Have you ever thought about the quality of ballroom music you often listen to

[DonMickey84]

The question is about the bitrate of the music file, there's 128Kbps, 192Kbps, 256Kbps, 320Kbps and 1411Kbps (lossless). What's the minumum possible quality we accepted to listen to?

When I play the 128KKbps' ones, any disadvantage I may got? Thank guys

 

[Riplash]

The question is about the bitrate of the music file, there's 128Kbps, 192Kbps, 256Kbps, 320Kbps and 1411Kbps (lossless). What's the minumum possible quality we accepted to listen to?

When I play the 128KKbps' ones, any disadvantage I may got? Thank guys

Hey

When I was collecting music for just my self, I didn't care about the quality, didn't care about hiss from a cassette recording, or other errors.

That has all changed now that I playing music as a DJ. A lot of the places I play at, I can't tell a difference between 96 kpbs (or whatever the next lower rate is beneath 128) and 128, because the audio systems are not all that great. But I don't know how the systems will be in the future, or where I'll play in the future. Plus Storage space is relatively cheap now, whether its flash drives, cd's, hard drives, dvds, online storage space, So any new music I procure, I get the highest bitrate I can, And If I have to store it or change the format, I've been using lossless compression. I consider getting the music an investment, and I imagine I'll be using it way into the future.

I think most places 128 kbps will work fine now, and only audio experts that know the songs really well inside and out might be able to tell a difference.

Take Care,
Rip.

 

[White Chacha]

When I first started ripping my ballroom CDs, I did this to 128Kb/s mp3 files. Didn't like the way they sounded and now I won't use anything lower than 192Kb/s VBR where mp3s are concerned.

 

[toothlesstiger]

I think you will find that 128 kbs will be fine. People have become attuned to hearing mp3s at that bit rate, and studies show that most listeners prefer that quality of sound to audiophile recordings. I rip my music at 192. Unless you're the sort that prefers vinyl over cd's because of sound quality, I wouldn't sweat the bit rate.

 

[tsb]

it'd be helpful to understand who your audience is, as sound quality will be less crucial to some audiences compared than to others, partly because they can't hear the difference. but some people can.

i'm probably at one extreme having a strong musical background that includes listening to a lot of live music. i also DJ with a personal goal is to play music that people enjoy listening to whether they dance or choose to sit out for that particular song. so i choose to store my MP3's at 320.

 

[UKDancer]

Data storage is now so cheap, that it doesn't seem to make sense not to use a highish bitrate for compressed music files, but I prefer ACC to MP3, marginally.

What is much more important to me is the quality of the MUSIC. My heart sinks, regularly, when I'm out and about social dancing, and hear the same handful of ancient Gunter Noris or Hugo Strasser tracks. Some of the stuff I hear played is not even from the stereo era, and much of it is 40 years old, and done to death.

 

[Ron AKA]

I would suggest the MP3 file size is way down on the priority list for overall sound quality for dance. The most important part of dance music is the beat, which is contained in the lower frequencies. Low frequencies are the last to suffer in quality due to less frequent sampling. The very high frequencies do suffer, but it takes excellent sound systems to reproduce them. They tend to be highly directional and seating placement is critical to hear them. When you are moving in a dance you are not in ideal locations. Also this does not consider that older people probably can't hear them anyway.

 

[White Chacha]

.... The most important part of dance music is the beat, which is contained in the lower frequencies. Low frequencies are the last to suffer in quality due to less frequent sampling...

The sharpness of the beat will suffer as you restrict the bitrate.

Apart from that, having music to dance by is for more than just the beat. If it were only for the latter, we might as well dance to a metronome, no?

 

[Ron AKA]

The sharpness of the beat will suffer as you restrict the bitrate.

Apart from that, having music to dance by is for more than just the beat. If it were only for the latter, we might as well dance to a metronome, no?

Not sure what you mean by the sharpness of the beat?

Yes, I agree that there is a lot more to music than the beat, but of course for dancing the beat is vital. Probably having the sound system (amplifier/speakers) with enough power and tuned to the acoustics of the dance studio is the most important factor in perceived music quality. Some sound systems are just awful, or sound awful because they are not balanced to the acoustics.

As to dancing to a metronome, indirectly you may be doing just that. Check out the drummer's ears in a live band. Those ear phones may very well be carrying an electronic metronome channel that lets them stay in beat. Recorded music from days past often had a beat that wanders as the drummer was doing it all by ear. Now the beat in recorded music tends to be dead on, as it is either a pure electronic drum machine, or the real drummer is staying in beat by using an electronic metronome.

 

[chrislo]

I run a monthly social dance and in that environment most people do not notice the difference in quality from a 128kbps track to a 320kpbs one. The acoustics of the hall and other factors like temperature will alter the sound to some degree. Add in a bunch of people dancing and chatting wandering in or out of the hall and the result is a situation where relatively minor changes in orginal sound quality are made insignificant. If you sit an a stable environment with a high quality audio system and have perfect hearing then I suppose that it is important. I have dance music to dance to and I don't listen to the music for it's quality. Don't misunderstand me I prefere to have all my tracks at 320k but for my purpose it is not essential. I want music that makes people want to get up and dance first and foremost. Quality while it is important is not the highest priority for me anyway

 

[bclure]

As a DJ, I won't play anything less than 256. Ok, people will say they can't "hear" the difference but I think they feel it.

Same subject, slightly different: I wish someone would re-master some Fred Astaire songs. He did some great stuff but the recording quality is too low to play.

 

[tanya_the_dancer]

It also depends on what you use for playback. I don't hear much difference between mp3 and uncompressed wav files when I play them back through my computer's feeble speakers, but when I used a 128 mp3 with a slide show and played it back through my tv sound system, I heard the difference

 

[Al Gisnered]

Same subject, slightly different: I wish someone would re-master some Fred Astaire songs. He did some great stuff but the recording quality is too low to play.

>hijack

Aw, just go on and play them. If your your audience gets it, it won't matter whether the sound quality is updated or not. If they don't get it, no amount of re-mastering will help.

I'd get it - wish our DJs were more adventurous.

and now back to our regularly scheduled thread

unhijack<

 

[Subliminal]

When I rip audio CDs I use Exact Audio Copy. It has an algorithm that tries to find the optimal compression for minimal audio loss. (Usually somewhere between 150 and 200.) When ordering music I try to get 196 minimum. It makes a difference on good sound systems and on my high quality headphones.

 

[CT Ballroom]

It's 320 for me when I record my music for competition. When I first started I was using 192 and I thought it sounded fine but now when I play at comps the new stuff does sound much better IMHO than when I play something from years past.