How do you feel good when playing MP3s? I couldn't!

[the crackhouse]

I had my first MP3 (and records) mix this saturday, and it was horrible.
The setup:
- Analog amplifier,
- Great 250W speakers,
- Allen & Heath Xone:62,
- 2 Technics MK2,
- An Ipod,
- A Laptop.

I played MP3s that were at least 192Kbps and at best 320 Kbps and maybe 10% of them were illegal ones.

It sounded like shit, honestly!
We were mixing the MP3s and vinyls together and the difference was a pain in the youknowhat.
The sound of records was so high in front of the MP3s, the levels were very hard to keep clear with MP3s, it was an horror to be only busy with that instead of having fun with some hands-on Xone buttons!

So, how do you do to get better experience with MPs? I know it would be better to have some digital turntables, but I mean the sound, it's soo bad!

Let me know please, cause my friend is such a purist in music but he doesn't seem to mind about the sound quality...

Idance

[ebot9000]

Hey man,
When I've seen people spinning mp3s off of a computer it is much worse sounding than mp3s off of CD-Js. Very different sounding.

Maybe someone has some insight into this: is it the combination of the algorithm used for time stretching? the d/a conversion quality?

have you spun mp3s off of CDJs for comparison?

[The Buddy Love Show]

FK has spoken on this extensively on the board. Search the archives. 192 is way too wack to be playing out with and fuck those illegal downloads. I'll try to find some info

[ebot9000]

Here's something I don't understand. Why do people spin mp3s off of CDs instead of CD quality music (waves/aiffs)? You can still fit about 8 average length house tracks on a CD, which still gives you a lot of convenience over CDs (CDs about convenience over records, right?)

Seems like people gettin real lazy when they don't even want to carry an extra case of CDs.

I spent my life carrying wurlitzer electric pianos and fender twins in and out of clubs, CDs are practically weightless, why not carry 3 cases of CDs instead of one and bring a better quality show? It's yer damn job, and it should be your passion, so put your back into it!

[liL Ray]

FK has spoken on this extensively on the board. yes he has....it was in a thread I started about Traxsource and other MP3 "shops" and the difference in the sound quality.

What I took away from that topic is you may as well go through the pain of recording your vinyl straight to cds, via your turntable and cd recorder, to cds....or just get your self a posse that will help carry your f'ing vinyl crates. Just make sure when you record, you are not recording into the red (as I have learned)...just make it "pip" in the red or right below it...

The better the sound system (in a club) the worse those damn MP3s sound....make you want to duck beneath the damn console, or do the "it's not me, it's the system" look, knowing damn well it's you....lol.

[Steven Stewart]

I wonder does a program like Serato makes a difference.

[liL Ray]

Let me know please, cause my friend is such a purist in music but he doesn't seem to mind about the sound quality...

the public not caring about the sound quality , is the only saving grace when playing out, but you just can't get pass the man in the mirror and you knowing it sounds like crap.

[the crackhouse]

The better the sound system (in a club) the worse those damn MP3s sound....make you want to duck beneath the damn console, or do the "it's not me, it's the system" look, knowing damn well it's you....lol.

Yeah, honestly I think it's the Hallen & Heath mixer, the amplifier and the speakers who took all this down.

Aaah. If I had some Logitech PC speakers I'm sure the crowd wouldn't have noticed anything!

About getting tracks in Wav and Aiff, it's hard to buy a full CD when you just need one song of each artist played, and to rip your records needs a lCPU and a lot of time.
My friend doesn't even have a computer nor an internet connection at home. He buy MP3s from work and upload them on his Ipod.

Idance

[ebot9000]

About getting tracks in Wav and Aiff, it's hard to buy a full CD when you just need one song of each artist played, and to rip your records needs a lCPU and a lot of time.
My friend doesn't even have a computer nor an internet connection at home. He buy MP3s from work and upload them on his Ipod.

Idance

That's a good point, the download stores are mp3-oriented

Traxsource claims to be going Wave soon.. I wonder how many folks will take advantage of this versus how many just stick with the cheap and convenient approach.

[Steven Stewart]

He buy MP3s from work and upload them on his Ipod.

Idance

I think this could be the problem....

[liL Ray]

to rip your records needs a lCPU and a lot of time.

put in the time my friend, it will pay off...I am finding this out.

I record the old fashion way now...turntable + mixer + cd recorder to blank cd = quality(but time consuming).

[The Buddy Love Show]

That's a good point, the download stores are mp3-oriented




junodownload, beatport and (i think) dancetracks digital all sell wav files

[Chris Conrad]

the main thing that always bugs me about this debate...dj's are supposed to be music lovers also, listening to all kinds of music, collecting it, loving it, researching it, correct? all the music lovers around me growing up, mostly non-dj's, had decent setups and collected music, usually vinyl...they were proud of their setups and took the time to learn about sound systems and formats...i'm not even talking about anything exotic, just basic stuff to listen to music to after a hard day's work or when throwing a party at home...so deep house heads are supposed to be these music freaks, purveyors of 'real' music, avid collectors and listeners, keepers of the history...meaning they must want to preserve and listen to this music, not just play it a couple of times at some party or club...so why does that go out the window with house dj's? do you guys not listen to music at home or in your cars? do you not want it to sound good? or is it just a status thing to say i have a certain track, no matter how i got it? and why don't most dj's even know BASIC sound system setup? why do i keep running into dj's, some well paid ones who can't even setup a damn dj mixer? why do the same sound questions keep getting asked on this board by people who have supposedly been dj'ing for decades? if you've been dj'ing that long you should be able to connect a mixer in the dark, with one hand tied behind your back and some girl tickling you at the same time...you should know some gear basics, have tried many pieces of gear by now and know the difference in functions and sound quality. by now you should have been familiar with several formats, from vinyl to cd to mp3 and know basic digital recording when putting together mixshows or mix cd's...you should be reading dj and club magazines, even if they don't talk about your particular genre of house, just to see what's out there in terms of gear, scenes, clubs, music etc...knowledge is supposed to be power, right? so why is having knowledge of such things always considered bad in 'deep house'? why do folks always make the excuse when buying gear that 'oh, its only for my house/bedroom'? when did that begin? again, are you not music lovers? i grew up in an immigrant family around other immigrant relatives. many loved music, and had killer systems in their homes, just to play some rock or jazz records at high quality after working all day, collecting music along the way and throwing occasional parties. aren't you all music lovers and collectors first before dj'ing? i see threads about hdtv's all the dam time on here, certain folks saying which plasma or lcd they are buying or plan to buy, the same folks that make excuses about their home setups of mp3 quality...so the music they love all their lives, that will stay with them till they die is somehow secondary to watching CNN or a one time football game in HD...what does that say about people?

the more i started to go out and be active in this 'scene' again, the more i realize there are less and less music lovers, no matter what genre, than there are dj's...and like i've said in other threads about this topic, everyone is a dj, everyone has dj gear, everyone gets this music somehow in some way, but nobody gives a shit about it...think about it...nobody really gives a shit about the music itself...there needs to be like i've said many times before something that thins the ranks so to speak, weeds out the common dj...because everyone is a damn dj...folks need to step it up and get serious, every party i go to you have a bunch of dj's sitting around talking about which tracks they have, which they can get, sharing, trading...but do they even know what they have, do they actually listen? its all just hype...like trading baseball cards became...what was once baseball loving kids trading their favorite players became grown men trading for value or exclusivity...'oh, i have that shit timmy played, i have that shit tony played'...but is it really that good? does everyone having the same track playing it at every party a scene make? does that mp3 even sound good? do you even love the song, would you have picked it on your own if your favorite dj did not play it five times that night? would you really give a damn?

