Tony Andrews of Funktion One talks about MP3 in Mix Mag.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Johnpuga1982
  • Start date Start date
J

Johnpuga1982

Guest
What's all the fuss about Funktion One?

...Co-founder Tony Andrews has been experimenting with sound innovation since the 70's, and is fiercely passionate about his field of enigineering. "We get the speakers right, they all come without any EQ correction, which is cheating, and have very low levels of distortion," he says. "We're also anti-MP3. If you put an MP3 out through one of our systems, and then a WAV file, you'll hear a huge difference. It's because most others are inferior. We're always astounded by the number of so-called professional DJs using MP3s and putting them out over live systems. It shouldn't be encouraged!"...

As taken from Mix Mag.

Mix Mag
Issue 193
June 2007
Pg 038
 
True, mp3's suck big time when it comes to sound definition. But the thing is, how many ppl do you expect to actually notice the difference? I mean, most of them don't even bother when a "dj" can't mix on tempo, do you think they'll notice any difference in the bitrate? Don't think so...
 
then why do people notice the system in big clubs sound either good or bad?

there are places i refuse to go to due to bad sound...

I think other people do notice too....

If you have a nice, Higher fidelity system, things like this become readily identifiable...

to me it shows a lack of professionalism on the DJ and event promoter's parts.....

maybe if you are using a pioneer 500 and jbl eons, it won't matter...

but if you have a decent playback system....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i guess it all depends on whether u wanna be a party DJ or a professional whos taken seriously
 
it all depends.

i mean, of course your going to notice the bad quality on a 64kbps mp3 file, but i mean. for files 192kbps and up. i dont think so.
 
kebzer and louped garou both made very valid points...

The AVERAGE... I'm talking AVERAGE person who attends an event/club, is most likely not going to notice the difference in sound quality if the DJ is playing an MP3 or a WAV format. (above 128kbps of course)
Bass is normally so overpowering anyways that most higher to mid range frequencies are really drowned out (fletcher munson curve) and are difficult to fully appreciate

again, keep in mind im referring to the AVERAGE person. Meaning they don't really listen to music for the quality to fully appreciate it, but listen to it for the fact of listening to it. Hearing a song they like, and playing it over and over because its "so catchy"

However, there is no denying that there are a VAST amount of people in the world who can appreciate and understand what good sound truly is. If you are somehow involved in music... whether you DJ, play an instrument, produce, conduct, etc... then its almost impossible to NOT notice good quality from bad. Its just habit really.

its just supply VS demand...

If the public hated the crappy quality of MP3s being played at clubs so much, they would stop going to the clubs that played them. But do you see that happening?

No.

MP3 is crap, yes I know, but welcome to the digital era. Compression and simplicity are overtaking the world.

..now i should go back to work or my boss will yell at me :)
 
Last edited:
This is a good discussion... more people should share their insight!!

:)
 
Haqq said:
Any mp3 that is CDQ, you can't tell a difference.
Click to expand...

So your saying Tony Andrews of Funktion One is wrong and your right? Please list your creditals to validate your statement.
 
Source is a whole different conversation though...

because a high quality audio file played through a crappy system will sound crappy. Because the system is crappy.

But an MP3 played through a nice system will sound good enough to groove to, and the public most likely won't be able to tell any difference.

System in my mind overrides the quality of the file completely because it the last link in the system flow for what determines what the audience hears.

We are talking about strictly audio file quality here.

Where should clubs draw the lines on quality for audio be played for the public??
Obviously MP3's compared to WAV files save a HUGE HUGE HUGE amount of time/space when organizing/uploading/storing files.
DJ's don't need to rely on vastly huge HD's to store thousands of songs when the files are in MP3 format, which essentially gives the DJ a broader selection of music, and can keep the crowd happy and satisfied.
But if the public were to hear higher quality audio for a certain amount of time, then were to be re-exposed to MP3.... do you think they would notice the difference in quality?
 
you can def. hear the switch to MP3 from vinyl in a decent system...




as far as the storage issue, memory is very cheap nowadays... so what's the reason to use the inferior format?
 
There's been surveys where they took 10 people, almost all of them working in the music field, sat them down on some of the best monitors in the world and provided them with audiophile level headphones, and played back to MP3 files (one was 128, one 192, both files were VBR) and an uncompressed file of the same song. Only one person could tell the difference, and he trains audio engineers on how to master classical recordings.

I use almost all 320kbps MP3 files, bare minimum I allow onto my computer is 192kbps and usually those are replaced by V0 VBR files if I end up playing them often.

Think you're gonna hear the difference in the club, being an average guy out to party? I don't think so...considering most couldn't point the differences out on a 20,000 dollar pair of monitors.

If you're downloading all your **** off ******** at 128kbps, then yeah, you're no professional...but if most your **** is direct ripped from the original 12" or CD single, and at least 192...disregard everything you read in that article because it's full of ****.

A lot of you guys need to realize not all MP3s are made the same - if they're transcoded there will be a loss in quality. If they are ripped from the original source in a high bit-rate, you're NOT gonna hear the difference in the club. Even a 128kbps ripped with the newest version of LAME off the original source is going to sound acceptable to your average listener on your average club system (not us, maybe, but average guy).

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off

Read the above article...best part is they used iTunes to encode which isn't even a high-quality encoder when it comes to its VBR, which is which they used. There was even controversy from audiophiles regarding iTunes VBR...yet still no one could tell the difference. Funny isn't it? I wish I could find the other article...that would totally disregard this whole discussion more then the above.

Let our guy from Mix Mag carry his 6 external hard drives into every club so he can play his AIFF files...I'll be sticking to my 320kbps MP3s on my 13" MacBook and no one's going to hear a difference. Now I wouldn't PRODUCE with MP3s...but that's a different story and more of a purist one at that.
 
Last edited:
tell you what....
build a high efficiency system (load it with TAD woofers (i use 1601As), JBL 2440 mid drivers on a 2395 or 2397 horn, and JBL ring radiator tweeters) and use high quality amps, EQs, and mixer...


(if you choose the right box and get a nice crossover, you're on your way to those 20K dollar studio monitors you always wanted)

play the record, and then play the MP3 through the system...



whatever whoever says or writes, i can hear it....
to me its all about knowing what to listen for...


i'm out....

:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yellowaudi said:
...I'll be sticking to my 320kbps MP3s on my 13" MacBook and no one's going to hear a difference. Now I wouldn't PRODUCE with MP3s...but that's a different story and more of a purist one at that.
Click to expand...

If you using Serato, then 320kbps really sounds bad.
 
How do you figure?

They're the highest quality encoding you can get out of an MP3...how do you figure they sound worse? I suggest you do a little more research before you start debates like this, considering that's outright ridiculous.
 
could be that SSL's DA/AD converters just sound bad....

i dunno. I don't screw with that stuff....
 
louped garou said:
could be that SSL's DA/AD converters just sound bad....
Click to expand...

All you have to do is A, B, and C one track with the different sources. Your ear will tell you know lies. All the hip hop guys in my area have switched to Serato and you can hear the harshness in the highs and mids. Some of those tracks I've 100+ times. You can hear the loss of sound quality even more so in Serato.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top