Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?
-
leggo rocker
- Posts: 4071
- Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:40 pm
Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?
Kookahman
Not sure what you mean by DJ from David Isaacs. Which track? Is this from another thread on here somewhere.
I have a copy of the BRILLIANT Nuh Skin Up on the original white label. Bit of a rough copy which breaks my heart a little as I once had it NEW, MINT and always kept it that way until stupidly selling it in 1984.
Not sure what you mean by DJ from David Isaacs. Which track? Is this from another thread on here somewhere.
I have a copy of the BRILLIANT Nuh Skin Up on the original white label. Bit of a rough copy which breaks my heart a little as I once had it NEW, MINT and always kept it that way until stupidly selling it in 1984.
-
kookahman
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 7:47 pm
Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?
2leggo rocker
heh) i've looked through your site and saw
CLIPS:
David Isaacs - please listen and ID the DJ
so that's why i wondered
the first press of nuh skin up in carton sleeve?ruff.
in 1984 i wasn't born yet))
heh) i've looked through your site and saw
CLIPS:
David Isaacs - please listen and ID the DJ
so that's why i wondered
the first press of nuh skin up in carton sleeve?ruff.
in 1984 i wasn't born yet))
-
leggo rocker
- Posts: 4071
- Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:40 pm
Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?
Ah yes, David Issacs has been ID's, the RA massive decided pon Trinity as the DJ.
Yep, Nuh Skin Up in plain sleeve! I can clearly remember the VERY day when we got back from the record store (before you were born!) rolled some sensi and had our minds blown by the Hudson effect.
Here it says the LP was released in 1982, but I find it hard to believe it was that late as it seems to be more like 1980 in my memory!??!
Yep, Nuh Skin Up in plain sleeve! I can clearly remember the VERY day when we got back from the record store (before you were born!) rolled some sensi and had our minds blown by the Hudson effect.
Here it says the LP was released in 1982, but I find it hard to believe it was that late as it seems to be more like 1980 in my memory!??!
-
ciscosd2000
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:07 pm
Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?
192k is the way to go you can hear the difference between 128 and 192. I've done my hole collection in 192k and backed them up on my hard drive. Yes I have my system up really loud at party's and no one complains about the sound.
-
leggo rocker
- Posts: 4071
- Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:40 pm
Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?
Few people will complain about sound at a party as long as it is loud.
But play Vinyl in a lounge through a good Hi-Fi and then feed the 192k MP3 through the same system and you'll soon hear the reason why people STILL love vinyl...
But play Vinyl in a lounge through a good Hi-Fi and then feed the 192k MP3 through the same system and you'll soon hear the reason why people STILL love vinyl...
-
Jacob Andrews
Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?
GET WITH THE TIMES LEGGO ROCKER
vinyl - cd - mp3 - who knows
TIME moves on.
just be more versitile.
i and am sure everyone loves vinyl, but mp3s and cd's ARE very convinent.
Sorry if i sounded rude my friend
love XXX
vinyl - cd - mp3 - who knows
TIME moves on.
just be more versitile.
i and am sure everyone loves vinyl, but mp3s and cd's ARE very convinent.
Sorry if i sounded rude my friend
love XXX
-
leggo rocker
- Posts: 4071
- Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:40 pm
Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?
I am with the times. I have 2 x 250GB external drives full of music. I have many shelves full of CD.
I also have an Internet radio station that must play MP3 tunes at 64k as it is the only way to deliver it over the 'net (but EVERY tune there is recorded direct from original vinyl).
So what isn't versatile about having vinyl?
But new times don't mean things are better.
My ears were made a long time ago and to a very old design. And they can easily tell the difference between MP3 and Vinyl - even my 12 year old son commented on how much better the tunes sound in vinyl than from MP3.
MP3 is compression, as is CD. It's all about squeezing as much into as small a space as possible. So no surprise that something is lost, something tangible int he sound and atmosphere of the music.
With MP3 and CD you are being shortchanged, less sound and less or even NO artwork.
And what does your MP3 collection LOOK like? It can never have the wow factor that this has:
http://www.leggorockers.com/djpodpics.html
And was not all this music not made in analogue fashion for analogue equipment?
The human voice is analogue, so is the guitar, the piano, the drum set, the brass section. All of this is what makes roots rock reggae so very fine.
So no surprise then that it sounds better when played the analogue way.
Sometimes (many times) older is still WAY better!
I also have an Internet radio station that must play MP3 tunes at 64k as it is the only way to deliver it over the 'net (but EVERY tune there is recorded direct from original vinyl).
So what isn't versatile about having vinyl?
But new times don't mean things are better.
