piercing highs that may have the soundman hating on you and people potentially leaving the dancefloor.b, 21b, 21the rane 57 records via USB at 16 bit audio quality, for audio processing, they should create a new one that records USB or firewire at 32bits as an option, Like a great soundcard.b, 21b, 21I've ripped records from 1.) high end 1/4" plugs and an analog mixer through to a 32 bit soundcard, then converted down to 320 after remastering to suit my tastes...b, 21b, 21and;b, 21at home and on the road;b, 212.)straight from vinyl with the 57, USB to the macbook and straight into garageband, remaster using their visual EQ and compressor, send it straight to itunes at 320, and when it gets played in the club, it is ABSOLUTELY BANGING compared to what it would sound like playing the vinyl liveb, 21b, 21for playout purposes, I prefer #2, it is so quick, easy to make sound great, for PROCESSING PURPOSES, if I was to later sample or manipulate said vinyl RIP, I would prefer a combination:b, 2132bit recording via the new 57 that they should make, USB into whatever program and save as a 32bit file.
I think you guys need to consider two things for your test:b, 21b, 211) Hearing varies within the human population. My wife doesn't hear certain high frequency sounds (like my old clock alarm or low batt waring beeps on digital thermometer we own). I have a constant ringing in my left ear. Both of us would skew your results during your test. On the other end, audiophiles are likely to be in a small minority of people that hear sound outside the human norm. They too will skew the results.b, 21b, 212) If its going to be noticed only on a high end club sound system, does it matter? The obvious solution for a club DJ worrying about sound of ripped music would be to use a lossless format (.FLAC for example). Otherwise, .MP3 recorded at the 256 or 320 level should work for most normal hearing folk on a "good" home system. For the car and iPod its overkill.
I haven't read most of the posts in this thread but when recording vinyl, you must take the entire signal chain into consideration. Then you gotta think about what you want to do with the recording. If you're recording all your 12"s so you can play at the club, you probably want to use a different cartridge for recording than archival purposes or sampling for a beat.b, 21b, 21My biggest piece of advice I can give on this is unless you have a pretty decent setup, you should probably just find/make CD rips of whatever you have on vinyl because they will sound better for the most part and shits a lot easier.b, 21b, 21As far as 320kbps vs WAV, most of ya'll mufuckaz would not be able to tell the difference between them in a true blind test. With hard drives being as cheap as they are, I would save a WAV for archival purposes and a 320kbps MP3 just because you can.b, 21b, 21Lastly, I would strongly recommend investing into a good setup before doing a mass conversion of vinyl because that shit takes a ridiculous amount of time and you don't want to regret it later on if you upgrade and shit sounds so much better.
it's not a bother...it's a fun topic for sure. i see what you are looking for now...definitive proof that spending serious cash on top of the line gear for digitizing really makes a difference at the end of the day. i just don't think there's a definitive answer. b, 21b, 21i have never been a very tech-y engineer...i'm more into the creative aspect of it. but my rule is always trust your ears...at the end of the day that's what matters the most...does it sound better? this is somewhat easy and cut and dry when making decisions of mic placement or what compressor to use...you can hear the differences and decide accordingly. b, 21b, 21but when it comes to telling the differences between different mp3s of the same track...your ears may not be the best guide. the frequences that get lost maybe be impossible for the most adult human ears to hear and they are also the same frequencies that are hard for sound systems to reproduce. but just because you can't hear them doesn't mean you don't notice something missing...it's like your body can feel those frequencies when they are there but not necessarily hear them. b, 21b, 21human hearing of a newborn baby is supposedly 20 hz to 20khz but for adults realistically you aren't hearing much above 15 k or below say 100 hz. i think mp3 encoders take these things into account...those ultra high and low freqs are the first to go in the compression algorithms.b, 21b, 21i just know from personal experience that i can definitely hear the difference in clubs when somebody is using Microwave. i can't necessarily pinpoint what it is that i'm hearing or not hearing...the sound is "thinner" for sure. and then when the party is really rocking and the dj's start pushing the mixer into the red...it just sounds horrible. but there are so many factors at play that who knows what the real culprit is.b, 21b, 21and i agree on your point regarding lps and 45s vs 12"s. lps and 45s have lower output levels than 12"s and when you record them at home you can gain them up and not run into the feedback scenarios that happen in clubs where the turntables aren't really ground and the vibrations from the floor create low end rumble and when you gain up the 45 or lp cut you get the low freq feedback...it sucks!
