[DAYTA]

Ok, so as a techno/trancehead, I feel as though I might possibly be limited in terms of SQ based upon the genre of music I prefer.

Everyone in this forum talks about source quality (be it SACD, DVD-A, CD stand-alones, or digital lossless encoding off CDs) with their music. However, therein lies my limiting factor as an audiophile (unless someone can prove me wrong......PLEASE someone prove me wrong).

Most of the live electronic sets (i.e. AvB ASOT's) are not available on CD's but rather downloadable off of certain DJ or techno-oriented websites as BitTorrent files. As a result, there is no way to reencode these files to a lossless format (that I know of). They are all maxed at 192kbps mp3s.

Now, of course, I would much prefer to hear these sets with zero loss of quality (and maximize the abilities of my cans), but I don't know if that's possible given the format of the music I listen to. What if I were to burn my electronic sets onto CD and pick up a standalone CD player (something entry-level like a NAD c542)? Could I narrow the sound quality gap by cheating this way...or am I simply doomed to an Ipod mediocrity?

Your thoughts, please.........

 

[Jahn]

if it makes you feel better, 192 sounds better to me than 128 by far. but 192 to 320...i can tell but it's REAL close. and i can't tell at all from 320 to lossless.

so 192 for a live electronic performance? you probably don't need much more than that to get the original quality of the recording to shine through. it's compressed, so you probably won't gain much in burning it to a cd and playing it through anything. i say just plunk it into your ipod, and just make sure your ipod is set up to maximize what it can do (line out, amp, nice cans).

 

[redshifter]

i always found electronica sounds much better on vinyl.

 

[DoNotBugMe]

Dayta - it's all very subjective. My missus can't tell an MP3 128k from a cd for example. Some people may be able to differentiate them only under certain conditions (while using headphones, for example). I also depends very much on the type of music (try listening to snare-drum heavy music and you'll know what I mean).

I on the other hand cannot stand mp3, but it probably something has to do with the fact that I tend to listen to the same music very regurlarly, and after a while you end up 'knowing' what it should sound like. Mp3s at 320 do not sound the same as lossless, but you'll find that most people don't care or can't tell the difference anyway.

I for one would be gutted having to listen to mp3s after forking 300$ on a good pair of cans. But that's just me.

To answer your question, no, burning your mp3s to cd won't help one bit. Mp3s are music files that have permanently lost some of the audio information. They sound the same if converted to wav files and played of a cd player.

Cheers,

Steve.

 

[EdipisReks]

actually, burning them to disk might increase the sound quality if the CD players DAC is better than that in the iPod.

 

[3lusiv3]

I have no problem with 192kbps mp3's. They sound great to me.

 

[guyverl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn if it makes you feel better, 192 sounds better to me than 128 by far. but 192 to 320...i can tell but it's REAL close. and i can't tell at all from 320 to lossless. so 192 for a live electronic performance? you probably don't need much more than that to get the original quality of the recording to shine through. it's compressed, so you probably won't gain much in burning it to a cd and playing it through anything. i say just plunk it into your ipod, and just make sure your ipod is set up to maximize what it can do (line out, amp, nice cans).

I have to say that it's EXACTLY the same for me mp3 bitrate wise. I'll add here that to me 192 and less seems to have smoother (not more accurate) Bass which can even be pleasing at times!

 

[firefox360]

My opinion is that they file is encoded at 192kbps. There's nothing that you can do inorder to make that file any better. But you can maximize the experience by hearing the most out of the file. Maybe by getting a really good source such as the NAD standalone CD player you suggested.

 

[bubbagump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAYTA Most of the live electronic sets (i.e. AvB ASOT's) are not available on CD's but rather downloadable off of certain DJ or techno-oriented websites as BitTorrent files. As a result, there is no way to reencode these files to a lossless format (that I know of). They are all maxed at 192kbps mp3s.

I listen to alot of trance and admittedly dont stray very far from the kings (avb, marcus, tiesto etc). Regarding recording quality the problem with broadcasted/downloaded livesets is a lot of times there is extra noise injected into the recording, be it rf distortions, static or whatever.

