Bren F
"they offered lifetime upgrades" who/where said that?
Napster or no Napster it is hardly in the way as I said, I don't use it, and I don't see a problem in it being there.
Napster or no Napster it is hardly in the way as I said, I don't use it, and I don't see a problem in it being there.
Inviato Wed 15 Mar 06 @ 5:51 pm
vpcdj
Bug u asked me what feature i'd like and i really choked to give you an answer. i've given about 8 or 9 sugggestions on Cyder's sticky in the New Features forum. the details are in that thread. to surmarize what i suggested...
1. Being able to accurately set cue points without pausing the deck.
2. ON/OFF button for each deck.
3. more functions to the mouse scroll button (and wheel).
4. Going to Cue Point without Exiting out of loop if the Cue Point is within the loop.
5. Analyzing tracks in the background.
6. Faster way to load songs.
7. More combinations involving keyboard+mouse on the waveform and jog wheels.
8. Using 2 keyboards and each having its own unique shortcuts
-----------------
1. Being able to accurately set cue points without pausing the deck.
Currently the only way to do this is by loading the same file on the other deck. This new feature would require the wave form to be paused without interrupting PLAY. With suggestion 3 (mouse scroll button to help incorporate functions), mouse scroll button+keyboard function can help incorporate this feature.
2. ON/OFF and START/STOP button for each deck.
Thought of this feature because of the Reverse Play-to-Stop feature. Instead of using a plug-in to do this just turn the deck OFF while it plays and use the mouse right click or mouse scroll to reverse deck to a stop.
This feature can be ON on default while opening the program. With the feature the user should be able to turn OFF the deck and maybe even close it out. (But that would take us to redesign the skin. And if one can close out a deck then one should be able to add a third deck. This feature can go on and on but i dont want to go too deep with it.)
Even tho I have a very weak computer many professionals have over 2.0Ghz (512MB+) computers… so it would be understandable if VDJ hogged some power with this feature.
How about to add some aesthetics VDJ decks always spin even if song is removed from a deck. And deck stops spinning when shut OFF or STOPped.
3. More functions added to the mouse scroll and mouse scroll button. By now we all know keyboard shortcuts makes functions faster but the mouse is part of the computer and its here to stay. Besides there’re some simple functions the mouse can do that it’s just not possible to add keyboard shortcuts for. Eg. Mouse scroll moving pitch/volume/eqs/browser over their sliders. Like it currently zooms over the Waveform.
suggestion 2 above, and without a plug-in one can easily reverse the deck with the mouse scroll.
mouse scroll button can be used to make suggestion 1 easier; with mouse scroll button holding the (zoomed in) Waveform one can press and hold the waveform and accurately set a Cue point while the song plays. Letting go of the mouse scroll button takes u to position of the song playing.
4. [an option of] Going to Cue Point without Exiting Loop if the Cue Point is Within the loop.
5. Analyzing tracks in the background. if the germans and the english men can do it so should the french.
6. Faster way to load [and play] songs (for battles or mixtape intros): (Open to suggestions).
I was just thinking the other day that on a real turn table u could have more than one vinyl on a deck so that when u take out the one on top the dj is ready to go with the next one. So how about a similar feature on VDJ where one can stack songs on a deck and have a way to remove the one playing and ready to go with the next one.
7. More combinations involving keyboard+mouse on the waveform and jog wheels.
This can be used to trigger plug-ins (on the jog wheel) or set cues and loops (on the waveform).
Keyboard shortcut with the mouse over Deck A performing different from the same keyboard shortcut with mouse over deck B.
---------------------------------------------------------
Its just a few days for me to get the program anyway. if these suggestions are taken on v4 im gonna donate $50 after buying the program.
speaking of donations VDJ website should have a "Donations" so that Pro users and some of us who've taken so long to buy the program can donate to appreciate hard work of the programmers. some updates can be so important that some people could donate if they could. i thought the Video upgrade was an important upgrade. a lot of users in other program forums praise it.
vp
1. Being able to accurately set cue points without pausing the deck.
2. ON/OFF button for each deck.
3. more functions to the mouse scroll button (and wheel).