scientifically the difference from vinyl to wav to mp3 is obvious.b, 21but to the average listener...not so much. This is what sets them apart from tru sound headz. however this is only true based on peoples ears, their brains are another story.b, 21this (more or less) is what a grammy winning engineer told me...b, 21digital audio is 1s and 0s...your playback source is reading those 1s and 0s at (if cd) 44,100 times a second (and even less with mp3s) and reconstructing the audio based on their arrangement. every time it switches from one 1 or 0 to the next, their is no audio. it happens so fast your ear cant tell there is no audio present at that time...but your brain can. its like a light bulb, its turning on and off so quickly your eyes think that there is constant light, this is why people get headaches from florescent lights, their low energy frequency drawn from comed is much lower than typical light bulbs, thus your eyes have even more trouble interpreting it turning on and off that they become fatigued. digital audio is similar, your brain has to interpret the on and off of 44,100 samples every second and it can get very fatiguing for the listener, even more so at lower sample rates(mp3s) because it is more appearant that samples are missing. where as vinyl (vibration based) is a direct analog interpretation. he asked me "have you ever sat down and listened to cds or mp3 for hours on end versus records for hours on end? its very easy to get fatigued listening to cds or mp3s."b, 21so its like digital is to vinyl as a flame is to a light bulb.b, 21its true many peoples ears would not be able to tell the difference based on this, but their brains can whether their aware of it or not.
b, 21As far as 320kbps vs WAV, most of ya'll mufuckaz would not be able to tell the difference between them in a true blind test. With hard drives being as cheap as they are, I would save a WAV for archival purposes and a 320kbps MP3 just because you can.
b, 21
b, 21
b, 21
h, 21
font class="post"1b, 21b, 21If you know what to listen for, you can... img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ss.gif" alt="" 21b, 21b, 21I agree differences may be very subtle, but as far a "signal flow integrity", chop your lovely ripped wav file into an mp3 in the era of 1TB Harddrives is nonsense IMO.
b, 21scientifically the difference from vinyl to wav to mp3 is obvious.
b, 21but to the average listener...not so much. This is what sets them apart from tru sound headz. however this is only true based on peoples ears, their brains are another story.
b, 21this (more or less) is what a grammy winning engineer told me...
b, 21digital audio is 1s and 0s...your playback source is reading those 1s and 0s at (if cd) 44,100 times a second (and even less with mp3s) and reconstructing the audio based on their arrangement. every time it switches from one 1 or 0 to the next, their is no audio. it happens so fast your ear cant tell there is no audio present at that time...but your brain can. its like a light bulb, its turning on and off so quickly your eyes think that there is constant light, this is why people get headaches from florescent lights, their low energy frequency drawn from comed is much lower than typical light bulbs, thus your eyes have even more trouble interpreting it turning on and off that they become fatigued. digital audio is similar, your brain has to interpret the on and off of 44,100 samples every second and it can get very fatiguing for the listener, even more so at lower sample rates(mp3s) because it is more appearant that samples are missing. where as vinyl (vibration based) is a direct analog interpretation. he asked me "have you ever sat down and listened to cds or mp3 for hours on end versus records for hours on end? its very easy to get fatigued listening to cds or mp3s."
b, 21so its like digital is to vinyl as a flame is to a light bulb.
b, 21its true many peoples ears would not be able to tell the difference based on this, but their brains can whether their aware of it or not.
b, 21
b, 21
h, 21
font class="post"1paragraphsb, 21b, 21Listening fatigue has a lot more to do with brickwall limiting in recent times than music format.
sayin,b, 21brckwall limiting aside...isnt that obvious.b, 21this is only what i was told. im sure if i subscribe to it or notb, 21im pretty sure he made this determination when cds were first becoming popular...before the dreaded loudness races
b, 21weird...everytime i try to post the word S#rato it comes out microwave!?
b, 21
b, 21
h, 21
font class="post"1
b, 21
b, 21
b, 21
/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h, 21
b, 21i'm a real deal engineer!
b, 21
b, 21
h, 21
font class="post"1
b, 21
b, 21
h, 21
font class="post"1b, 21b, 21exactly...i engineered a way to type S#rato...not Microwave...even though i didn't type microwave img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" 21
b, 21I made up a couple tests just for kicks, see if you can tell the difference... The tests have three different encodings ripped from CD. Mp3 128, mp3 320 and wav (uncompressed)
b, 21
b, 21Test 1 is red black and green - Roy Ayers Ubiquity
b, 21 I can always tell between 128 and wav but 320 can be tougher. Cymbals are usually a give away for me like on Freddy freeloader, any high end stuff gets ugly with mp3s.
b, 21
b, 21I'll post what each file is tomorrow
b, 21
b, 21
h, 21
font class="post"1b, 21b, 21I think Reynaldo is the only one who took my test... Anyway here's the answers.b, 21b, 21Red black and Greenb, 211 320b, 212 wavb, 213 128b, 21b, 21Freddy Freeloaderb, 211 128 b, 212 320 b, 213 wav
b, 21this is only what i was told. im sure if i subscribe to it or not
b, 21im pretty sure he made this determination when cds were first becoming popular...before the dreaded loudness races
b, 21
b, 21
h, 21
font class="post"1Yeah, but when people changed to CDs or even tape, they also changed their entire listening setup. You cannot attribute it to just the recording medium when so many other things changed.
b, 21this is only what i was told. im sure if i subscribe to it or not
b, 21im pretty sure he made this determination when cds were first becoming popular...before the dreaded loudness races
b, 21
b, 21
h, 21
font class="post"1Yeah, but when people changed to CDs or even tape, they also changed their entire listening setup. You cannot attribute it to just the recording medium when so many other things changed.
Comments