IMHO to experience good trance you need to purchase some music. There's plenty of stuff out there. To date, the highest quality recording I've heard on CD is Tiesto's 'just be' album. Gielen, AvB, TranceEnergy, Tiesto and others all have CDs out. Lots on CD. Give a few a whirl.

 

[ElectroJunkie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubbagump I listen to alot of trance and admittedly dont stray very far from the kings (avb, marcus, tiesto etc). Regarding recording quality the problem with broadcasted/downloaded livesets is a lot of times there is extra noise injected into the recording, be it rf distortions, static or whatever. IMHO to experience good trance you need to purchase some music. There's plenty of stuff out there. To date, the highest quality recording I've heard on CD is Tiesto's 'just be' album. Gielen, AvB, TranceEnergy, Tiesto and others all have CDs out. Lots on CD. Give a few a whirl.

I would have to agree. There are tons of great mix cd's out. Most of the big dj's release mix comps on a regular basis. I would recommend checking out the Global Underground Series.

 

[catscratch]

I think you can get away with 192, but you won't be anywhere near lossless or CD quality. 192 is the bare minimum you need for any kind of soundstage, though things really don't start cooking until 320, and only with lossless will you get the rich texture and minute detail. 192 isn't unlistenable by any stretch of the imagination, though. You'll hear compression artifacts but you won't wince.

However, working within your limitations, I think you can use 192k and get an external DAC. I don't know if it will take a digital signal off an mp3, but I don't know much about extenal DAC's - yet. I intend to learn, since one is on my shopping list. You should seek to pair the DAC/amp combo with a pair of forgiving headphones. Most headphones I've seen so far are pretty revealing, but something that has a nice, warm coloration will probably mask some of the weaknesses in your files.

Trance, IMO, doesn't have to be limited in production quality. A lot of psytrance and Goa is some of the best produced electronica, period. Unfortunately, the DJ mixes we have available are usually released in 192k to save bandwidth. I would expect, though, that lossless mixes will become more commonly available in, let's say, 5 years, when technology advances. Also, a good digital source + DAC will be good for a lot more than just DJ mixes. You can have audiophile quality by encoding in lossless.

I've experimented with burning mp3's to audio CD and playing them back, but the results were seriouly disappointing. I'm pretty sure our stock CD burners don't have anywhere near the kind of quality we need to even approach actual CD quality. I've had better results straight from my mp3 player.

 

[crazyfrenchman27]

192 kbps sounds just fine with most types of music, I find.

After that, the quality of the recording itself is more important than the compression rate.

-Matt

 

[Emon]

The difference between 320 Kbps MP3s and lossless, on ANY equipment is snake oil, sans if it was encoded very poorly or transcoded from a lower bitrate MP3 (as many off the net are). 192 Kbps MP3s sound great. I can barely tell the difference between them and CD most of the time, although on some music I need it to be around 256. I, personally, encode all my CDs at Vorbis quality 7, which results in 224 Kbps nominal with an average actual bitrate of about 200. You probably only need quality level 6, but the Vorbis devs did say 7 was good for lossless studio monitoring. That and there isn't much of a size difference anyway...and I'm not about to re-encode all my CDs.

So yeah...either buy some CDs or just live with 192. All bitrate is is how many bits of data there are per second of music. Simpler music should, in theory, require fewer bits to sound good. If I recall, that's the principal behind variable bit rate. The encoder lowers the bit rate in parts of the song where excess data isn't needed.

 

[bigshot]

Email the dj that created and posted the MP3 and see if he will sell you an audio CD. That way you get better sound and you support the music makers you like.

See ya
Steve

 

[RonTheMan]

The music on my Ipod mini are encoded in either 192 or 225. When I first got my Ipod, I enocoded music from several genre in 128, 192, 225, 320 and lossless format. Played all of them from my Ipod for several days and with the different headphones which I owned.

My final analysis was that my ears could tell the difference between 128 and 192. Anything above that and the differences between them was very subtle.

I personally feel that you should use your ears to listen, as I did. There may be some who can differentiate between 320 and lossless. I know I can't.