4. Going to Cue Point without Exiting out of loop if the Cue Point is within the loop.
5. Analyzing tracks in the background.
6. Faster way to load songs.
7. More combinations involving keyboard+mouse on the waveform and jog wheels.
8. Using 2 keyboards and each having its own unique shortcuts
-----------------
1. Being able to accurately set cue points without pausing the deck.
Currently the only way to do this is by loading the same file on the other deck. This new feature would require the wave form to be paused without interrupting PLAY. With suggestion 3 (mouse scroll button to help incorporate functions), mouse scroll button+keyboard function can help incorporate this feature.
2. ON/OFF and START/STOP button for each deck.
Thought of this feature because of the Reverse Play-to-Stop feature. Instead of using a plug-in to do this just turn the deck OFF while it plays and use the mouse right click or mouse scroll to reverse deck to a stop.
This feature can be ON on default while opening the program. With the feature the user should be able to turn OFF the deck and maybe even close it out. (But that would take us to redesign the skin. And if one can close out a deck then one should be able to add a third deck. This feature can go on and on but i dont want to go too deep with it.)
Even tho I have a very weak computer many professionals have over 2.0Ghz (512MB+) computers… so it would be understandable if VDJ hogged some power with this feature.
How about to add some aesthetics VDJ decks always spin even if song is removed from a deck. And deck stops spinning when shut OFF or STOPped.
3. More functions added to the mouse scroll and mouse scroll button. By now we all know keyboard shortcuts makes functions faster but the mouse is part of the computer and its here to stay. Besides there’re some simple functions the mouse can do that it’s just not possible to add keyboard shortcuts for. Eg. Mouse scroll moving pitch/volume/eqs/browser over their sliders. Like it currently zooms over the Waveform.
suggestion 2 above, and without a plug-in one can easily reverse the deck with the mouse scroll.
mouse scroll button can be used to make suggestion 1 easier; with mouse scroll button holding the (zoomed in) Waveform one can press and hold the waveform and accurately set a Cue point while the song plays. Letting go of the mouse scroll button takes u to position of the song playing.
4. [an option of] Going to Cue Point without Exiting Loop if the Cue Point is Within the loop.
5. Analyzing tracks in the background. if the germans and the english men can do it so should the french.
6. Faster way to load [and play] songs (for battles or mixtape intros): (Open to suggestions).
I was just thinking the other day that on a real turn table u could have more than one vinyl on a deck so that when u take out the one on top the dj is ready to go with the next one. So how about a similar feature on VDJ where one can stack songs on a deck and have a way to remove the one playing and ready to go with the next one.
7. More combinations involving keyboard+mouse on the waveform and jog wheels.
This can be used to trigger plug-ins (on the jog wheel) or set cues and loops (on the waveform).
Keyboard shortcut with the mouse over Deck A performing different from the same keyboard shortcut with mouse over deck B.
---------------------------------------------------------
Its just a few days for me to get the program anyway. if these suggestions are taken on v4 im gonna donate $50 after buying the program.
speaking of donations VDJ website should have a "Donations" so that Pro users and some of us who've taken so long to buy the program can donate to appreciate hard work of the programmers. some updates can be so important that some people could donate if they could. i thought the Video upgrade was an important upgrade. a lot of users in other program forums praise it.
vp
Inviato Fri 17 Mar 06 @ 2:14 am
Just to stick my oar in... ALL MP3's suck use non compressed non lossy formats.
But upsampling to 128 to 320 could result in a marginally "better" skip to UPSAMPLING MIGHT WORK to see why.
MP3s suck use WAVS
I try to use wav files, ALL MP3's suck its a lossy format, 320 is just about acceptable but hook to a club system and compare mp3 with wav and really you have to go wav, just found out how to mix down to wav and im stoked.
UPSAMPLING MIGHT WORK
Heres my argument to why upsampling might sound better/fatter, if you compress to 128 you throw out huge amounts of information hence a 40mb wav becomes a 4mb mp3 (shudder) if you then upsample to wav /320 if you have GOOD software like cooledit pro2, then it intellegently adds some depth to the song and voila you have a "better sounding" fatter track, its still a lot worse than using originals but its marginally better than 128. I rest my case mlud. Think before dissing this thx.
