Ingresar:     

Forum: General Discussion

Tópico: Bit rate differences

Este tópico es antiguo y puede contener información incorrecta para la nueva versión.

I notice a difference in the bit rate information of many of my files between Windows & Virtual DJ. For example, one file in Windows properties shows it's bitrate as 215 kbps, but Virtual DJ says it's 128. How can that be?
 
Mensajes Mon 23 Jul 12 @ 7:50 am
It's probably a VBR file and VDJ is rounding it down to the nearest CBR rate.
 
The VirtualDJ file scan has not worked properly for ages now. It shows all VBR files at 128kps.

Hopefully this will be fixed in V8.

Keith
 
Would it be helpful (and not sure if its possible and wont give problems, need to test that) to modify my tag synchronization tool ( http://www.virtualdj.com/addons/13224/VDJFlacTags.html ) to update the bitrate fields of VBR files to 'something of a quality indicator based on the encoding method' + VBR'. In such a way that it keeps sorting sort of right inbetween fixed bitrate files?
 
OK, thanks. While getting comfortable with VDJ I'm also taking the time to clean up some of my folders and quality check some of my files. I know it's overkill, but when I re rip songs I rip them at 320 kbps cbr. Some of those 128's I'll make the call based on how they sound.
Might give your FlacTags a try also jboerlage.
 
Can you hear the difference between a 192 kbs, 256 kbs and a 320 kbs mp3 song playing in a club, I cant. For a typical club sound system 160 kbs is good enough, I think above 192 is a waste of drive space. Thats just my opinion, whats yours ?.
 
How old are you?

It can make quite a big difference to your ability in judging sound quality, because your HF hearing falls off as you age or if you've been working in loud environments for a long time - e.g. you're a DJ. Add both together (an old DJ) and it's goodbye hearing!

Many other things have a bearing on it too, such as the quality of the equipment that you're listening on, the acoustics of the room, the quality of the original recording etc.
 
fyffed wrote :
Can you hear the difference between a 192 kbs, 256 kbs and a 320 kbs mp3 song playing in a club, I cant. For a typical club sound system 160 kbs is good enough, I think above 192 is a waste of drive space. Thats just my opinion, whats yours ?.


Even though while basically 192 is seen as 'good', when compared to the original there is a clear difference in the frequency range, clarity and dynamics. With the current low prices of storage, 5 cents per GB, it makes no sense to have 'ok' sounding tracks when you can have 'great' (320kbs) or 'perfect' (FLAC) quality for some 0,05 cent more.

And of course some sound systems will be crappy sounding by themselves, but that's no excuse to lower your own standard.
 
fyffed wrote :
Can you hear the difference between a 192 kbs, 256 kbs and a 320 kbs mp3 song playing in a club, I cant. For a typical club sound system 160 kbs is good enough, I think above 192 is a waste of drive space. Thats just my opinion, whats yours ?.


While I wouldn't be willing to make a hundred dollar bet that I could pick the difference between a 192 & a 320 file in a blindfold test, there are many songs that I have red flagged during a night and tested the next day and found them to be under 192 kbps. I have a very good sound system and I equalise it to the room when I can. Sometimes the bass or bass drum may lack punch, sometimes a mid frequency might be a little grating, but in general the dynamic can be a bit flat. One night I had played a 64 bit song that had apparently come across from my step son's mp3 player. It even had some clicks & pops! Oops!
Space isn't a consideration. I do some video editing, so mp3 files are tiny compared to some of the files I work with, and, as pointed out, drives are very cheap now, compared to when I first went digital.
I havent done any research, but it's possible that a 320 file would better handle speed and pitch modifications.
In general, my philosophy is why not 320?

As to age, no one else has answered so I'll hold back till another day. I'm probably older than any two of you combined, but I've had hearing checks and I know what frequencies are affected. For me it's conversational speech I have a bit of trouble with when there's music playing. Music I'm pretty good with, provided it's not too soft.
 
Im 49, this is typical club system and I base this on blind test. At home on in your you can hear the difference, The test we did was took the same song and recode to from 320 to 256 ,192,160,128, they only notice the difference below 160.
 
fyffed wrote :
Im 49, this is typical club system and I base this on blind test. At home on in your you can hear the difference, The test we did was took the same song and recode to from 320 to 256 ,192,160,128, they only notice the difference below 160.


Yeah lots of 'club' systems tend to be harsh on the midhigh and bass or even use compressors to sound 'loud', which itself is screwing up the quality to start with.
 
The main point is what you hear from a typical club, concert enviroment, taking in consideration the noise from patrons, you would not notice the difference between a 320 and a 192 bitrate mp3 track, In a home, studio you could tell the difference.
 
I would say 192 upwards is OK, however it really depends on how much data the individual track contains ... I have some 128 that sound fine however others that contain more sound (more bass and treble) are terrible. It's all about the actual compression and of course the quality of the encoder you used in the first place.

Keith
 


(Los tópicos y foros antiguos son automáticamente cerrados)