[Andrew Osborne]

Lil Ray, what format are you using on the CDs you make? .wav?

[Sean G]

[QUOTE=ebot9000;621938]

Traxsource claims to be going Wave soon.QUOTE]


Where did you hear this? I read before that Brian cant hear a difference between 320 and wave at 1411...was wondering whether he would argue that the site doesnt need to go wave for that reason.

[Pang]

[QUOTE=ebot9000;621938]

Traxsource claims to be going Wave soon.QUOTE]

cant hear a difference between 320 and wave at 1411..

Thats BS. . . .

**Side note - Got Mario G to fix my Urei. . .Did everything I needed in 45 min . . . dude is a beast with his. .

[Delmar Browne]

yes he has....it was in a thread I started about Traxsource and other MP3 "shops" and the difference in the sound quality.

What I took away from that topic is you may as well go through the pain of recording your vinyl straight to cds, via your turntable and cd recorder, to cds....or just get your self a posse that will help carry your f'ing vinyl crates. Just make sure when you record, you are not recording into the red (as I have learned)...just make it "pip" in the red or right below it...

The better the sound system (in a club) the worse those damn MP3s sound....make you want to duck beneath the damn console, or do the "it's not me, it's the system" look, knowing damn well it's you....lol.

I agree with Lil Ray on this topic!

It's alot of work to put your collection from Vinyl to CD. Folks, eventually we're going to have to do this.

[Pang]

I agree with Lil Ray on this topic!

It's alot of work to put your collection from Vinyl to CD. Folks, eventually we're going to have to do this.

A few months ago I spent 6 hrs recording vinyl to cd . . . although time connsuming, It was good to re discover some gems I had forgotten about.

[Sean G]

[QUOTE=Sean G;621962]

Thats BS. . . .

**Side note - Got Mario G to fix my Urei. . .Did everything I needed in 45 min . . . dude is a beast with his. .

I can hear a difference for sure, but we can never know what differences (if any) other people are hearing...

Glad to hear you got the urei sorted. Mario is a gentleman, I will be buying from him again when I come back.

[Jamie 3:26]

A few months ago I spent 6 hrs recording vinyl to cd . . . although time connsuming, It was good to re discover some gems I had forgotten about.

This is what I have been doing since saturday.Recording jams to my computer.

I prefer wav's to mp3's.I catch cd's on sale and stock up on them.

BTW...did anyone catch that dude was playing mp3's from an Ipod???

[liL Ray]

Lil Ray, what format are you using on the CDs you make? .wav?I admit, am a novice when it comes on to knowing what wav. and aiff and all that other conversion stuff is, but I know what it suppose to sound like.

like I said, I am an old fashion type...think of the old days when you hook up the cassette recorder to the system and record, well, then just replace the cassette recorder with a Sony cd recorder (or some other brand), put a blank cd in, drop the needle on the record and then finalize it, and play it....that's what I do...is this now a wav or aiff file? I couldn't tell you, but it sounds "lush-er" than the stuff I get off these virtual record stores.

[Delmar Browne]

A few months ago I spent 6 hrs recording vinyl to cd . . . although time connsuming, It was good to re discover some gems I had forgotten about.


Once again, kudos Pang!

You'll be surprised what you found in your collection when it's time to place your collection either on CD or your computer.

I'll get tear-jerked when I come across my father's Doo-Wop arrangements from the 50's.

Also, my 70's collection will take me back when I first started spinning.

[AMc]

The amount of time recording vinyl to a music file or CD is insane. I'm sticking with vinyl.

Unless you are a DJ full time, I don't know how anyone could do it.

If I played in venues, perhaps I wouldn't have a choice anymore, unless I want to lug the turntables & vinyl out.

[Chris Conrad]

This is what I have been doing since saturday.Recording jams to my computer.

I prefer wav's to mp3's.I catch cd's on sale and stock up on them.

BTW...did anyone catch that dude was playing mp3's from an Ipod???

you would fall over if you knew how many 'celebrity dj's' do this...they get booked to play based on celebrity, get paid big money and show up with an ipod, plug it in and scroll through songs...no mixing...then tell people in interviews that anyone can dj and its good money...there are places that have 'open nights' where you can bring in your ipod and 'dj'...

[Jamie 3:26]

you would fall over if you knew how many 'celebrity dj's' do this...they get booked to play based on celebrity, get paid big money and show up with an ipod, plug it in and scroll through songs...no mixing...then tell people in interviews that anyone can dj and its good money...there are places that have 'open nights' where you can bring in your ipod and 'dj'...

I'm hip Chris.They had a big write-up in the paper here about those Ipod nights.

I haven't seen anything else about those nights though.

[Chris Conrad]

the big ironies in all of this...

#1 every article/interview i read with big name dj's, trance dj's etc...when they talk about their digital setups, they talk about high quality files and computers etc...not mp3's or that budget laptop you just got or some shit soundcard...all the guys that get trashed on this board for playing 'shit drug music' actually give a damn about sound quality...

#2 folks on here talking about how much money they spend on music, vinyl etc, being cheap bastards when it comes to buying cd-r's, which cost pennies, or larger hard drives, which if you do the math are a bargain in many cases..."yeah, i spent $300 on one rare record, but that gemini mixer and old cartridge i never changed are good enough to play it on and transfer to digital, and that $300 laptop i got on a super coupon at walmart is good enoughm, nobody hears the difference...but oh yeah, viva la vinyl!" shit always makes me laugh...

[ebot9000]

Thats BS. . . .


Yeah maybe Traxsource is bullshitting, but they do claim it's coming.

[liL Ray]

The amount of time recording vinyl to a music file or CD is insane. I'm sticking with vinyl.

Unless you are a DJ full time, I don't know how anyone could do it.

