5 ms·

If you are downloading to simply consume, then sure. But as others have noted this article assumes that mastering is always the last step in the editing process

If you are downloading to simply consume, then sure. But as others have noted this article assumes that mastering is always the last step in the editing process. Anyone who ever remixed, sampled or DJ'ed will disagree. If we keep that in mind, then the setup of the problem changes significantly and most arguments made here do not apply to the download itself.

krisdol 9y ago
Right. I used to DJ throughout college and tried out a variety of formats. At high amplification, artifacts become apparent. VBR0 and 256kbit MP3s did not hold up, at all. Even smaller speakers and headphones didn't hide some of the compression artifacts for me. 320kbit CBR MP3s were... I'd say, generally OK if you did not plan on skewing their tempo much outside of a very small range (give or take 5% speed). Really bad artifacting becomes audible quickly beyond that range. Maybe it was placebo, but I also found differences between FLAC and 320kbit MP3 discernible when working on big, more powerful speakers. But, with FLAC, it didn't matter if the sound was played at 10% tempo or extreme amplitude, audio was always crisp, clear, and free of compression artifacts (obviously). On my laptop speakers or earbuds, no way would I be able to tell the difference between any of these today.
hashmal 9y ago
> Anyone who ever remixed, sampled or DJ'ed will disagree. Could you expand on this?
stephen_g 9y ago
He specifically addresses audio engineering (which can be interpolated to DJing and remixing). As he says, what you need in that case is 24bit audio to have more dynamic range to play with. >48kHz is still useless to human hearing. This particular article doesn't touch on compression as well, which is probably the biggest thing for remixing or DJing. You really want uncompressed or at least high-bitrate AAC.

5 ms·

If you are downloading to simply consume, then sure. But as others have noted this article assumes that mastering is always the last step in the editing process

by tigerBL00D 9y ago

krisdol 9y ago
Right. I used to DJ throughout college and tried out a variety of formats. At high amplification, artifacts become apparent. VBR0 and 256kbit MP3s did not hold up, at all. Even smaller speakers and headphones didn't hide some of the compression artifacts for me. 320kbit CBR MP3s were... I'd say, generally OK if you did not plan on skewing their tempo much outside of a very small range (give or take 5% speed). Really bad artifacting becomes audible quickly beyond that range. Maybe it was placebo, but I also found differences between FLAC and 320kbit MP3 discernible when working on big, more powerful speakers. But, with FLAC, it didn't matter if the sound was played at 10% tempo or extreme amplitude, audio was always crisp, clear, and free of compression artifacts (obviously). On my laptop speakers or earbuds, no way would I be able to tell the difference between any of these today.
hashmal 9y ago
> Anyone who ever remixed, sampled or DJ'ed will disagree. Could you expand on this?
stephen_g 9y ago
He specifically addresses audio engineering (which can be interpolated to DJing and remixing). As he says, what you need in that case is 24bit audio to have more dynamic range to play with. >48kHz is still useless to human hearing. This particular article doesn't touch on compression as well, which is probably the biggest thing for remixing or DJing. You really want uncompressed or at least high-bitrate AAC.