But upsampling to 128 to 320 could result in a marginally "better" skip to UPSAMPLING MIGHT WORK to see why.
MP3s suck use WAVS
I try to use wav files, ALL MP3's suck its a lossy format, 320 is just about acceptable but hook to a club system and compare mp3 with wav and really you have to go wav, just found out how to mix down to wav and im stoked.
UPSAMPLING MIGHT WORK
Heres my argument to why upsampling might sound better/fatter, if you compress to 128 you throw out huge amounts of information hence a 40mb wav becomes a 4mb mp3 (shudder) if you then upsample to wav /320 if you have GOOD software like cooledit pro2, then it intellegently adds some depth to the song and voila you have a "better sounding" fatter track, its still a lot worse than using originals but its marginally better than 128. I rest my case mlud. Think before dissing this thx.
Inviato Sat 18 Mar 06 @ 11:51 pm
www.trackitdown.net provide great tracks in wav format,
you gotta pay extra but its got to be worth it,
one day people are gonna wake up to what a rip off mp3 is, its a rubbish format, worthless for pro applications.
www.trackitdown.net/damxes303 for my stuff,
you gotta pay extra but its got to be worth it,
one day people are gonna wake up to what a rip off mp3 is, its a rubbish format, worthless for pro applications.
www.trackitdown.net/damxes303 for my stuff,
Inviato Sat 18 Mar 06 @ 11:55 pm
Bren F
hehe, you must have used some GREAT MP3 encoders hehe.
Inviato Sun 19 Mar 06 @ 2:22 am
That is a point i am assuming people are using pro quality encoders and software,
Within VDJ its not going to makie a difference due to the fact that vdj already upsamples with its in house encoder. Im kinda guessing the people who hear a fatter sound are playing and upsampling the mp3s on other software not vdj. VDJ does all sorts of things with the sounds anyway, just the 3 channel mixer on its own changes the sound of a track from how it sounds outside of VDJ.
VDJ does upsampling automatically apparantly so that kind of validates the point that upsampling is felt to be something worth doing otherwise why would VDJ do it automatically? If the argument is that upsampling does nothing why does VDJ bother to do it?
Wouldnt they have to use an outside encoder to upsample to a 320 file or does pro version allow various lvls of compression mp3 formats?
Anyway, I hate mp3 format its rubbish, keep everything as wavs for a sweeter sound. So its a much bigger file, so what, i'd rather have that and the quality it brings, and purists are still gonna sneer at all this and say get some technics and some vynl.
Further ramblings of a proppeller head.
Within VDJ its not going to makie a difference due to the fact that vdj already upsamples with its in house encoder. Im kinda guessing the people who hear a fatter sound are playing and upsampling the mp3s on other software not vdj. VDJ does all sorts of things with the sounds anyway, just the 3 channel mixer on its own changes the sound of a track from how it sounds outside of VDJ.
VDJ does upsampling automatically apparantly so that kind of validates the point that upsampling is felt to be something worth doing otherwise why would VDJ do it automatically? If the argument is that upsampling does nothing why does VDJ bother to do it?
Wouldnt they have to use an outside encoder to upsample to a 320 file or does pro version allow various lvls of compression mp3 formats?
Anyway, I hate mp3 format its rubbish, keep everything as wavs for a sweeter sound. So its a much bigger file, so what, i'd rather have that and the quality it brings, and purists are still gonna sneer at all this and say get some technics and some vynl.
Further ramblings of a proppeller head.
Inviato Sun 19 Mar 06 @ 5:23 am
to clarify the above post VDJ upsamples to ...wav format before playing and applying effects, If upsampling made no difference why would they bother to do this, why not just set everything at the lowest lvl mp3 it meets if theres no appreciable loss in quality.
upsampling from 128 to 320 before putting it into VDJ when it already upsamples/decompresses to wav is pointless, unless your upsampling software / mp3 encoder is better than VDJs, and if this is this case you should upsample to wav.