If I played in venues, perhaps I wouldn't have a choice anymore, unless I want to lug the turntables & vinyl out.
well what I do is when I have a gig, I prepare the same way as if I am taking vinyl with me, and pack all the stuff I think I would bring for the gig...however, instead of packing a few hours before the gig, I would pack my backs/crates a few days before, and then I just go through the crates and start to record...I would try to get through one crate in a day or two.

Doing it this way, I find when I have to do it again, it's not that time consuming.

Now, I have the Ikea 12 slot shelving system that holds about a crate a slot, and what I am about to embark upon is to take a slot and record it...

yes, it's time consuming, but it gives me a chance to get to know my records again, even if I won't be playing them out in the public.

[AMc]

Sony cd recorder

With this recorder, can you separate the tracks as well? Basically finalize the making of a smooth playing, non-gapped, 14 track CD?

I've been having a hell of a time figuring out what to use on my iMac to make a proper mix CD.

With a PC, I used Nero and everything was great. My one complaint having a Mac so far - no Nero!

[Chris Conrad]

Yeah maybe Traxsource is bullshitting, but they do claim it's coming.

i think he meant BS about the difference in quality being noticeable...

[Sean G]

they do claim it's coming.

Direct link for the lazy folk please....

[liL Ray]

the big ironies in all of this...

#1 every article/interview i read with big name dj's, trance dj's etc...when they talk about their digital setups, they talk about high quality files and computers etc...not mp3's or that budget laptop you just got or some shit soundcard...all the guys that get trashed on this board for playing 'shit drug music' actually give a damn about sound quality...

#2 folks on here talking about how much money they spend on music, vinyl etc, being cheap bastards when it comes to buying cd-r's, which cost pennies, or larger hard drives, which if you do the math are a bargain in many cases..."yeah, i spent $300 on one rare record, but that gemini mixer and old cartridge i never changed are good enough to play it on and transfer to digital, and that $300 laptop i got on a super coupon at walmart is good enoughm, nobody hears the difference...but oh yeah, viva la vinyl!" shit always makes me laugh...


man, you angry today....

damn.

[Prince HiFi]

the main thing that always bugs me about this debate...dj's are supposed to be music lovers also, listening to all kinds of music, collecting it, loving it, researching it, correct? .............

Wow, that was a hell of a post, Chris, it should have been said more often round here.

[AMc]

well what I do is when I have a gig, I prepare the same way as if I am taking vinyl with me, and pack all the stuff I think I would bring for the gig...however, instead of packing a few hours before the gig, I would pack my backs/crates a few days before, and then I just go through the crates and start to record...I would try to get through one crate in a day or two.

Doing it this way, I find when I have to do it again, it's not that time consuming.

Now, I have the Ikea 12 slot shelving system that holds about a crate a slot, and what I am about to embark upon is to take a slot and record it...

yes, it's time consuming, but it gives me a chance to get to know my records again, even if I won't be playing them out in the public.

Makes sense.

[ebot9000]

I'm pretty sure I've seen the announcement in one of their newsletters as an upcoming upgrade to the site. I couldn't find that, but here's B.T. talking about is in a thread in the traxsource forums back in October.

http://forums.traxsource.com/viewtopic.php?t=3063&highlight=waves

[ebot9000]

the main thing that always bugs me about this debate...dj's are supposed to be music lovers also, listening to all kinds of music, collecting it, loving it, researching it, correct? ...

nail, head, hammer. Direct Hit.

[liL Ray]

With this recorder, can you separate the tracks as well? Basically finalize the making of a smooth playing, non-gapped, 14 track CD? yup...

hit record, then hit the play button when I am ready to record, pause when that track is done, hit the play button for the next track, and so on. It separates the track in 1,2,3, etc format...then I check the time left, and hit stop when I am done and then finalize and the play button, when it prompts me to do so.

I have the Sony RCD-W500C.

[Prince HiFi]

...so deep house heads are supposed to be these music freaks, purveyors of 'real' music, avid collectors and listeners, keepers of the history...meaning they must want to preserve and listen to this music, not just play it a couple of times at some party or club...

...but do they even know what they have, do they actually listen? its all just hype...like trading baseball cards became...


The 'churn and burn' is completely out of control now that noone invests in their music anymore. What does it take to have a 'hit' anymore? As the conditions for music turn to shit, we are losing interest, losing fans, losing dancers, losing the heads... they don't care about the 'churn and burn'.

[Sean G]

I'm pretty sure I've seen the announcement in one of their newsletters as an upcoming upgrade to the site. I couldn't find that, but here's B.T. talking about is in a thread in the traxsource forums back in October.

http://forums.traxsource.com/viewtopic.php?t=3063&highlight=waves

Thanks, had to get it from the horses mouth!!!!

[Steven Stewart]

BTW...did anyone catch that dude was playing mp3's from an Ipod???

I tried....That's the problem. Ipod's convert MP3 to some other format that makes it sound system unfriendly.

[Moksha]

What everybody seems to be conveniently forgetting is that most DJs aren't making much money these days. How are they supposed to be affordiing Alienware laptops and terabyte hard drives? When half their sets are "bread-and-butter" gigs, playing 50 Cent to drunk 20-somethings, should they really be expected to go through extra expenses and hassles of getting/making .wavs of everything? Especially when 99% of the paying audience doesn't give a fuck?

It's all well and good if you have a lucrative day job, and DJing is your expensive hobby, or you are a globe-trotter being paid 5 digits for appearances... but to blame DJs who are struggling to get by for their lack of Koetsu needles seems unfair.

Of course, it would be ideal if there was something as high-fidelity as vinyl, but as cheap and convenient as MP3s was available... but until then, I can understand why hustling DJs opt for less-than-deal audio. Especially when Chris says that there are "celebrity" DJs playing off iPods...

[Pang]

What everybody seems to be conveniently forgetting is that most DJs aren't making much money these days. How are they supposed to be affordiing Alienware laptops and terabyte hard drives? When half their sets are "bread-and-butter" gigs, playing 50 Cent to drunk 20-somethings, should they really be expected to go through extra expenses and hassles of getting/making .wavs of everything? Especially when 99% of the paying audience doesn't give a fuck?

It's all well and good if you have a lucrative day job, and DJing is your expensive hobby, or you are a globe-trotter being paid 5 digits for appearances... but to blame DJs who are struggling to get by for their lack of Koetsu needles seems unfair.

Of course, it would be ideal if there was something as high-fidelity as vinyl, but as cheap and convenient as MP3s was available... but until then, I can understand why hustling DJs opt for less-than-deal audio. Especially when Chris says that there are "celebrity" DJs playing off iPods...


Get a better paying job?

