SevanKambel
In the future I would love to use VDJ with Roon.
Roon upconverts 320 MP3's to full 24-bit audio using the higher sample rate from the devices sound card. It gives standard MP3s at 44Kbs a sonic boost higher than CD quality to whatever sample rate your sound card supports. Many DJ controllers now days come with a 24-bit/96K sound card that is usually never used to it's full potential because almost all the music out there still has the lower 44K CD quality sample rate. Hi-Res audio is starting to become popular. I would love to see VDJ being the first DJ application to support Roon integration maybe as a VST plugin?
Roon upconverts 320 MP3's to full 24-bit audio using the higher sample rate from the devices sound card. It gives standard MP3s at 44Kbs a sonic boost higher than CD quality to whatever sample rate your sound card supports. Many DJ controllers now days come with a 24-bit/96K sound card that is usually never used to it's full potential because almost all the music out there still has the lower 44K CD quality sample rate. Hi-Res audio is starting to become popular. I would love to see VDJ being the first DJ application to support Roon integration maybe as a VST plugin?
Posté Mon 10 Aug 20 @ 3:12 pm
Adion
Note that humans can't hear frequencies above about 20khz, and 16-bit is a sufficient dynamic range for the human ears as well, so any audible changes that this software make have nothing to do with either samplerate or dynamic range limitations.
Whether the changes it make actually make any improvements is therefore highly subjective as well.
Edit: On the Roon labs website I also can't even find anywhere that they claim they would 'improve' your music due to higher frequencies or bitdepth.
VirtualDJ itself also does upconversion to the samplerate and bit-depth of the sound card you are using by the way. It tries to do this as accurate as possible, so the end result is that it will sound exactly the same as when it would be played back in the sources original samplerate and bitdepth :p
Whether the changes it make actually make any improvements is therefore highly subjective as well.
Edit: On the Roon labs website I also can't even find anywhere that they claim they would 'improve' your music due to higher frequencies or bitdepth.
VirtualDJ itself also does upconversion to the samplerate and bit-depth of the sound card you are using by the way. It tries to do this as accurate as possible, so the end result is that it will sound exactly the same as when it would be played back in the sources original samplerate and bitdepth :p
Posté Mon 10 Aug 20 @ 3:16 pm
FunctionDJ
'Upconverting' doesn't seem good to me. You can't get any more quality out of a file than it has. If it's heavily compressed, it will sound compressed. There's very little you can do. Besides, 320kbit/s MP3 is really only limiting when you listen with high quality headphones at home.
At a club or any event, neither you nor any crowd members will notice any poor quality until like 192kbit/s~ MP3.
(Side note, AAC files made with a good encoder can sound absolutely amazing starting at 128kbit/s)
At a club or any event, neither you nor any crowd members will notice any poor quality until like 192kbit/s~ MP3.
(Side note, AAC files made with a good encoder can sound absolutely amazing starting at 128kbit/s)
Posté Mon 10 Aug 20 @ 5:02 pm
SevanKambel
I get the theory that up converting won't improve audio fidelity, but as we've seen with video that is simply not true. Both audio and video can be improved from its original source. For me, the difference playing through Roon vs anything else was a night and day difference but audio fidelity is not my main interest here.
The problem with low bit rate MP3s is very noticeable when it comes to recording and especially if something has to be recorded over and over like drum samples. Every time something is re-recorded you lose quality and that becomes very noticeable. So I am thinking about how my mixes sound out of Virtual DJ compared to my mixes I do from my DAW and the DAW preserves more of the original source.
Similarly, 24-bit audio can record 16,777,216 discreet values for dynamic range of 144 dB, versus 16-bit audio which can represent 65,536 discrete values for the dynamic range of 96 dB. Higher dynamic range gives us more headroom for peaks so you don’t risk clipping and a greater separation between the recorded audio and the noise floor. Every time I listen to a 320 MP3 vs the same song with higher dynamic range the MP3 just sounds loud. It's not what I want. I want to hear more of the fidelity of the music, not just the loud noise of the vocals. Lower sample rates are great for vocals, it's not great for music.
Also, another problem is our output options for recording. If I do a mix of modern music released in hi-res audio when my only export options are WAV and MP3, I am once again losing quality. I heard the same argument when Blu Ray came out. Garbage in, garbage out. Nothing can be improved. Nobody is going to hear the difference between DVD and Blu Ray audio, etc.
I guess you would have to download Roon and test between listening to the same song in VDJ vs the same some in Roon played back through the same hardware.
And while testing, crank up the volume and see how far you can push the track before clipping occurs in VDJ vs how much further you can push the track in Roon with more headroom to avoid clipping and absolutely zero distortion. It is a night and day difference.