I think the argument being put forward is that without using VDJ, if you have a 128 mp3 vs and upsampled 320 mp3 of the same file the two files will sound different from each other.
The upsampled one might possibly sound slightly "better" (by better meaing slighty fatter, richer deeper sound texture, this could happen because the player has more information to play with.) Only talking a very slight effect and youd probably get a better effect by upsampling to a wav file. Surely in the process of upsampling theres a bit interpolation going on, joining up themissing dots.
I think an analogy here is digital zoom vs analog zoom on a camera, they can use inbuilt software to enhance/interpolate image information into something vaguely useful but its still not as good as using a pro analog zoom at the same level of zoom.
The whole visual/print media use of jpg vs tiff and uncompressed images is comparable to my mind to mp3 and wav, try writing some text onto a jpg and downsampling see how nasty it gets, or zoom into a jpg. You can get away with using compression for everyday stuff but if your trying to do a massive wall poster its gotta be maximum resolution and as lossless as possible. The more professional you get the less you want lossy formats and the larger the file sizes get.
The evidence between high compression and mp3 and wav is inconclusive which means the jury is still out, but i can always convert my wav files into mp3 and keep my originals but can anyone with mp3 have as high quality as my originals? no its not possible they have "lost" information in the compression.
Maybe one day they will develop lossless compression like the .zip format on the pc, which records all the information as an algorithm, but as it stands mp3 loses the information forever whenever you downsample. You might get it sounding slightly better when you upsample but still no where near the quality of information as the originals.
JPG and MP3 are by their nature "lossy" formats.
Why isnt anyone using mp4?isnt it an improved algorithm? (even if it still sucks as a lossy format)
Just my ramblings.
upsampling from 128 to 320 before putting it into VDJ when it already upsamples/decompresses to wav is pointless, unless your upsampling software / mp3 encoder is better than VDJs, and if this is this case you should upsample to wav.
I think the argument being put forward is that without using VDJ, if you have a 128 mp3 vs and upsampled 320 mp3 of the same file the two files will sound different from each other.
The upsampled one might possibly sound slightly "better" (by better meaing slighty fatter, richer deeper sound texture, this could happen because the player has more information to play with.) Only talking a very slight effect and youd probably get a better effect by upsampling to a wav file. Surely in the process of upsampling theres a bit interpolation going on, joining up themissing dots.
I think an analogy here is digital zoom vs analog zoom on a camera, they can use inbuilt software to enhance/interpolate image information into something vaguely useful but its still not as good as using a pro analog zoom at the same level of zoom.
The whole visual/print media use of jpg vs tiff and uncompressed images is comparable to my mind to mp3 and wav, try writing some text onto a jpg and downsampling see how nasty it gets, or zoom into a jpg. You can get away with using compression for everyday stuff but if your trying to do a massive wall poster its gotta be maximum resolution and as lossless as possible. The more professional you get the less you want lossy formats and the larger the file sizes get.
The evidence between high compression and mp3 and wav is inconclusive which means the jury is still out, but i can always convert my wav files into mp3 and keep my originals but can anyone with mp3 have as high quality as my originals? no its not possible they have "lost" information in the compression.
Maybe one day they will develop lossless compression like the .zip format on the pc, which records all the information as an algorithm, but as it stands mp3 loses the information forever whenever you downsample. You might get it sounding slightly better when you upsample but still no where near the quality of information as the originals.
JPG and MP3 are by their nature "lossy" formats.
Why isnt anyone using mp4?isnt it an improved algorithm? (even if it still sucks as a lossy format)
Just my ramblings.
Inviato Sun 19 Mar 06 @ 5:53 am
Bren F
I used to feel the same about MP3 until I started reading, experimenting with different encoders, bite rates and very much listening.
Some MP3 encoders do a straight forward jump from 1400kbps (approx WAV) to the target KBPs (let's say 192), when an MP3 encoder does this the result is noticeable different from the original, but encoders like the Faunhofer and Lame only remove inaudible parts (to the human ear), it does this as best possible with the amount of KBPS you allow it., if the ABR exceeds 200 then generally the MP3 would sound as good as the CD.