[Moksha]

Get a better paying job?

errr... not exactly an option for everybody...

With the pay structure of DJing declining, it is inevitable that DJs would be spending less on their tech expenses.

If every DJ were making 10x their current rates, I imagine that you'd hear a whole lot more hi-fi.

[Sean G]

errr... not exactly an option for everybody...

With the pay structure of DJing declining, it is inevitable that DJs would be spending less on their tech expenses.

If every DJ were making 10x their current rates, I imagine that you'd hear a whole lot more hi-fi.

Poor Djs, poor file-sharing fuckwits (me included) ripping the producers off....

As one of our Diamond members would say, GET A FUCKIN REAL JOB!!!! :rofl5:

[E-Phi]

I admit, am a novice when it comes on to knowing what wav. and aiff and all that other conversion stuff is, but I know what it suppose to sound like.

like I said, I am an old fashion type...think of the old days when you hook up the cassette recorder to the system and record, well, then just replace the cassette recorder with a Sony cd recorder (or some other brand), put a blank cd in, drop the needle on the record and then finalize it, and play it....that's what I do...is this now a wav or aiff file? I couldn't tell you, but it sounds "lush-er" than the stuff I get off these virtual record stores.

It's the red book standard for cd audio.
Wav files are uncompressed audio files for pc's and Aiff files are uncompressed files for macs.

[ebot9000]

What everybody seems to be conveniently forgetting is that most DJs aren't making much money these days. How are they supposed to be affordiing Alienware laptops and terabyte hard drives? When half their sets are "bread-and-butter" gigs, playing 50 Cent to drunk 20-somethings, should they really be expected to go through extra expenses and hassles of getting/making .wavs of everything? Especially when 99% of the paying audience doesn't give a fuck?

It's all well and good if you have a lucrative day job, and DJing is your expensive hobby, or you are a globe-trotter being paid 5 digits for appearances... but to blame DJs who are struggling to get by for their lack of Koetsu needles seems unfair.

Of course, it would be ideal if there was something as high-fidelity as vinyl, but as cheap and convenient as MP3s was available... but until then, I can understand why hustling DJs opt for less-than-deal audio. Especially when Chris says that there are "celebrity" DJs playing off iPods...

This is a slippery slope that I've seen with musicians as well.

Gigs pay poorly so you try to spend less. You spend less so you sound worse. You sound worse so your gigs pay less.

You gotta spend money to make money.

Besides, what about Chris's point that people don't even know how to work their equipment. Knowledge is free and the payoffs can be huge.

[ebot9000]

a Sony cd recorder (or some other brand), put a blank cd in, drop the needle on the record and then finalize it, and play it....that's what I do...is this now a wav or aiff file?

Yes, it is.

[liL Ray]

What everybody seems to be conveniently forgetting is that most DJs aren't making much money these days. How are they supposed to be affordiing Alienware laptops and terabyte hard drives? When half their sets are "bread-and-butter" gigs, playing 50 Cent to drunk 20-somethings, should they really be expected to go through extra expenses and hassles of getting/making .wavs of everything? Especially when 99% of the paying audience doesn't give a fuck?

It's all well and good if you have a lucrative day job, and DJing is your expensive hobby, or you are a globe-trotter being paid 5 digits for appearances... but to blame DJs who are struggling to get by for their lack of Koetsu needles seems unfair.

Of course, it would be ideal if there was something as high-fidelity as vinyl, but as cheap and convenient as MP3s was available... but until then, I can understand why hustling DJs opt for less-than-deal audio. Especially when Chris says that there are "celebrity" DJs playing off iPods...very good point...for me, I am not into the high end bells and whistles, all I care about is when I hit that play button on the cd and bring the levels up in the mixer, it sounds good/warm/lush.

I am going to just stick with what/how I am doing to get the music onto the cds...that doesn't mean I won't continue to drop $100 on those download sites to get almost 50 tunes to add to my arsenal...I'm not stupid.

But, IMO, these conversations help...help the starter and experienced djs to see that the quality does matter, and maybe will let the download sites step up their game and offer quality downloads, even at a higher price.

[liL Ray]

Yes, it is.or, cool.

now, is that the better way of doing it? If so (or not), how can I make it even better quality?

[liL Ray]

As one of our Diamond members would say, GET A FUCKIN REAL JOB!!!! :rofl5:heehheeeeheee...

[DJ_Francesca]

when I get mp3s I dont play them as such I burn them to wave files ...
before I burn them as wave files, I often open them up in a program like wavelab, and put them through a parametric eq, it helps a little in making them sound better...depending on what frequencies seem to be needing a little something that is lacking, it can make it sound fuller....
then I save as a wave and burn to cd.....

[AMc]

yup...

hit record, then hit the play button when I am ready to record, pause when that track is done, hit the play button for the next track, and so on. It separates the track in 1,2,3, etc format...then I check the time left, and hit stop when I am done and then finalize and the play button, when it prompts me to do so.

I have the Sony RCD-W500C.

and I can record a mix and separate after? This sounds like an easy solution!

[Chris Conrad]

i can see the no money angle...i really can...but when i got into club music, mid/late 80's, there was a sound system culture...people dj'ed in high school and some of these kids had sound systems that sound better than most clubs do today...kids would work their asses off at summer jobs and after school jobs to afford this stuff...i knew kids in high school who had stacks of gear in their basements and threw parties...they upgraded as they went along, better mixers, better amps and speakers...they'd start with the radio shack setup and move up to 1200's, numark ppd series mixers, crown amps and huge stacks of speakers...people took the time to learn, get things right, show off their gear, throw parties...it all stemmed from jamaican sound system culture and nyc block party culture...and people had some serious setups...and went music shopping regularly, which at that time was of course for vinyl...and the relatives i mentioned in my other post, had serious home stereos, they weren't even dj's, they just loved to listen to music and collect it...and i'm not advocating everyone go david mancuso exotic high end...but how many times am i going to go to some dj's home, to listen to that rare record he spent big money on ebay for on a $100 vestax two channel mixer and one plastic powered monitor connected in mono? when i see folks on a board bragging about televisions, cars, video game systems and other expensive shit, they can buy a decent setup...

[Pang]

or, cool.

now, is that the better way of doing it? If so (or not), how can I make it even better quality?

Ray, imo and what I’ve experienced, there is no better way than the way your doing it, needle to mixer to CD recorder . . UNLESS you want to go out and pick up an audiophile set up (i.e. Mancuso styleee). . .

[liL Ray]

and I can record a mix and separate after? This sounds like an easy solution!It would be double work...

only way to do this that I know with the same unit is record straight through, finalize, then put it back in the cd player, and start a new blank cd, and on each track where you want to separate it, you have to hit the RECORD button either on the unit or through the remote.

