peachstonedj
Does anyone here really think that playing 128 bit mp3s from Napster is professional?
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 5:54 pm
Bren F
Nope, 128kbps is a bit low for proffesional use, You could read my blog on mp3 if you'd like to know more.
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 5:58 pm
peachstonedj
My thoughts EXACTLY...i have contact the support guys..they wont disable napster just for me. I would even pay for decent upgrades. Are they getting a kickback from napster? Maybe so. I have requested that the give me a full install to the version previous to the napster add-on. Id there another PC based program with the Visual waveform? I would like to evaluate one if there is...
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 6:08 pm
peachstonedj
I noticed that Tracktor has access to beatport in its software...and beatport has the option to download wav files...
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 6:34 pm
Bren F
The global database is so small, I hardly see how it can be in the way, why would such a feature bother you?.
I find it hard to understand your problem, there are many features VDJ offers, you are not obligated to utilize them all, the features you don't use are there for those that do..
I find it hard to understand your problem, there are many features VDJ offers, you are not obligated to utilize them all, the features you don't use are there for those that do..
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 6:56 pm
A Man and His Music
I don't see why you are so upset. You are not forced to use Napster. You have to have a subscription anyway. I don't use TCV, but I am not trying to force them to remove all references of TCV, so I don't have to look at it.This is an option for those that do. I use 320 bitrate, because it is what I like. What, you want to force everyone to use the bitrate you think is best? As for them getting a "kickback" from Napster, I would hope so. However, since I am not a stockholder, it is none of my business. I look at it as a way for them to give me free updates, and have Napster or anyone else pay for it. They can go into any partnership they see fit, to make them a better and more profitable company. As for them disabling the function just for you, I think that is asking a little much. On the other hand, if a lot of people think like you, I am sure they will consider adding that as an option. This company has been very good at listening to their customers. As for another software that has waveforms, do a search for Serato and Tracktor. I have not used them, so I can't comment. Maybe they will have everything you want, and none of the things you don't. Good luck, and let us know how things work out.
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 7:11 pm
vpcdj
128 bit rate cant be played professionally. if ur an audiophile u might notice the difference at home. but when u hook up to big sounds u will notice the difference btwn 128, 160 and 192.
as a pro u shouldnt use anything lower than 192.
(i know some will disagree with this next statement but...) converting 128 to 320 will make it sound better.
as a pro u shouldnt use anything lower than 192.
(i know some will disagree with this next statement but...) converting 128 to 320 will make it sound better.
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 7:55 pm
slumpriest
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE INFORM ME ON HOW TO SEPREATE THE FILES INTO INDIVIUAL TRACKS. WHEN I RECORD THE MIX, IT IS TRANSFERRED IN TO A SINGLE TRACK. IS THERER ANYWAY I CAN SEPERATE THEM?
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 8:07 pm
Bren F
Converting a 128kbps file to 320kbps will in fact further decrease the Sound quality. You was right to anticipate a come back on that statement :).
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 8:09 pm
A Man and His Music
Slumpriest, you are off topic. Please start your own post, and we will be glad to help you.
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 9:06 pm
vpcdj
*looks at bugpuss's profile to see whether he can see a picture of b's setup*
*doesnt see big sounds. only sees little speakers*
*is surprised bugpuss is 20 yrs old. i always thought u were pushing 40*
bug im about to ask u to try an experiment but it wouldnt really apply to you coz u dont have big sounds. if u have big sounds then try it out.
get a 128 file. copy it and transfer it to 320. compare the 2. the 320 sounds better. theoretically there should be no difference btwn a 320 that was taken from a 128 file. and i used to think this way too coz of the whole concept of compression and mp3s. but in real life the 320 does play better. it feels deeper/louder... 'cant get the right word.
for me anything under 160 is out of the question. for mixes tho i can go down to 60kps. coz its strictly about compression and quality of mixes not quality of the file.
*doesnt see big sounds. only sees little speakers*
*is surprised bugpuss is 20 yrs old. i always thought u were pushing 40*
bug im about to ask u to try an experiment but it wouldnt really apply to you coz u dont have big sounds. if u have big sounds then try it out.
get a 128 file. copy it and transfer it to 320. compare the 2. the 320 sounds better. theoretically there should be no difference btwn a 320 that was taken from a 128 file. and i used to think this way too coz of the whole concept of compression and mp3s. but in real life the 320 does play better. it feels deeper/louder... 'cant get the right word.
for me anything under 160 is out of the question. for mixes tho i can go down to 60kps. coz its strictly about compression and quality of mixes not quality of the file.
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 9:29 pm
DJ Andre Landry
Hmmm...vpcdj Still no license? its been like 1 year.....lol
btw..you CANNOT make a 128 sound better...even if you encode it again.:)(:
Regards and cheers to all
Andre
btw..you CANNOT make a 128 sound better...even if you encode it again.:)(:
Regards and cheers to all
Andre
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 9:51 pm
DJ Picks
I have to agree... I don't use the napster thingy, and I do accidentally click on it all of the time....
why don't they put a disable checkbox in the cfg settings?
if you're in a hurry and accidentally click it, it's a couple seconds before you can switch out of it...