The best way to monitor the quality would be through a very good pair of headphones or studio monitiors (a set-up which permits the fullest frequency range), a club system is less likely to make a good MP3 sound any different than a CD, I don't know why people aspire to club systems for quality, from my experience club systems are about quantity (loudness).
If the MP3 was crap full stop then I doubt it would be incorporated so much into professional hardware and next generation softwares, MP3 is used by far bigger and frankley much more experienced audio professionals than anyone on these boards, the MP3 can sound as good as the CD (for humans), for those who wish to stick with WAVS then that's their choice but personally i'd experiement more with MP3, FLAC and other good compression formats.
Some MP3 encoders do a straight forward jump from 1400kbps (approx WAV) to the target KBPs (let's say 192), when an MP3 encoder does this the result is noticeable different from the original, but encoders like the Faunhofer and Lame only remove inaudible parts (to the human ear), it does this as best possible with the amount of KBPS you allow it., if the ABR exceeds 200 then generally the MP3 would sound as good as the CD.
The best way to monitor the quality would be through a very good pair of headphones or studio monitiors (a set-up which permits the fullest frequency range), a club system is less likely to make a good MP3 sound any different than a CD, I don't know why people aspire to club systems for quality, from my experience club systems are about quantity (loudness).
If the MP3 was crap full stop then I doubt it would be incorporated so much into professional hardware and next generation softwares, MP3 is used by far bigger and frankley much more experienced audio professionals than anyone on these boards, the MP3 can sound as good as the CD (for humans), for those who wish to stick with WAVS then that's their choice but personally i'd experiement more with MP3, FLAC and other good compression formats.
Inviato Sun 19 Mar 06 @ 4:10 pm
tunic
Surely there is no way a program like CoolEdit adds depth to an upsampled mp3 unless you've added some processing to the file, such as compression or reverb etc. - hence you'd be changing the original sound anyway.
It all then comes down to what "better" is defined as - is it closer to the original, or does it sound better because it has been re-produced? I'm sure there are a number of songs which can be made to sound better if they go through more production, but I think what most people refer to in quality here is closeness to the original.
I doubt there is anyone who can tell the difference from a decent encoded 320kbps mp3 to a wav file. That DJ Mag exercise couldn't tell the difference between some 128bit mp3s and the original CD.
Not sure if someone has linked to it in this thread but here you go again:
http://www.djmag.com/djtech018.php
iTunes 128kbps (AAC) is probably good enough for live performances but Napster I'm not so sure as it uses WMA doesn't it?
The other thing to bear in mind is if you are mixing tunes together on a mixer you are effectively applying analogue EQing, mixing and fading - hence you'd get a lot more variation than even wav anyway.
It all then comes down to what "better" is defined as - is it closer to the original, or does it sound better because it has been re-produced? I'm sure there are a number of songs which can be made to sound better if they go through more production, but I think what most people refer to in quality here is closeness to the original.
I doubt there is anyone who can tell the difference from a decent encoded 320kbps mp3 to a wav file. That DJ Mag exercise couldn't tell the difference between some 128bit mp3s and the original CD.
Not sure if someone has linked to it in this thread but here you go again:
http://www.djmag.com/djtech018.php
iTunes 128kbps (AAC) is probably good enough for live performances but Napster I'm not so sure as it uses WMA doesn't it?
The other thing to bear in mind is if you are mixing tunes together on a mixer you are effectively applying analogue EQing, mixing and fading - hence you'd get a lot more variation than even wav anyway.
Inviato Sun 19 Mar 06 @ 4:53 pm
acw_dj
Any file in 128kbps is going to stay in the same quality sounding even if you change it to a 192kbps using a software. The oly REAL solution to get this is to RIP again all your song that have this quality to a better one.
you can use 320kbps song and resample it to 128 and do it good, but if you do in the other way you only are going to get a large file with the same quality as it is in 128kbps.
I prefer 192kbps in Variable Bit Rate (VBR). Use the exact file size to a great sounding song.
Good Luck!