My ears were made a long time ago and to a very old design. And they can easily tell the difference between MP3 and Vinyl - even my 12 year old son commented on how much better the tunes sound in vinyl than from MP3.
MP3 is compression, as is CD. It's all about squeezing as much into as small a space as possible. So no surprise that something is lost, something tangible int he sound and atmosphere of the music.
With MP3 and CD you are being shortchanged, less sound and less or even NO artwork.
And what does your MP3 collection LOOK like? It can never have the wow factor that this has:
http://www.leggorockers.com/djpodpics.html
And was not all this music not made in analogue fashion for analogue equipment?
The human voice is analogue, so is the guitar, the piano, the drum set, the brass section. All of this is what makes roots rock reggae so very fine.
So no surprise then that it sounds better when played the analogue way.
Sometimes (many times) older is still WAY better!
-
Jacob Andrews
Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?
i have to say i do agree with you about vinyl
but cd's and mp3 are very convient for me, althrogh vinyl does have a unique sound to it.
I just find it a bit silly when people who LOVE the vinyl, to dismiss mp3/ CD as a lower inferior quality without aknowledging the technicalities. For example of course mp3 at 64, 128, 192 are gonna sound absolutly crap. so a professional ripper or sound converter uses VBR (Variable Biterate) or a sound type like FLAC or other higher more quality alternitives.
As for the artwork i fully understand you, as i have two rooms full with reggae vinyl however i have been working for about 13 months converting them to Digital Format, and i NEVER, repeat NEVER forget to scan the artwork to a high quality on my 3000by 2000 scanner. Not only do i store the photos but i reprint on to glossy card. This may seem silly to YOU, but i do appreciate the artwork.
Vinyl, were great in there prime, and beleve me i was around to enjoy them in the 70's and 80's but they were surpasses by digital format, and made more convient. Just because they were doesnt mean people like you or me should dismiss them as dead or finished with cause i still play mine, im simlpy pointing out the facts that the new "digital formats" are much more easier to use and carry music about. They may not carry to SOUND quality you beleive are in vinyl but at least they dont deteriorate everytime they are played like vinyl
All those vinyl you have in your picture will all be as rusty as an old bike in a couple of years after play. as if u know, they loose quality after each play and you cant tell me youll wrap them up and presvere. becuse you once said that vinyl were meant to play and enjoy, which inddeed they are. CD, MP3, WMA And all other digital formats dont ever lose sound quality.
I hope i have pointed out some things to you without sounding rude as i can respect your love for the original sound of vinyl
Regards Jacob A.
but cd's and mp3 are very convient for me, althrogh vinyl does have a unique sound to it.
I just find it a bit silly when people who LOVE the vinyl, to dismiss mp3/ CD as a lower inferior quality without aknowledging the technicalities. For example of course mp3 at 64, 128, 192 are gonna sound absolutly crap. so a professional ripper or sound converter uses VBR (Variable Biterate) or a sound type like FLAC or other higher more quality alternitives.
As for the artwork i fully understand you, as i have two rooms full with reggae vinyl however i have been working for about 13 months converting them to Digital Format, and i NEVER, repeat NEVER forget to scan the artwork to a high quality on my 3000by 2000 scanner. Not only do i store the photos but i reprint on to glossy card. This may seem silly to YOU, but i do appreciate the artwork.
Vinyl, were great in there prime, and beleve me i was around to enjoy them in the 70's and 80's but they were surpasses by digital format, and made more convient. Just because they were doesnt mean people like you or me should dismiss them as dead or finished with cause i still play mine, im simlpy pointing out the facts that the new "digital formats" are much more easier to use and carry music about. They may not carry to SOUND quality you beleive are in vinyl but at least they dont deteriorate everytime they are played like vinyl
All those vinyl you have in your picture will all be as rusty as an old bike in a couple of years after play. as if u know, they loose quality after each play and you cant tell me youll wrap them up and presvere. becuse you once said that vinyl were meant to play and enjoy, which inddeed they are. CD, MP3, WMA And all other digital formats dont ever lose sound quality.
I hope i have pointed out some things to you without sounding rude as i can respect your love for the original sound of vinyl
Regards Jacob A.
-
leggo rocker
- Posts: 4071
- Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:40 pm
Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?
Vinyl is much more enduring than people think. What really causes vinyl to degrade is dirt. That's why in the pictures you'll see a MOTH RCM record professional cleaning machine.
Most of that vinyl has survived 20 - 30 years pretty much intact, so I don't see it being 'like a rusty old bike' in just a couple of years.
Of course almost ANY music format is more convenient to carry around than vinyl. So I have an iPod - full of music digitised in 'lossless' formats.
