online techno distribution...discuss!

[Analog.1]

Would what you trust playing on a 10,000 K sound system, a MP3 or uncompressed audio?

[Jay Pace]

I play mp3s on 10k+ soundsystem regularly
At 320k you can't tell the difference. Especially on a loud PA. Maybe if you did a million AB tests on the most expensive monitors in the world, but not on a big PA.

Even at lower bitrates an mp3 still has more audio information than vinyl.

[tocsin]

Analog.1, yes. I'm in the same boat as Jay here. I have played MP3s on 10k rigs of multiple different bitrates. The standard one in most of the MP3s I played at the time I was actually doing this was probably 192kbit CBR which is far inferior to a 320kbit max quality VBR encode. Yet, it sounded absolutely fine on the rig. Nobody would know it was an MP3 unless I were to tell them.

[Jay Pace]

And to really be pedantic....

CD is limited to 16bit 44100, and vinyl is massively restrictive in terms of what you can do.
You always "lose" some sound quality. But it doesn't really matter, because the losses are insignificant.

[1992]

Online techno distribution... Suuuuuucks!

Its all about being able to buy techno on Juno. I love juno, their customer service frikken rocks! I've never had such great customer service from a record store EVER! Back when I used to shop at Concept, if a record was warped .... your screwed.... But with juno, if its warped they will send you a brand new one free of charge!

[Analog.1]

People who download MP3s from unknown sources are risking poor sound quality due to the way the MP3 might of been created.
If MP3s are for sale surely they must be encoded in the best way possible, ie 320kbit with lame encoder (how can you trust everyone to do that?)
No way can you sell a track as a 128kbit MP3, ive heard of people already doing this...
In my world people would sell their music online compressed as lossless FLAC files, once you have downloaded / paid for the music it would be then your choice to burn a CD or create a MP3 or whatever...

[tocsin]

The nice thing about FLAC and OGG is that they are open source. LAME is quasi-legal in that you can grab the source, but not binaries. I forget the reasoning. So, regardless, you could sell in both FLAC or MP3. The thing is, a lot of digital playback technology does not support FLAC and a consumer might want something ready to play on their rig out of the box so to speak.

As for your comment about 128kbit being sold, it's a non-issue. The only places I've heard about doing this are piracy fronts selling their Kazaa stock. Especially for what we are discussing trying to do here, there'd be no reason not to encode in 320kbit as we'd have access to originals and the time it takes to encode either a 128 or a 320 is not distinguishable by human on most machines. In addition, various software exists for unix/linux which can pull out the information from MP3s, including the bitrate at which it is encoded. The interface could be designed to show the bitrate of any MP3 that is for sale. But, even that would be overkill. Nobody has any significant reason to sell 128kbit MP3s if they are the original author/owner since, in the end, a 320kbit VBR version is only about twice as large in file size generally.

[tocsin]

Also, forgot to add, when it comes to FLAC, for archiving purposes, it takes up a lot more room than MP3.

[TechMouse]

the fact is some of the information is missing from the audio when its a MP3 and i personally think this makes the product unsavoury.

Yes, but it's bits that your brain can't percieve anyway, so you don't need them.

[detfella]

there are reports that say different and that frequencies above 20khz (or below 20hz) although not directly heard can have a pyschoacoustic effect.

[1992]

As they say on DOA.... "320kbps or STFU!" Actually, I would prefur if these websites like Juno would sell you the full quality WAV file on a CDR then as 192kbps MP3s. I think selling 192kbps MP3s is just totaly crap.

BTW: The people who say that you can't tell the difference between 128 or 192kbps in comparison to a WAV are just FULL OF CRAP!!!!! There is a dramatic difference, mostly in the high end and its the 909 OHs that stand out as suffering the most because its a sound that your used to. I've done my encoding experiments. The lowest KBPS you can use that doesn't "seem" to suffer sound quality loss is 256kbps, anything lower is uncivilized.

[holotropik]

A DJ mate of mine, who plays my stuff out in Melbourne, reckons that 256kbps MP3 are fine for most applications. He plays using Ableton, Final Scratch and CD.

[tocsin]

192 kbit is a crapshoot. For the most part, I've had no negative artifacts in it and, on the occassions when I do, it's not something someone would notice at 10,000 watts. I have no idea why someone would sell a 192kbit MP3 though.

[koma]

for home listening, 128 is erm ok, although there's a big difference from 160 and 192
but, when it comes to selling iw oudl go under 256

anyway, when you sort that out, we could discuss financing of the project,
the same way BOA could finance itself

[TechMouse]

there are reports that say different and that frequencies above 20khz (or below 20hz) although not directly heard can have a pyschoacoustic effect.

Well I guess that all depends on the clarity of your soundsystem.

Most rigs are loud and powerful, but they're hardly audiophile gear.