The problem with low bit rate MP3s is very noticeable when it comes to recording and especially if something has to be recorded over and over like drum samples. Every time something is re-recorded you lose quality and that becomes very noticeable. So I am thinking about how my mixes sound out of Virtual DJ compared to my mixes I do from my DAW and the DAW preserves more of the original source.
Similarly, 24-bit audio can record 16,777,216 discreet values for dynamic range of 144 dB, versus 16-bit audio which can represent 65,536 discrete values for the dynamic range of 96 dB. Higher dynamic range gives us more headroom for peaks so you don’t risk clipping and a greater separation between the recorded audio and the noise floor. Every time I listen to a 320 MP3 vs the same song with higher dynamic range the MP3 just sounds loud. It's not what I want. I want to hear more of the fidelity of the music, not just the loud noise of the vocals. Lower sample rates are great for vocals, it's not great for music.
Also, another problem is our output options for recording. If I do a mix of modern music released in hi-res audio when my only export options are WAV and MP3, I am once again losing quality. I heard the same argument when Blu Ray came out. Garbage in, garbage out. Nothing can be improved. Nobody is going to hear the difference between DVD and Blu Ray audio, etc.
I guess you would have to download Roon and test between listening to the same song in VDJ vs the same some in Roon played back through the same hardware.
And while testing, crank up the volume and see how far you can push the track before clipping occurs in VDJ vs how much further you can push the track in Roon with more headroom to avoid clipping and absolutely zero distortion. It is a night and day difference.
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 3:37 pm
Adion
For recording, you can use the recordBitDepth option so that recording in wav or flac is done at 24-bit instead of 16-bit.
For adding headroom to your mix, use the zeroDb option.
For adding headroom to your mix, use the zeroDb option.
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 3:47 pm
SevanKambel
Adion wrote :
For recording, you can use the recordBitDepth option so that recording in wav or flac is done at 24-bit instead of 16-bit.
For adding headroom to your mix, use the zeroDb option.
For adding headroom to your mix, use the zeroDb option.
Forgot VDJ has support for recording in FLAC.
I've used the ZeroDB option, it just sounds louder. Not necessarily better in the way of avoiding clipping and distortion.
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 4:01 pm
SevanKambel
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 4:02 pm
groovindj
SevanKambel wrote :
it just sounds louder
You've gone in the wrong direction then! To add headroom, you need to LOWER the setting.
As has been said, you can't turn a 320K MP3 into a 24 master by just converting it, or even upsampling.
If the data is not in the source, it can not be put back by increasing the resolution.
Look up the meaning of interpolation.
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 4:15 pm
Adion
SevanKambel wrote :
Every time I listen to a 320 MP3 vs the same song with higher dynamic range the MP3 just sounds loud. It's not what I want. I want to hear more of the fidelity of the music, not just the loud noise of the vocals. Lower sample rates are great for vocals, it's not great for music.
For comparing between the two, you should of course use an mp3 created from this high definition source.
In that case the volume should be exactly the same. If there was an extreme amount of extra headroom in the source (but I'm not sure why you would do that if you are not going to use it) then it might be possible to hear the difference, but I doubt it.
96dB of dynamic range is enough to record both the background noise of a silent country-side room and the sound close to the speakers in a loud night club.
I personally don't know of any music that requires that kind of dynamic range (or would be pleasant to listen to)
Note that for Super-Audio CD and perhaps other sources of high-bitdepth/high-samplerate music, often a different master is used from what is used for the regular cd/digital release.
In that case the difference has nothing to do with the bitrate,samplerate or bitdepth, but with the different mastering.
Converting this high-quality master to a 320kbps mp3 and it will sound the same.
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 5:20 pm
groovindj
The dynamic range of the CD format was originally decided so that a certain classical music piece could be captured.
I can't find reference to it at the moment, but it might be the one with cannons going off. 1812 Overture I believe.
I can't find reference to it at the moment, but it might be the one with cannons going off. 1812 Overture I believe.
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 5:33 pm
locoDog
@groovin [Tchaikovsky - 1812 Overture], Upsampling, true but you can make it sound subjectively better with eq/filters [not true reproduction, but exciters, sub synthesis are a thing] , that said it's a PA v HiFi debate and if you're serious serious about HiFi then why consider mp3 at all?
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 5:36 pm
Adion
The 74 minute play time was also chosen for Beethoven's 9th symphony
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 5:37 pm
groovindj
You don't get that kind of dynamic range very often in non-classical music, and almost never in the sort of stuff DJs would normally play.
Playing music over a noisy crowd at a typical gig, you're far better off with a limited dynamic range.
I was using compressors at gigs and for mixtapes long before they started appearing on DJ kit. :-)
Playing music over a noisy crowd at a typical gig, you're far better off with a limited dynamic range.
I was using compressors at gigs and for mixtapes long before they started appearing on DJ kit. :-)
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 5:45 pm
SevanKambel
I think you guys are misunderstanding what I said in my original post about up converting. I am not talking about bit rates, or up converting bit rates. I am talking about sample rates and how much of the song that can be read per second. Adjusting the headroom on a track isn't going to change the way the software reads the music file.
