equipment ?

jtsuited

electrogrimey wrote: »

That post got messed up strangely Jeff, so I won't bother quoting it.

About the CDs, I was under the impression that most CDs are only at 256 or so, no? I know you can import them as lossless etc, but they're not 320/above are they?

????
Cd's if you were to calculate the kbps are 1,411.2. Wherever you got that information from is wrong......

And the guys switching over to digital all happened about 3 years ago. I'd say most dudes who haven't switched by now, aren't going to switch

edit: the calculation is 16 bit/sample × 44100 samples/second × 2 channels / 1000 bits/kilobit (robbed from wiki btw)

Is mise le key

electrogrimey wrote: »

About the CDs, I was under the impression that most CDs are only at 256 or so, no? I know you can import them as lossless etc, but they're not 320/above are they?

.

This has to be the strangest question i have ever come across from someone who is a digital DJ & under 25

The reason mp3's were created was so music could be moved around digitaly faster when the internet was not as fast as it is today & the need for a compressed file of music was needed, hence higher quality & bit rate .wav were compressed down to a far inferior quality for ease of transportation around the net.

BaZmO*

Yeah it's a strange one alright. Thought everybody knew that mp3s were inferior to CDs. Obviously not.

jtsuited

i'm pretty shocked myself tbh. and the thing is, cd is still inferior to vinyl in terms of listening experience in my opinion.
24 bit Wav is perfect BUT, it's highly inconvenient due to its size.

A lot of people don't seem to understand the actual fundamental principles of how digital audio works regarding quantization and resolution (sampling rate and bit depth etc.) using PCM and then the compression codecs used for mpeg 1 layer 3.

The fact of the matter is, it's always a compromise and it's just a question of how much.

ED E

BaZmO* wrote: »

Yeah it's a strange one alright. Thought everybody knew that mp3s were inferior to CDs. Obviously not.

Technically yes, but in terms of what you can hear/most people will hear, 320 is all you'll really need. Dont mean to start this whole debate off again btw.

@Electrogrimey: I was under the impression that retail CDs were either 128 or 256 for a long time, but as I;ve subsequently learned they're done a little differently to mp3s. The .cda files you see on a CD arent actually sound files like MP3s, just markers for where the tracks are. As I understand it audio CDs are actually more like a stream than a file.

Is mise le key

jtsuited wrote: »

The fact of the matter is, it's always a compromise and it's just a question of how much.

It is kind of an oddity when you think about it that we are striving to have better & better picture quality TV's & video games & all recognise the noticable difference & advances being made to produce far clearer, sharper more life like images, but then so much defence & guff is churned out about the inferior quality mp3. If there was any consistency there would be a larger demand for far better quality audio to be produced so we can play it on our superior sound systems & enjoy it more while watching our super images on high res TV's.

jtsuited

Lethal_Bullet wrote: »

Technically yes, but in terms of what you can hear/most people will hear, 320 is all you'll really need. Dont mean to start this whole debate off again btw.

@Electrogrimey: I was under the impression that retail CDs were either 128 or 256 for a long time, but as I;ve subsequently learned they're done a little differently to mp3s. The .cda files you see on a CD arent actually sound files like MP3s, just markers for where the tracks are. As I understand it audio CDs are actually more like a stream than a file.

no they're a file reading off a compact disc as opposed to your hard drive i think.

simple pulse code modulation. every 44,100th of a second a value is taken. This value can be one of 65536 possible values (2 to the power of 16).

To explain how mpeg codecs worked we'd be here all day and most likely fall asleep because it's so boring. completely different thing altogether though from how PCM works.

Android 666

Is mise le key wrote: »

It is kind of an oddity when you think about it that we are striving to have better & better picture quality TV's & video games & all recognise the noticable difference & advances being made to produce far clearer, sharper more life like images, but then so much defence & guff is churned out about the inferior quality mp3. If there was any consistency there would be a larger demand for far better quality audio to be produced so we can play it on our superior sound systems & enjoy it more while watching our super images on high res TV's.

Its just format wars pure and simple. What's the most popular isn't usually what's the best, just what's the most convenient or gets the biggest push by producers.