When folks send me untracked mixes, I would have to re-record and just have the remote in my hand and everywhere that I need it to separate(make a new track mark), I would hit the record button on the remote.

Now, I am sure there is a computer program that would allow you to load the cd in and track mark where you need to...at least that was what I was told.

[TAD]

Salvaging an MP3 for club play - desert island technique?
Well, I really hate the sound of MP3 files when playing out. Even CD's make my ears cringe. By now that should be fairly common knowledge.

Although I try and avoid them at ANY costs, there are situations - like today - where I am out of town and will be playing for a very large crowd tonight, and definitely need some fresh new music, which I can only get by downloading from a Digital Download Store that doesn't carry .wav files, only 320 Kb/s MP3 files.

So here's a little recipe I cooked up to try and improve sound quality while on the road, so when I play the processed files in a very large sound system they sound like something more or less bearable.

First, purchase and download the highest-resolution file you can, 320 kB/s in my case.

Then, immediately convert and save the file to 24-bit / 44.1 audio format. (I use the obsolete audio app TC Spark for that, but anything will do, really; Wavelab or SoundForge on a PC, or Peak or Logic Pro on the Mac would serve just as well)

Now you have a file which can be further processed at high-resolution.

Next, (VERY IMPORTANT) you immediately notice that the files usually are 'finalized' to death, made so loud that nothing more can be done to them, so in my case I dropped the total level about 4 db. (Go > 'change gain' -4 dB - Apply)

Once the level is down, I apply a multi-band compressor, it's a bit tedious playing with 3 or 4 separate attacks, releases, tresholds and so on. Used a Waves C4 this time, could just as well be the one in Logic Audio which I really fancy.

The result is that suddenly the file appears to be regaining some dynamic range, where the waveform was flat-lined at -4 dB, it has now peaks that sometimes reach up to 0 dB again, as well as some quieter passages.

Already sound a bit better to me.

Next, drop the level again... by about 3 dB or so. ('change gain')

After the gain is down for the second time, then apply a 'PSP Vintage Warmer' plug-in to the whole mix, the setting I liked was 'Mix semiDriven Tape' and then as if by magic, the mix has again regained much extra punch and gain, but not as before (brick-wall limiting effect with flattened waveform at -.01 dB), now it actually has real peaks and some lower parts.

Save your file, and hopefully it will sounds halfway decent on a big sound system. Even on my little hotel room speakers, I can already feel some of the harshness gone from the high frequencies, and a definite warmer bottom end.

Yeah, not ideal, but sometimes you have to work with what you have.

Curious to hear what else others may have done like this.

Of course, at home I would just pass it through a tape deck and re-touch it with a GML EQ and not have to worry too much, but this is not a luxury one has in a hotel room!! LOL!

Maybe this will help someone else who has been trying to do the same?...

FK

http://www.wavemusic.com/community/showthread.php?t=5016&highlight=desert+island+technique

[liL Ray]

Ray, imo and what I’ve experienced, there is no better way than the way your doing it, needle to mixer to CD recorder . . UNLESS you want to go out and pick up an audiophile set up (i.e. Mancuso styleee). . .I would love to hear FK opinion on this, because I think he went into other specific details as to how to get a better sound quality after dropping the song to CD (wav file), through a computer program...maybe it's what Francesca said above.

I would need the 4th grade explanation....lol.

[Steven Stewart]

It would be double work...

only way to do this that I know with the same unit is record straight through, finalize, then put it back in the cd player, and start a new blank cd, and on each track where you want to separate it, you have to hit the RECORD button either on the unit or through the remote.

When folks send me untracked mixes, I would have to re-record and just have the remote in my hand and everywhere that I need it to separate(make a new track mark), I would hit the record button on the remote.

Now, I am sure there is a computer program that would allow you to load the cd in and track mark where you need to...at least that was what I was told.


Soundforge

[ebot9000]

or, cool.

now, is that the better way of doing it? If so (or not), how can I make it even better quality?

That's a good way of doing it, I don't know that machine specifically, but Sony CD recorders are good. Better than a lot of the cheap interfaces people use in their studios these days.

You can up your sound quality by investing in a high quality interface to a computer. I don't know if CDJs typically playback in higher depth and rate than 16/44.1 but you would be able to up these rates with a sound card. (I believe Francois K does this) But this will only improve your situation if the sound card is a good sound card, otherwise the higher bit rates and whatnot is basically just polishing a turd.

The method you're using is very good and very easy, I'd stick with it and just make sure your components and levels are all as good as they can be. Using a computer with an interface would add a lot of time and $$ to your process, I'm not sure the benefits warrant that.

but then again, there are many even more anal than myself.

[Chris Conrad]

FK posted that before several times...i'll stick with my argument that folks won't spend the money on the proper software etc to do all that...

[liL Ray]

Salvaging an MP3 for club play - desert island technique?
Well, I really hate the sound of MP3 files when playing out. Even CD's make my ears cringe. By now that should be fairly common knowledge.

Although I try and avoid them at ANY costs, there are situations - like today - where I am out of town and will be playing for a very large crowd tonight, and definitely need some fresh new music, which I can only get by downloading from a Digital Download Store that doesn't carry .wav files, only 320 Kb/s MP3 files.

So here's a little recipe I cooked up to try and improve sound quality while on the road, so when I play the processed files in a very large sound system they sound like something more or less bearable.

First, purchase and download the highest-resolution file you can, 320 kB/s in my case.

Then, immediately convert and save the file to 24-bit / 44.1 audio format. (I use the obsolete audio app TC Spark for that, but anything will do, really; Wavelab or SoundForge on a PC, or Peak or Logic Pro on the Mac would serve just as well)

Now you have a file which can be further processed at high-resolution.

Next, (VERY IMPORTANT) you immediately notice that the files usually are 'finalized' to death, made so loud that nothing more can be done to them, so in my case I dropped the total level about 4 db. (Go > 'change gain' -4 dB - Apply)

Once the level is down, I apply a multi-band compressor, it's a bit tedious playing with 3 or 4 separate attacks, releases, tresholds and so on. Used a Waves C4 this time, could just as well be the one in Logic Audio which I really fancy.

The result is that suddenly the file appears to be regaining some dynamic range, where the waveform was flat-lined at -4 dB, it has now peaks that sometimes reach up to 0 dB again, as well as some quieter passages.

Already sound a bit better to me.

Next, drop the level again... by about 3 dB or so. ('change gain')

After the gain is down for the second time, then apply a 'PSP Vintage Warmer' plug-in to the whole mix, the setting I liked was 'Mix semiDriven Tape' and then as if by magic, the mix has again regained much extra punch and gain, but not as before (brick-wall limiting effect with flattened waveform at -.01 dB), now it actually has real peaks and some lower parts.