Inviato Sun 19 Mar 06 @ 7:22 pm
Dach
OK, here's why re-ripping 128k MP3's to 192 won't make it sound better:
Let's say you take a picture with a 1 megapixel digital camera. Now, you can take that picture and use Photoshop to increase it to 2 megapixels. The problem is, there are only 1 million pixels of data available. Photoshop can use interpolation to try and fill in the gaps, but it can't create any new information. The result is that if there is an area of the 1MP picture that is a little blurry, it will not appear any clearer in the 2MP picture.
It's the same with MP3's. The file size is larger, but there isn't any more audio detail in the new file.
Also, you should never rip in VBR. it might be okay with a supercomputer, but decoding VBR requires substantially more processing power than CBR, which can lead to skips. Also, in software that allows for pitch change and/or tempo change, especially when tempo changes and pitch doesn't, VBR can lead to timing errors.
Let's say you take a picture with a 1 megapixel digital camera. Now, you can take that picture and use Photoshop to increase it to 2 megapixels. The problem is, there are only 1 million pixels of data available. Photoshop can use interpolation to try and fill in the gaps, but it can't create any new information. The result is that if there is an area of the 1MP picture that is a little blurry, it will not appear any clearer in the 2MP picture.
It's the same with MP3's. The file size is larger, but there isn't any more audio detail in the new file.
Also, you should never rip in VBR. it might be okay with a supercomputer, but decoding VBR requires substantially more processing power than CBR, which can lead to skips. Also, in software that allows for pitch change and/or tempo change, especially when tempo changes and pitch doesn't, VBR can lead to timing errors.
Inviato Mon 20 Mar 06 @ 9:32 am
lopez453
Okay just some facts:
if you have 128kb mp3 it's good to leave it as it is.
If you are ripping freshly from ORIGINAL WAV/CD not from the CD that was burned from mp3 or unpacked mp3 to wav use bitrate that is sufficient for you. For most people 192kbps joint stereo is good with LAME encoder.
I'm wondering that some people states and assures others without ANY knowledge of the process of playing. That in fact everything that you want to play thru soundcard should be WAV file.
Sound is made by oscillations of membrane (and air that membrane moves) that are caused by changing the voltage to the speaker. In order to get an changing voltage from the computer (digital) format you need D/A (digital/analog) converter.
Samplerate means how often you can change this value (higher samplerate provides better fidelity for higher sounds). the standard for CD-quality is 44100 Hz (that should theoreticcaly cover frequencies up to 22050 Hz that is the top of what people can hear).
Bit depth means how fine theese voltage changes can be.
8bit provides 256 values, 16bit = 65526 ;24bit is 16 million values.
CD quality is considered 16bit and mostly you can enjoy the full dynamic range of the orgestra without "hiding" the silent parts in the noise.
In order to reproduce a sound you need to continuosly send the data to your soudcards D/A.
wav file (typically) are just data that you feed the card with, but including some headers...
So if you want to play mp3 you must "convert" it to the WAV-like format and send it to the card.
IF you have plugins (qualizers, limiters, expanders and other "superboosters") in your music editing software they are the only way to virtually "improve" the sound. But WHY improve sound and then again pack it with lossy mp3? and again depack while playing ?
You can use virtualDJ effects to improve the sound the same way (if the plugins are compatible)
or you can use the external hardware boxes on the output to PA that does the same.
============
The main point is: using higher bitrate provides you better room for quality, but it depends on the source if you will use the whole possible range.
And practical test showed me that 128kb files sounds louder because they are more compressed and have less dynamics. 192 were really more punchy. But results were different for the strange files recorded from radio by some crazies...
btw. does "danzel - he ho de samba" sound so wooden and without deep bass and hi-hi's on every original or just on my two CD's :-)
if you have 128kb mp3 it's good to leave it as it is.
If you are ripping freshly from ORIGINAL WAV/CD not from the CD that was burned from mp3 or unpacked mp3 to wav use bitrate that is sufficient for you. For most people 192kbps joint stereo is good with LAME encoder.
I'm wondering that some people states and assures others without ANY knowledge of the process of playing. That in fact everything that you want to play thru soundcard should be WAV file.