Record vs Tape
Vhs vs Beta
CD vs Minidisc
Blu-ray vs HD DVD

Interesting fact: The porn industry had a lot to do with the dominance of VHS as a format at the time of the VHS/Beta battle. So much so in fact that people waited to see what format the industry chose when it came to BluRay/HD DVD. They chose Blu Ray

jtsuited

Is mise le key wrote: »

It is kind of an oddity when you think about it that we are striving to have better & better picture quality TV's & video games & all recognise the noticable difference & advances being made to produce far clearer, sharper more life like images, but then so much defence & guff is churned out about the inferior quality mp3. If there was any consistency there would be a larger demand for far better quality audio to be produced so we can play it on our superior sound systems & enjoy it more while watching our super images on high res TV's.

oooh you've brought up one very interesting area here, so prepare for some fun.....

the difference between audio and visual recordings is this.

An analogue audio recording is actually the sound energy being transferred into an electrical charge which is then stored as is. Hence the reason it's called analogue. As it's completely analogous.

A moving picture is actually a series of pictures rapidly being shown one after another to give the illusion of continuity. Did you know that a lot of animals can't make sense of television because the frame rate isn't high enough (pigeons for instance - saw this on QI the other day)?

So with video it's always been a representation of the event whereas with audio it's actually the replaying of the event.

Digital audio is a lot more like video in the sense that it takes 'pictures' at a certain frequency (in CD for instance 44.1khz) and then plays those values back as a representation of the audio. It's always an image as opposed to the actual thing.

Is mise le key

jtsuited wrote: »

Did you know that a lot of animals can't make sense of television because the frame rate isn't high enough (pigeons for instance - saw this on QI the other day)?

.

Dumb bastard, just sitting around on the sofa staring blankly at a box in the corner that makes no sense whatsoever, he might aswell be watching the X-factor:D

Android 666

jtsuited wrote: »

A moving picture is actually a series of pictures rapidly being shown one after another to give the illusion of continuity. Did you know that a lot of animals can't make sense of television because the frame rate isn't high enough (pigeons for instance - saw this on QI the other day)? Digital audio is a lot more like video in the sense that it takes 'pictures' at a certain frequency (in CD for instance 44.1khz) and then plays those values back as a representation of the audio. It's always an image as opposed to the actual thing.

So is that why pigeons don't like my tunes? They always fly away when I put them on…

Is mise le key

Android 666 wrote: »

So is that why pigeons don't like my tunes? They always fly away when I put them on…

No thats not what JT ssaid, pigeons cant see whats on TV due to the frame rate being to slow, your tunes just suck:pac:

Android 666

BaZmO*

Android 666 wrote: »

Interesting fact: The porn industry had a lot to do with the dominance of VHS as a format at the time of the VHS/Beta battle. So much so in fact that people waited to see what format the industry chose when it came to BluRay/HD DVD. They chose Blu Ray

Interesting, but alas not true. The length of an American Football game ( 3 hours) was the true decider.

Android 666

BaZmO* wrote: »

Interesting, but alas not true. The length of an American Football game ( 3 hours) was the true decider.

And here was me thinking it was the length of Ron Jeremy’s cock!

Porn industry may be decider in Blu-ray, HD-DVD battle

BaZmO*

I actually meant to highlight the Beta/VHS part.

Android 666

BaZmO* wrote: »

I actually meant to highlight the Beta/VHS part.

Oh I got where you were coming from, the article I linked starts with:

Just as in the 1980s, when the Betamax and VHS video formats were battling it out for supremacy, the pornography industry will likely play a big role in determining which of the two blue-laser DVD formats — Blu-ray Disc and HD-DVD — will be the winner in the battle to replace DVDs for high-definition content.

nevrkenesr

Personally i have always used vinyl, love it.....the sound is better, i scratch mostly and i never saw the appeal of scratching cd's. I love going into a charity store and finding an old gem of a record for 2 quid, i love the smell of old vinyl sleeves, theres history and character in vinyl, and best of all their tough, they can take abuse better than cd's and because nothing is digital there's less to go wrong. If a read write head goes on a cdj your ****ed, if a needle goes on a deck just pop on your spare. plus people seem to like watching people use vinyl, they seem alot more interested in watching a vinyl dj than a cd one.
For the likes of nightclubs etc... there is no substitute for cd's, its just more practical to have mixes on cd's and have 80 mins of music one one disk