Save your file, and hopefully it will sounds halfway decent on a big sound system. Even on my little hotel room speakers, I can already feel some of the harshness gone from the high frequencies, and a definite warmer bottom end.

Yeah, not ideal, but sometimes you have to work with what you have.

Curious to hear what else others may have done like this.

Of course, at home I would just pass it through a tape deck and re-touch it with a GML EQ and not have to worry too much, but this is not a luxury one has in a hotel room!! LOL!

Maybe this will help someone else who has been trying to do the same?...

FK

http://www.wavemusic.com/community/showthread.php?t=5016&highlight=desert+island+techniquethanks...this is the post I was referring to....but I need the 4th grade, Big words and pictures format to understand the above.

Thanks TAD for reposting this...

[Steven Stewart]

Vintage warmer is the best plug in for digital music. It's a whole lot faster than trying to run the digital track through an analog board or record to tape.

[liL Ray]

Of course, at home I would just pass it through a tape deck and re-touch it with a GML EQ and not have to worry too much,

so does this mean my method is fine?

That would be great for me...

[Chris Conrad]

so does this mean my method is fine?

That would be great for me...

running through a decent reel to reel does wonders...

[Moksha]

Gigs pay poorly so you try to spend less. You spend less so you sound worse. You sound worse so your gigs pay less.


Except, in this case... it really isn't true that "You sound worse so your gigs pay less."

I don't know of any venue owners who pay based on the bitrate.

[liL Ray]

running through a decent reel to reel does wonders...
huh?

so I got to record to the Reel to Reel, then re-record to the cd?? I don't know about that...

[Moksha]

Besides, what about Chris's point that people don't even know how to work their equipment. Knowledge is free and the payoffs can be huge.

i know our resident angry white man has a lot of vitriol for moronic house DJs. However, from my experiences playing with a wide variety of DJs, I have yet to see the utter ineptness he seems to think is so prevalent. I'm sure there are DJs out there that don't know how to setup a mixer, but they can't be that ubiquitous...

[TAD]

http://deephousepage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149778

[Moksha]

I'll defintely defer to FK's expertise... but one thing that just doesn't make sense to me about "up-converting" is the simple fact that you cannot add information (only noise). No software that I know of can extrapolate the missing samples and harmonics that are lost in digitizing music.

I have to explain to PRs every day why they can't just save their shitty little 72 dpi images as 300 dpi pics... because that does not add resoltion. Pixels (and samples) cannot be magically created after an anolog source has been digitized.

The rest of FK's post seems pretty cool, though.

[TAD]

huh?

so I got to record to the Reel to Reel, then re-record to the cd?? I don't know about that...

yup, but you need a decent reel to reel.

and a MASTERING cartridge. here's another formula:

thorens td 125 turntable with audiophile quality shure m97xe cartridge, ->ATI P100 turntable preamplifier (fk uses a much higher quality pre-amp) ->directly converted via M-Audio 24/96 high bit rate and sampling soundcard.

[Steven Stewart]

I'll defintely defer to FK's expertise... but one thing that just doesn't make sense to me about "up-converting" is the simple fact that you cannot add information (only noise). No software that I know of can extrapolate the missing samples and harmonics that are lost in digitizing music.

I have to explain to PRs every day why they can't just save their shitty little 72 dpi images as 300 dpi pics... because that does not add resoltion. Pixels (and samples) cannot be magically created after an anolog source has been digitized.

The rest of FK's post seems pretty cool, though.

I think you missed the part about using a 320 kbs file to begin with. He is basically saying start of with the best ingredients possible.

[Moksha]

I think you missed the part about using a 320 kbs file to begin with. He is basically saying start of with the best ingredients possible.

errr... but he is converting to 24-bit / 44.1. Where is that extra data supposed to come from?

[Chris Conrad]

i know our resident angry white man has a lot of vitriol for moronic house DJs. However, from my experiences playing with a wide variety of DJs, I have yet to see the utter ineptness he seems to think is so prevalent. I'm sure there are DJs out there that don't know how to setup a mixer, but they can't be that ubiquitous...

then why the dozens of threads i see on many other boards about dj's showing up to gigs and everything on the mixer is maxed out, meters hard into the red on everything? that pretty much sums up almost everywhere i've played last several years...then they get mad when you turn things down...find any audio thread on this board...people who have been doing this for years not knowing setup basics...and i mean just basics, nothing exotic...

true story: several years ago, a dj/producer who has many records out who is discussed on this board calls me up: "hey, i have a gig at club xxx, i have to bring my own cdj's to this gig, are planning on coming out, because if you do, can you get there early to hook these up for me when i bring them?"this from a guy who works out of a studio filled with all sorts of gear hooked up to computers and all sorts of other gear, can't connect two cd players to a mixer?

[Pang]

I'll defintely defer to FK's expertise... but one thing that just doesn't make sense to me about "up-converting" is the simple fact that you cannot add information (only noise). No software that I know of can extrapolate the missing samples and harmonics that are lost in digitizing music.

I have to explain to PRs every day why they can't just save their shitty little 72 dpi images as 300 dpi pics... because that does not add resoltion. Pixels (and samples) cannot be magically created after an anolog source has been digitized.

The rest of FK's post seems pretty cool, though.

N/M. . I'll give myself a RIF

[Chris Conrad]

errr... but he is converting to 24-bit / 44.1. Where is that extra data supposed to come from?

i'm actually wondering about that part myself...

[ebot9000]

errr... but he is converting to 24-bit / 44.1. Where is that extra data supposed to come from?

That conversion adds no quality to the file, you are correct.

However, it is better for the processing he adds FOLLOWING this step. The EQs and other effects will sound better, also the Logic software will function more smoothly with uncompressed audio.

this is the key:

Now you have a file which can be further processed at high-resolution.

[Chris Conrad]

I think you missed the part about using a 320 kbs file to begin with. He is basically saying start of with the best ingredients possible.

yes, but a 320MP3 is still far far inferior to what he is upconverting to, 24/44.1...which is far superior...its like the threads on here where people think buying an mp3 then just saving as a wav file makes it sound better...

[Pang]

yes, but a 320MP3 is still far far inferior to what he is upconverting to, 24/44.1...which is far superior...its like the threads on here where people think buying an mp3 then just saving as a wav file makes it sound better...

I just cleaned my computer and got rid of some of these mistakes I did. .hahahahaha

[Moksha]

However, it is better for the processing he adds FOLLOWING this step. The EQs and other effects will sound better, also the Logic software will function more smoothly with uncompressed audio.

Ah, yeah. I see, now.

[Chris Conrad]

That conversion adds no quality to the file, you are correct.