Sound is made by oscillations of membrane (and air that membrane moves) that are caused by changing the voltage to the speaker. In order to get an changing voltage from the computer (digital) format you need D/A (digital/analog) converter.
Samplerate means how often you can change this value (higher samplerate provides better fidelity for higher sounds). the standard for CD-quality is 44100 Hz (that should theoreticcaly cover frequencies up to 22050 Hz that is the top of what people can hear).
Bit depth means how fine theese voltage changes can be.
8bit provides 256 values, 16bit = 65526 ;24bit is 16 million values.
CD quality is considered 16bit and mostly you can enjoy the full dynamic range of the orgestra without "hiding" the silent parts in the noise.
In order to reproduce a sound you need to continuosly send the data to your soudcards D/A.
wav file (typically) are just data that you feed the card with, but including some headers...
So if you want to play mp3 you must "convert" it to the WAV-like format and send it to the card.
IF you have plugins (qualizers, limiters, expanders and other "superboosters") in your music editing software they are the only way to virtually "improve" the sound. But WHY improve sound and then again pack it with lossy mp3? and again depack while playing ?
You can use virtualDJ effects to improve the sound the same way (if the plugins are compatible)
or you can use the external hardware boxes on the output to PA that does the same.
============
The main point is: using higher bitrate provides you better room for quality, but it depends on the source if you will use the whole possible range.
And practical test showed me that 128kb files sounds louder because they are more compressed and have less dynamics. 192 were really more punchy. But results were different for the strange files recorded from radio by some crazies...
btw. does "danzel - he ho de samba" sound so wooden and without deep bass and hi-hi's on every original or just on my two CD's :-)
Inviato Mon 20 Mar 06 @ 1:37 pm
vpcdj
*sighs*
this thread beginning to feel like those "what is a real dj" threads. where its gonna go to 10 pages of the same ish. 3 months later another thread gonna come up and ppl gonna be talkin about the same ish.
that said let me drop something... :)
u cant really use the photo analogy here coz sight is different from sound. the eyes dont lie. u can lie with Eqs and all that good stuff with sound.
this thread beginning to feel like those "what is a real dj" threads. where its gonna go to 10 pages of the same ish. 3 months later another thread gonna come up and ppl gonna be talkin about the same ish.
that said let me drop something... :)
u cant really use the photo analogy here coz sight is different from sound. the eyes dont lie. u can lie with Eqs and all that good stuff with sound.
Inviato Mon 20 Mar 06 @ 7:53 pm
bobster692
I know there will be guys in this forum using top notch gear etc but.......
I'm just having a little chuckle to myself - I'm just thinking about some of the rubbish i have personaly seen/heard out there on the circuit that i have been on for the last 15 years....... At the end of the day with some of the equitment setups I have seen - The bitrate of their mp3's is really the last of their problems lol!! Obviously the clearer the sound you have the more you will notice the difference between a good or bad mp3.
Personally I wouldn't recomend anything under 160. But I have heard some crap 192 and 256's but there also have been some reasonable 128's - I suppose you should check all mp3's by your own ear before you decide to use them for a pro' occasion.
I'm just having a little chuckle to myself - I'm just thinking about some of the rubbish i have personaly seen/heard out there on the circuit that i have been on for the last 15 years....... At the end of the day with some of the equitment setups I have seen - The bitrate of their mp3's is really the last of their problems lol!! Obviously the clearer the sound you have the more you will notice the difference between a good or bad mp3.
Personally I wouldn't recomend anything under 160. But I have heard some crap 192 and 256's but there also have been some reasonable 128's - I suppose you should check all mp3's by your own ear before you decide to use them for a pro' occasion.
Inviato Mon 20 Mar 06 @ 10:39 pm
digijoc-Mele
is there a vote to close this thread ?
Inviato Mon 20 Mar 06 @ 10:49 pm
Bren F
I don't know, it's not a problem to me, people can disguise this until their hearts content.