There is a noticeable difference between the same track in Roon and the same track in VDJ.
I have had 5 people listen to the difference so far. 5/5 can hear the difference and Roon wins every time. That's not to say VDJ sounds bad. I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that I can hear the same difference as I hear between CD quality Deezer tracks vs Hi-Res Masters from Tidal and I'm not the only one who can hear the difference.
Mainly, the difference being in the vocals where (especially in todays music) the vocals are not proportionate with the music. The over all sound tends to be brighter compared to something read at a higher sample rate. If VDJ can read a 44K file at a 96K sample rate, I'm not hearing it. The difference is much more pronounced in Roon.
There is a noticeable difference between the same track in Roon and the same track in VDJ.
I have had 5 people listen to the difference so far. 5/5 can hear the difference and Roon wins every time. That's not to say VDJ sounds bad. I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that I can hear the same difference as I hear between CD quality Deezer tracks vs Hi-Res Masters from Tidal and I'm not the only one who can hear the difference.
Mainly, the difference being in the vocals where (especially in todays music) the vocals are not proportionate with the music. The over all sound tends to be brighter compared to something read at a higher sample rate. If VDJ can read a 44K file at a 96K sample rate, I'm not hearing it. The difference is much more pronounced in Roon.
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 6:30 pm
groovindj
No, there's no misunderstanding going on - not at this end anyway.
Once again, changing a source file from 44k1 to 96k isn't going to improve the quality. You'll just have 44k1 of data within a 96k container. Likewise, going from 16 bit to 24 bit or 64 bit etc. isn't going to improve the quality. You've still only got the original data. You can't magically improve the quality by upsampling or up anything.
You can't put back what was never there. If the original was an MP3 (etc), you cannot turn it into a 24 bit master!
Once again, changing a source file from 44k1 to 96k isn't going to improve the quality. You'll just have 44k1 of data within a 96k container. Likewise, going from 16 bit to 24 bit or 64 bit etc. isn't going to improve the quality. You've still only got the original data. You can't magically improve the quality by upsampling or up anything.
You can't put back what was never there. If the original was an MP3 (etc), you cannot turn it into a 24 bit master!
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 6:41 pm
SevanKambel
groovindj wrote :
No, there's no misunderstanding going on - not at this end anyway.
Once again, changing a source file from 44k1 to 96k isn't going to improve the quality. You'll just have 44k1 of data within a 96k container. Likewise, going from 16 bit to 24 bit or 64 bit etc. isn't going to improve the quality. You've still only got the original data. You can't magically improve the quality by upsampling or up anything.
You can't put back what was never there. If the original was an MP3 (etc), you cannot turn it into a 24 bit master!
Once again, changing a source file from 44k1 to 96k isn't going to improve the quality. You'll just have 44k1 of data within a 96k container. Likewise, going from 16 bit to 24 bit or 64 bit etc. isn't going to improve the quality. You've still only got the original data. You can't magically improve the quality by upsampling or up anything.
You can't put back what was never there. If the original was an MP3 (etc), you cannot turn it into a 24 bit master!
Your not understanding how sample rates work. You're thinking of it in terms of data and bitrates and file sizes. What I am talking about is literally how fast the player can read a file and that is where sample rates come in. It has nothing to do with changing anything in the source file and everything to do with how fast the source file is read.
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 7:15 pm
groovindj
OMG, how many times? You cannot improve something by changing the sample rate or bit rate!
Period.
Period.
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 7:42 pm
SevanKambel
groovindj wrote :
OMG, how many times? You cannot improve something by changing the sample rate or bit rate!
Period.
Period.
lol - I think you need to read up on how DACs work and how sample rates are read.
With your logic, a picture still looks the same regardless of it's frame rate. No, frame rates improve visual quality. It is the same with audio, and it should be common sense.
Maybe this will help you along....
xhttps://youtu.be/UG51K2t3Fec
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 7:52 pm
SevanKambel
And if you think sampling a MP3 at 96K produces the same results as sampling at 44K then you are effectively a science denier.
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 7:54 pm
groovindj
Earlier you were talking about upsampling - or taking a low quality source and improving it by changing it from 16 bit to 24 etc.
Now you've changed to recording something at one rate vs another. That's not the same thing!
OBVIOUSLY if there's a band performing (for example) and you record them at higher rates, it will be better than doing the same at lower rates. But you weren't talking about that.
Stop moving the goalposts!
Now you've changed to recording something at one rate vs another. That's not the same thing!
OBVIOUSLY if there's a band performing (for example) and you record them at higher rates, it will be better than doing the same at lower rates. But you weren't talking about that.
Stop moving the goalposts!
Posté Tue 11 Aug 20 @ 8:38 pm