-Steve
why don't they put a disable checkbox in the cfg settings?
if you're in a hurry and accidentally click it, it's a couple seconds before you can switch out of it...
-Steve
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 10:24 pm
A Man and His Music
As a DJ, I am extremly confident. Some would even call me arrogant, like I give a shit. However, I still don't know everything. When it comes to computers, I will be the first one to tell you I don't know shit. I did not know Bagpuss was 20, but don't really care. If he can teach me something, I am all ears. Now I am not sure about this, but I don't believe you can change a 128 bit file to 320. What I mean is, you can't rip a track to 128, and then take that track and make it 320. You have lost that extra info that was there in the first place. How can you put back something you don't have? I could be wrong. On the other hand, you can tell the difference between a 320 bit and a 128 bit file. And you don't need big speakers to tell.
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 10:24 pm
DJ Picks
you are correct sir.... a 128 kbps mp3 has been sampled down, so it is now missing info which you would need to resample to a higher rate...
now you can resample to 320, but all you're doing is double artifacting... you're gonna' get a larger file with the same info as the 128...
no increase in quality..
once you downsample or compress, the info is gone...
never to be seen again!
-steve
now you can resample to 320, but all you're doing is double artifacting... you're gonna' get a larger file with the same info as the 128...
no increase in quality..
once you downsample or compress, the info is gone...
never to be seen again!
-steve
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 10:34 pm
Bren F
My age has been mentioned quite a few times in recent debates, I feel very complimented, I find it a bit ageist, but it works for me so why not.
Yes look at my profile, you'll see the set-up I used whilst abroad, I'm now back home and I'm using Hi-Fi speakers (225watts), not that my home gear would make a difference, because I do get around ;).
I think your perceived 'feeling' of increased sound quality is confused with the artefacts of TWO encoding processes!
why don't you leave the files as they are, you'll only get lower quality as you have artefacts of TWO encoding processes!
The general rule is, use the best original source (CD, Vinyl or Pure WAV) and encode it directly with a good encoder (Fraun or Lame) to 192kbps or Higher, that is the best you can get out of mp3, anything outside of this is for cowboys IMO.
Remember that MP3 is about frequencies and dynamics, It's not the same as the processing graphics files, it depends on the variables, it's not always a fair comparison, it can be different logic.
Yes look at my profile, you'll see the set-up I used whilst abroad, I'm now back home and I'm using Hi-Fi speakers (225watts), not that my home gear would make a difference, because I do get around ;).
I think your perceived 'feeling' of increased sound quality is confused with the artefacts of TWO encoding processes!
why don't you leave the files as they are, you'll only get lower quality as you have artefacts of TWO encoding processes!
The general rule is, use the best original source (CD, Vinyl or Pure WAV) and encode it directly with a good encoder (Fraun or Lame) to 192kbps or Higher, that is the best you can get out of mp3, anything outside of this is for cowboys IMO.
Remember that MP3 is about frequencies and dynamics, It's not the same as the processing graphics files, it depends on the variables, it's not always a fair comparison, it can be different logic.
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 10:36 pm
vpcdj
ive read on music file compression. i did that seriously in 2000. and one time i agreed with what i read. it does make sense. what u guys are saying makes sense. BUT!...
but why dont u just do what im asking and compare the same music file 128 vs. 320. if u do that and come back and say there's no difference or that the 320 sounds worse then i'll have nothing else to say. i want you to do that. coz ive done it and the same 320 that was 128 sounded better than the 128.
infact what u guys come up with will not change what i think lol. coz ive done it and i saw that the comparison "in my lab" and 320 sounded better than the 128. but having 320 kps defeats the whole purpose of compression. and mp3 players (like pcdj back in the day) just didnt handle 320 bit rate well. so thats why i settled at 192. then again the soundcard can really make a big difference. Creative sound cards are nice. Turtle Beach Santa Cruz suck; they distort highs.
but why dont u just do what im asking and compare the same music file 128 vs. 320. if u do that and come back and say there's no difference or that the 320 sounds worse then i'll have nothing else to say. i want you to do that. coz ive done it and the same 320 that was 128 sounded better than the 128.
infact what u guys come up with will not change what i think lol. coz ive done it and i saw that the comparison "in my lab" and 320 sounded better than the 128. but having 320 kps defeats the whole purpose of compression. and mp3 players (like pcdj back in the day) just didnt handle 320 bit rate well. so thats why i settled at 192. then again the soundcard can really make a big difference. Creative sound cards are nice. Turtle Beach Santa Cruz suck; they distort highs.