However, it is better for the processing he adds FOLLOWING this step. The EQs and other effects will sound better, also the Logic software will function more smoothly with uncompressed audio.

this is the key:

if its for that than you are correct...i've done the same when editing etc in other software...easier to work with at higher qualities...

[The Buddy Love Show]

I have been buying all vocal stuff as wav files.

as for the rest, its been at least 320

[ebot9000]

if its for that than you are correct...i've done the same when editing etc in other software...easier to work with at higher qualities...

easier but also better sounding.

Please take my words regarding DJing with some grain of salt, I don't DJ. I do work with audio as a producer and a musician. I consider knowing the technical aspects of what I do to be required - and beneficial, that's why I learned how to repair and tune my rhodes and wurlitzer pianos when I toured, why I learned how to book and manage my band when we took to the road, and why I'm now learning electronics so I can repair and build equipment in my studio.

If I spent countless hours and years practicing piano, I can't think of any reason not to set aside a relatively small amount of time to learn the other parts of this business. It helps

[Pang]

I have been buying all vocal stuff as wav files.

as for the rest, its been at least 320

Do you find yourself raising your gains when playing those 320's? I hate that shit!

[Monny JcIntosh]

when I get mp3s I dont play them as such I burn them to wave files ...
before I burn them as wave files, I often open them up in a program like wavelab, and put them through a parametric eq, it helps a little in making them sound better...depending on what frequencies seem to be needing a little something that is lacking, it can make it sound fuller....
then I save as a wave and burn to cd.....

Francesca, I don't know if anyone's responded to this yet, but converting from MP3 to WAV is not going to get you any increase in quality. You'd be as well saving your EQed MP3 as another MP3 file.

[emuzik]

running through a decent reel to reel does wonders...

I agree chris ,I have been using a pioneer 707.

[the crackhouse]

A little more about sound compression:
Like in a 72 dpi picture which would be put into a 300 dpi resolution, a sound at 320 K set into a 24 bit one just extrapolate the sinewaves (like pixels).

The sound stay the same, but you can actually work on it with more accuracy.
For example, if you can add more noise to a 300 dpi picture than in 72 dpi rez., you can also add more noise to a sound which is running at 24 bit.

Noise, blur, are photographic effects that can be as well used in sound theory. The more "grain" you have, the deeper you can go in details.

Just to get you a good example of this kind of process, see how scotland yard used low resolution videos (from street cams) and accentuated the resolution to put more noise and approach the original image. You can get details by using effects and filters to sharpen, contrast and balances colors, pixels, and many other things.
I've seen mad image scientists working for the french police who decrypted the name of a guy from an over-blurred picture of his passport!

Idance

[AMc]

It would be double work...

only way to do this that I know with the same unit is record straight through, finalize, then put it back in the cd player, and start a new blank cd, and on each track where you want to separate it, you have to hit the RECORD button either on the unit or through the remote.

When folks send me untracked mixes, I would have to re-record and just have the remote in my hand and everywhere that I need it to separate(make a new track mark), I would hit the record button on the remote.

Now, I am sure there is a computer program that would allow you to load the cd in and track mark where you need to...at least that was what I was told.


Thanks Lil' Ray!

[Moksha]

A little more about sound compression:
Like in a 72 dpi picture which would be put into a 300 dpi resolution, a sound at 320 K set into a 24 bit one just extrapolate the sinewaves (like pixels).

The sound stay the same, but you can actually work on it with more accuracy.
For example, if you can add more noise to a 300 dpi picture than in 72 dpi rez., you can also add more noise to a sound which is running at 24 bit.

Noise, blur, are photographic effects that can be as well used in sound theory. The more "grain" you have, the deeper you can go in details.

Just to get you a good example of this kind of process, see how scotland yard used low resolution videos (from street cams) and accentuated the resolution to put more noise and approach the original image. You can get details by using effects and filters to sharpen, contrast and balances colors, pixels, and many other things.
I've seen mad image scientists working for the french police who decrypted the name of a guy from an over-blurred picture of his passport!

Idance

My point was that you CANNOT extrapolate pixels. Trust me, I once nearly had to sue Corbis for selling me an image of Middle Eastern royalty that they had tried to "extrapolate." (It was shot before most photojournos had digi cameras that could A4 at print resolution.) And Corbis has pretty good repro techs! But the final image was shit and unprintable.

But, maybe the cops have better techniques. The only solution that I have seen is filters that further reduce the fidelity (i.e. posterizing.) None that are supposed to add information have impressed me.

What audio software is made to extrapolate?

[D J 1 3 8]

A little more about sound compression:
Like in a 72 dpi picture which would be put into a 300 dpi resolution, a sound at 320 K set into a 24 bit one just extrapolate the sinewaves (like pixels).

The sound stay the same, but you can actually work on it with more accuracy.
For example, if you can add more noise to a 300 dpi picture than in 72 dpi rez., you can also add more noise to a sound which is running at 24 bit.

Noise, blur, are photographic effects that can be as well used in sound theory. The more "grain" you have, the deeper you can go in details.

Just to get you a good example of this kind of process, see how scotland yard used low resolution videos (from street cams) and accentuated the resolution to put more noise and approach the original image. You can get details by using effects and filters to sharpen, contrast and balances colors, pixels, and many other things.
I've seen mad image scientists working for the french police who decrypted the name of a guy from an over-blurred picture of his passport!

Idance

no offense, but is it just me, or does this make absolutely no sense whatsoever?

[FK]

I'll defintely defer to FK's expertise... but one thing that just doesn't make sense to me about "up-converting" is the simple fact that you cannot add information (only noise). No software that I know of can extrapolate the missing samples and harmonics that are lost in digitizing music.

Expertise my a**... I should have waited before saying this.

It sounded good in my headphones. When I played the allegedly 'fixed' file at the club,
it was actually a bit more horrible than the original, if that can be managed.

Sorry. The only way we can learn is by making mistakes. But if we keep trying, hopefully we get there....

Do however remember: CD's, while certainly better, still sound like sh*t as well.

We need higher standards. They're available, but right now kind of tough for many who are not gearheads,
are unwilling to learn about digital audio, and for whom it is not a professional thing, and then there's
the budget issue. It's no secret that it's all about audio interfaces, and picking the appropriate A/D converter
when recording your files, as well as how to play them back.

Mind you, if you use sh*t needles, go through a dinky mixer, or a number of other things, it sort of negates
worrying about all of this.....

FK

[FK]

no offense, but is it just me, or does this make absolutely no sense whatsoever?

