nomos
Administrator
A while back a posted a question about the sonic qualities/faults of mp3s as digital "DJ" fodder, whether in a club space or a mix. I'm still trying to sort these things out.
My question, for any DJs/engineers/bass materialism theorists out there, is: what sonic features are really lost in the mp3 encoding process and is it possible/necessary to resuscitate files encoded at moderate (160kbps) to high bitrates (192-320kbps)?
I know vinyl is always better < / mantra >, but it's not always available or affordable. Furthermore with labels like Hotflush offering tracks on a pay-per-download basis through DJDownload and Karma, it's becoming increasingly feasible/ethical to move to purely digital mixing if you're so inclined.
I've heard varying reports about the damage done to sound through encoding. (Tekno) Plastikman says it's not a big deal to play mp3s on a large soundsystem. Others say its crap. Grime and Dubstep people seem to say that too much bass is lost. I'm not certain that bass levels actually decline unless the encoder is set to cut frequencies below 20 Hz (as in iTunes). Bass density does suffer, however, since the compression is based largely on filtering out "redundant" frequencies (a purely subjective take on psychoacoustics that's built into the codec). High end deterioration is a different story as it often gets mucky below 192 kbps.
So I'm interested in hearing from people who've used higher-quality mp3s in settings where loss of bass or clarity might have been easily recognized.
I'm semi-considering trying out an Aphex Aural Exciter 104 or 204. The marketing material says that it infers harmonics in the high and low ends and synthesizes the lost sonic density. Supposedly, good results are to be had even with low bitrate audio. Anyone know about this?
My question, for any DJs/engineers/bass materialism theorists out there, is: what sonic features are really lost in the mp3 encoding process and is it possible/necessary to resuscitate files encoded at moderate (160kbps) to high bitrates (192-320kbps)?
I know vinyl is always better < / mantra >, but it's not always available or affordable. Furthermore with labels like Hotflush offering tracks on a pay-per-download basis through DJDownload and Karma, it's becoming increasingly feasible/ethical to move to purely digital mixing if you're so inclined.
I've heard varying reports about the damage done to sound through encoding. (Tekno) Plastikman says it's not a big deal to play mp3s on a large soundsystem. Others say its crap. Grime and Dubstep people seem to say that too much bass is lost. I'm not certain that bass levels actually decline unless the encoder is set to cut frequencies below 20 Hz (as in iTunes). Bass density does suffer, however, since the compression is based largely on filtering out "redundant" frequencies (a purely subjective take on psychoacoustics that's built into the codec). High end deterioration is a different story as it often gets mucky below 192 kbps.
So I'm interested in hearing from people who've used higher-quality mp3s in settings where loss of bass or clarity might have been easily recognized.
I'm semi-considering trying out an Aphex Aural Exciter 104 or 204. The marketing material says that it infers harmonics in the high and low ends and synthesizes the lost sonic density. Supposedly, good results are to be had even with low bitrate audio. Anyone know about this?