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 10:57 pm
Rune (DJ-In-Norway)
this thread made me think for hours.. lol
Cause what is added to the file, when you double the size (recomressing from 128k to 192k)
But I think the logic can be explained very simple like this :
1. you have a HUGE sheet of paper (the original sound)
2. you choose to cut out a part of the paper to save space... (digitalized audio)
3. you curl that paper part really tight to save more space (mp3 128k)
4. you unfold that paper out again (decompress the mp3 file)
5. then you curl it back, but not as tight (recompress it back to mp3 192k)
result :
- bigger folded paper-ball (mp3 file size), but the paper is all the more crumbled (and so is the recoded mp3... it sounds worse)
No information is gained, and all you end up with is a double compression loosing all the more information, dynamics and frequencies....
Cause what is added to the file, when you double the size (recomressing from 128k to 192k)
But I think the logic can be explained very simple like this :
1. you have a HUGE sheet of paper (the original sound)
2. you choose to cut out a part of the paper to save space... (digitalized audio)
3. you curl that paper part really tight to save more space (mp3 128k)
4. you unfold that paper out again (decompress the mp3 file)
5. then you curl it back, but not as tight (recompress it back to mp3 192k)
result :
- bigger folded paper-ball (mp3 file size), but the paper is all the more crumbled (and so is the recoded mp3... it sounds worse)
No information is gained, and all you end up with is a double compression loosing all the more information, dynamics and frequencies....
Posté Wed 08 Mar 06 @ 11:49 pm
mzack
So let me get this straight...........Im no computer freak (geek), sometimes I wish I was so I could understand all this 128, 192, 320 stuff......all I know is I download MP3's, whatever they are they are, mostly 128....But I read here somewhere that if you "make" your 128's to 320, they sound better.....so little gullible me take most of my playlists and convert them all to 320 with a "LAME" program called DP Power Amp Converter....did they sound better.......I could not tell, and I have pretty good equipment, maybe not the "Best" but I think Im have a trained ear for sound quality, 20 year hobby does that to your ears.........anyway, do I need to convert them back to 128, or do I leave them......and the "new" tracks I get, do I leave them at 128, or should I go at least up to 192??
I tend to believe, whole heartedly, in everything I read here at VDJ, Now Im really confused about the whole Kbps thing............cant we all just get along!! LOL!!!:
Norway: Great analogy, thats what us dummies need....
PS.....I use Napster and love it, so Im a fan, if you dont like it...look the other way!!
I tend to believe, whole heartedly, in everything I read here at VDJ, Now Im really confused about the whole Kbps thing............cant we all just get along!! LOL!!!:
Norway: Great analogy, thats what us dummies need....
PS.....I use Napster and love it, so Im a fan, if you dont like it...look the other way!!
Posté Thu 09 Mar 06 @ 4:02 am
vpcdj
norway ...
i said it before and i'll say it again... theoretically u are right. i agree with everything u said. BUT... do the conversions and comparison urself and u'll hear otherwise. thats all im saying. and dont use computer speakers. i know [some of] u guys have the whole nine so connect ur pcs to that and try it out.
no need to think for hours lol. just convert in seconds and ull get the answers. i did it myself and i know what i heard. even if u come up with results that prove u right it maybe be that me and u use different encoders which really doesnt prove me wrong. LAME for example doesnt work too well with low bit rates. LAME is good working with 320. and i dont know how it will convert a 128 to 320. i know it will convert wav to 320 mp3 perfect. thats what i read. ive never used lame or a program that uses it.
musicmatch (fraunhofer technology) however rips wav to 128 well. infact when i ripped 128 myself and compared it to many 128 bit files from the net my 128 sounds a lot better. musicmatch use fraunhofer technology who are the founders of mp3. those germans dont play.
so whoever wants to do the tests themselves use more than one type of data compression technologies. say, LAME (which is what most ppl use) vs. Fraunhofer.
i said it before and i'll say it again... theoretically u are right. i agree with everything u said. BUT... do the conversions and comparison urself and u'll hear otherwise. thats all im saying. and dont use computer speakers. i know [some of] u guys have the whole nine so connect ur pcs to that and try it out.
no need to think for hours lol. just convert in seconds and ull get the answers. i did it myself and i know what i heard. even if u come up with results that prove u right it maybe be that me and u use different encoders which really doesnt prove me wrong. LAME for example doesnt work too well with low bit rates. LAME is good working with 320. and i dont know how it will convert a 128 to 320. i know it will convert wav to 320 mp3 perfect. thats what i read. ive never used lame or a program that uses it.
musicmatch (fraunhofer technology) however rips wav to 128 well. infact when i ripped 128 myself and compared it to many 128 bit files from the net my 128 sounds a lot better. musicmatch use fraunhofer technology who are the founders of mp3. those germans dont play.
so whoever wants to do the tests themselves use more than one type of data compression technologies. say, LAME (which is what most ppl use) vs. Fraunhofer.
Posté Thu 09 Mar 06 @ 5:36 pm