Of course absolutely no formats are completely lossless, even a WAV file is going to suffer some deterioration in the process.
When I don't have access to vinyl, but can get an internet signal on my laptop, I tune into my own radio station which has proved a suprisingly good way for me to familiarise myself with my own vinyl!
I very rarely drive but when I do I play CDs, or nothing at present as the damn CD player has eaten a Black Uhuru disk and stubbornly refuses to vomit it back out!
But if I am at home, I will ONLY listen to vinyl except in the bathroom where I use my MacBook to connect to my radio station! So I have a record deeck in the Dining room, my den, the bedroom and the lounge!
I play music whenever I can. I don't watch TV, just films on DVD. Maybe because I come from a household where music always had more prominence and importance than TV.
Not sure why you would bother scanning artwork and printing it on card, unless you intend to sell the vinyl of course and just keep the disks.
Contrary to popular belief, CDs are a VERY fragile media. I have many that won't play despite good handling.
CD-Rs are worse, much worse. They don't like dirt, sunlight, etc etc - a bit like vinyl then!
And if you keep your music on any digital format, you'd better be sure you have it on at least TWO seperate Hard Drives or eventually you're gonna lose the lot - as many here will know to their cost!
I have also noted discussion going on in some technicals forums claiming that MP3s do indeed degrade in quality, although I am yet to get my head around quite how this would happen!
My main bitch against digital formats isn't aimed at the digital music format per se, it's more aimed at these terrible low bit rate formats that are nothing less than musical murder.
As I am a vinyl addict, in the truest and most disturbing sense of the word addict, I can't see myself ever selling my collection again, the way I foolishly did in 1984. And of course, no amount of arguement, reasoning or persuasion will ever convince an addict that what they are addicted to is wrong!
No offence taken by the way, I am quite capable of enjoying reaasoned discussion on any subject. What ruins forums like this isn't open debate (that's great) but when users resort to personal slanging. Which 5 am sure we won't - especially as it seems we actually agree on many points discussed here!
Most of that vinyl has survived 20 - 30 years pretty much intact, so I don't see it being 'like a rusty old bike' in just a couple of years.
Of course almost ANY music format is more convenient to carry around than vinyl. So I have an iPod - full of music digitised in 'lossless' formats.
Of course absolutely no formats are completely lossless, even a WAV file is going to suffer some deterioration in the process.
When I don't have access to vinyl, but can get an internet signal on my laptop, I tune into my own radio station which has proved a suprisingly good way for me to familiarise myself with my own vinyl!
I very rarely drive but when I do I play CDs, or nothing at present as the damn CD player has eaten a Black Uhuru disk and stubbornly refuses to vomit it back out!
But if I am at home, I will ONLY listen to vinyl except in the bathroom where I use my MacBook to connect to my radio station! So I have a record deeck in the Dining room, my den, the bedroom and the lounge!
I play music whenever I can. I don't watch TV, just films on DVD. Maybe because I come from a household where music always had more prominence and importance than TV.
Not sure why you would bother scanning artwork and printing it on card, unless you intend to sell the vinyl of course and just keep the disks.
Contrary to popular belief, CDs are a VERY fragile media. I have many that won't play despite good handling.
CD-Rs are worse, much worse. They don't like dirt, sunlight, etc etc - a bit like vinyl then!
And if you keep your music on any digital format, you'd better be sure you have it on at least TWO seperate Hard Drives or eventually you're gonna lose the lot - as many here will know to their cost!
I have also noted discussion going on in some technicals forums claiming that MP3s do indeed degrade in quality, although I am yet to get my head around quite how this would happen!
My main bitch against digital formats isn't aimed at the digital music format per se, it's more aimed at these terrible low bit rate formats that are nothing less than musical murder.
As I am a vinyl addict, in the truest and most disturbing sense of the word addict, I can't see myself ever selling my collection again, the way I foolishly did in 1984. And of course, no amount of arguement, reasoning or persuasion will ever convince an addict that what they are addicted to is wrong!
No offence taken by the way, I am quite capable of enjoying reaasoned discussion on any subject. What ruins forums like this isn't open debate (that's great) but when users resort to personal slanging. Which 5 am sure we won't - especially as it seems we actually agree on many points discussed here!
-
pf
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:25 pm
Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?
I also agree that there is nothing like vinyl...but this discussion reminds me to some wise words dreadrecords said once:
'respect to those that spread the good vibes regardless of the format'
although quality of sound is very important ultimately is the quality of the TUNE that counts.
'respect to those that spread the good vibes regardless of the format'
although quality of sound is very important ultimately is the quality of the TUNE that counts.
----ENJOY YOURSELF!----
Its later than you think
Its later than you think