Inviato Mon 20 Mar 06 @ 11:13 pm
peachstonedj
My question that started this post really wasnt a question... I know that 128bps is NOT professional. So WHY do we have a NAPTSTER button on the software ? That is my whole beef here.. if napster offered tracks in lossless compression and tracks that i can move to another pc without fear of using up my number of copies i am allowed..hell if 2 of my pcs died i would probably go out of business without rights to the tracks i pay for. I do understand that you can give copies away and all. (no-brainer)
BUT DAMN...PLEASE ALLOW US TO DISABLE THE NAPTSTER BUTTON !!!
BUT DAMN...PLEASE ALLOW US TO DISABLE THE NAPTSTER BUTTON !!!
Inviato Tue 21 Mar 06 @ 7:09 am
tunic
@peachstonedj:
Can you not download, burn to CD and re-rip as required? Exactly what you have to do with iTunes?
I have to be honest, I am not bothered about the Napster link at the moment and I appreciate there must be a kick-back for Atomix to leave it there. If it means more money is invested in the product then c'est la vie. I would however prefer it to be Beatport or DJ Download through ;o)
Can you not download, burn to CD and re-rip as required? Exactly what you have to do with iTunes?
I have to be honest, I am not bothered about the Napster link at the moment and I appreciate there must be a kick-back for Atomix to leave it there. If it means more money is invested in the product then c'est la vie. I would however prefer it to be Beatport or DJ Download through ;o)
Inviato Tue 21 Mar 06 @ 9:11 am
internodal
This topic is about whether a 128 kbps MP3 file sounds good enough for use in a professional environment.
I say: Sure, why not?
And here are 4 reasons to back this up:
1 - Remember the good old days, when 4-track cassette tapes were used in mobile DJ'ing (and even in radio stations!!). Seriously, guys, does an average cassette recording sound nearly as good as a 128 kbps MP3?
2 - To the average clubber's ear, a well-recorded 128 kbps MP3 will sound just the same as a CD, considering the loud volume and echo found in a club or mobile DJ environment. The key is to have the best possible source (vinyl, CD, wave...) and encode it ONLY ONCE to 128 kbps. It'll sound just fine and your crowd won't tell the difference.
3 - I've heard 128 kbps MP3's that sounded fantastic, while there are some 320 kbps MP3's that sound like crap. Again, it's all about the audio source and the way it's recorded to MP3.
4 - Radio stations that broadcast live from night clubs often use an audio data stream as low as 128 kbps. However, even a well-trained ear hardly notices the "digital" sound, because the final sound output is usualy over-compressed with an electronic audio compressor. Hence, the "digital" harmonic is drowned in a sea of compressed bass.
That said, I personaly find there is a good difference between a well-recorded 192 kbps MP3 and a well-recorded 128 kbps MP3. But, does that make the 128 kbps file unsuitable for pro use? Absolutely not!
Just my 2¢
Internodal.
I say: Sure, why not?
And here are 4 reasons to back this up:
1 - Remember the good old days, when 4-track cassette tapes were used in mobile DJ'ing (and even in radio stations!!). Seriously, guys, does an average cassette recording sound nearly as good as a 128 kbps MP3?
2 - To the average clubber's ear, a well-recorded 128 kbps MP3 will sound just the same as a CD, considering the loud volume and echo found in a club or mobile DJ environment. The key is to have the best possible source (vinyl, CD, wave...) and encode it ONLY ONCE to 128 kbps. It'll sound just fine and your crowd won't tell the difference.
3 - I've heard 128 kbps MP3's that sounded fantastic, while there are some 320 kbps MP3's that sound like crap. Again, it's all about the audio source and the way it's recorded to MP3.
4 - Radio stations that broadcast live from night clubs often use an audio data stream as low as 128 kbps. However, even a well-trained ear hardly notices the "digital" sound, because the final sound output is usualy over-compressed with an electronic audio compressor. Hence, the "digital" harmonic is drowned in a sea of compressed bass.
That said, I personaly find there is a good difference between a well-recorded 192 kbps MP3 and a well-recorded 128 kbps MP3. But, does that make the 128 kbps file unsuitable for pro use? Absolutely not!
Just my 2¢
Internodal.
Inviato Mon 03 Apr 06 @ 1:17 am