It's called dithering. It does make sense, but some of it is pretty advanced math stuff, from what I gather... (if I understood the OP)

FK

[the crackhouse]

My point was that you CANNOT extrapolate pixels. Trust me, I once nearly had to sue Corbis for selling me an image of Middle Eastern royalty that they had tried to "extrapolate." (It was shot before most photojournos had digi cameras that could A4 at print resolution.) And Corbis has pretty good repro techs! But the final image was shit and unprintable.

But, maybe the cops have better techniques. The only solution that I have seen is filters that further reduce the fidelity (i.e. posterizing.) None that are supposed to add information have impressed me.

What audio software is made to extrapolate?

Extrapolation is just a word, fact is extrapolation is not used on the borders of the pictures but the filter is working on frontier/neighbor pixels, which can carry more informations that we actually believe.

If you extrapolate an image of 9 pixels to a 81 pixel one, and the pixel of the center was from a defined red, this red will not be the same in the big image from the colors of each pixel surrounding the center-red one. Of course if all pixels surrounding the red one are of the same color, it will not change the red.

Based on photographic images,combinations are more complicated but will always be the same, if this center pixel was red #6489 at the beginning, your low resolution image and some filtering can lead you to find more details about the original definition of the picture (reality).

Shadows, transparency, opacity, are interacting and can help you to get back to a better image resolution (even if the quality is not as good as reality).

When audio softwares are extrapolating sounds, a "beep" will be processed by the software as being the same "beep", but with more ability to detail the "beep". A filter will get you to finest details, approaching the original analog sound, but the extrapolation will just make you able to work on a higher resolution of the sound.

Idance
(hoping I was clear enough)

[ebot9000]

My point was that you CANNOT extrapolate pixels. Trust me, I once nearly had to sue Corbis for selling me an image of Middle Eastern royalty that they had tried to "extrapolate." (It was shot before most photojournos had digi cameras that could A4 at print resolution.) And Corbis has pretty good repro techs! But the final image was shit and unprintable.

But, maybe the cops have better techniques. The only solution that I have seen is filters that further reduce the fidelity (i.e. posterizing.) None that are supposed to add information have impressed me.

What audio software is made to extrapolate?

The basic idea is, if you're going to run audio effects, which have the ability to offer high bit rate/depth enhancements, you should change your low bitrate/depth source material to a high bitrate/depth before running these effects to take full advantage of the effects. These effects ADD information at a high rate and depth, an enhancement that will be lost if you aren't operating at those levels.

I'm not sure if this extrapolates to visual software effects, but does it make any sense on its own?

[Monny JcIntosh]

no offense, but is it just me, or does this make absolutely no sense whatsoever?

Not to me.

I understand that processing is best accomplished at the same rates as the processor, whatever the rates of the original file being processed. But I can't be sure that's what Mathieu's trying to tell us.

[The Buddy Love Show]

The basic idea is, if you're going to run audio effects, which have the ability to offer high bit rate/depth enhancements, you should change your low bitrate/depth source material to a high bitrate/depth before running these effects to take full advantage of the effects. These effects ADD information at a high rate and depth, an enhancement that will be lost if you aren't operating at those levels.

I'm not sure if this extrapolates to visual software effects, but does it make any sense on its own?

hey!

I think I touched on that in the thread referenced above!

i aint so dum, maybe

[Delmar Browne]

Expertise my a**... I should have waited before saying this.

It sounded good in my headphones. When I played the allegedly 'fixed' file at the club,
it was actually a bit more horrible than the original, if that can be managed.

Sorry. The only way we can learn is by making mistakes. But if we keep trying, hopefully we get there....

Do however remember: CD's, while certainly better, still sound like sh*t as well.

We need higher standards. They're available, but right now kind of tough for many who are not gearheads,
are unwilling to learn about digital audio, and for whom it is not a professional thing, and then there's
the budget issue. It's no secret that it's all about audio interfaces, and picking the appropriate A/D converter
when recording your files, as well as how to play them back.

Mind you, if you use sh*t needles, go through a dinky mixer, or a number of other things, it sort of negates
worrying about all of this.....

FK

Much Props To FK on this one!

Not to take this topic toward using needles, but that's the reason why I use Stanton needles instead of Ortofon Needles. Topic for another day!

I found the following comment posted from another forum "RA quoted by djsmark" on the topic 320 kbit/s MP3:

There are a lot of things to consider here (vinyl vs wav vs mp3), quality included but not exclusive:

1) As one DJ mentioned above, vinyl is sometimes more of a headache than digital when you are actually out of the studio and in a club, even at some of the biggest clubs... prime culprits are system discrepancies & vinyl feedback.

2) As far as wav vs. mp3, while wav might be higher quality, arguably by some only slightly, the space different is significant. For a say 4-5 minute wav, you're talking ~30MB, for that same track @ 320, you're talking around 10MB (give or take 1 or 2). My numbers might be a little off, but theyre ballpark - message is, if the quality is really only 5-10% better for WAV as someone argued above, its not worth the 2-3 times extra space it takes up, especially when space is limited on a laptop & you are a DJ carrying around your tracks on a comp for gigs. Also, the quality difference will become less over time & software improves. I remember years and years ago when CD ripping software first appeared mainstream - 96kbps was the default! Now most default to 128 or 160, and now 192 and increasingly so 320 are the new focus these days.

3) And as far as the general digital vs. vinyl debate, while old school may be better for now, it probably won't be for much longer, for two main reasons:

i) While vinyl tables may be superior in quality for playback, they are limited in so much as what you can do live with them. Look at CDJs like Pioneer & Denon (Technics tried but their's don't really compete as well) - the ability to do on the fly effects, remixes, loops, etc, etc, etc with CDJs far surpasses any ability with vinyls. Even purely digital systems (no tables involved) can have an upside to vinyls in the ability to do on the spot remixes (I still prefer CDJs as I do prefer the feel of a table to work on). Add in programs like Serato & Final Scratch that come with control CDs, and DJs can now harness the power of digital music storage through CDJ interfaces for the ultimate performance combo. Sound lofty? Wait a few years... what you might be able to do with two CDJs would require a team of DJs working on multiple vinyls, all in sync... vinyl will have its luck pressed to compete with that in the future.

ii) As the factors I spoke about in i) begin to impact the industry as it is starting to now (with a younger generation of DJs), both labels & software companies will be forced to cater to this market that will want the highest (and as equal as possible) quality of digital music to enable them to perform in the fashion that CDJs & digital systems allow. By focusing their efforts on perfecting the digital cuts as opposed to the vinyl cuts (as one member above pointed out), the difference in digital vs. analogue (or vinyl) will become smaller & smaller.


In sum, yes 320 is fine to play at most clubs vs. wav, and my bet is mp3 will become more mainstream as technology & space requirements begin to improve & weigh in. And I wouldn't start going and buying up a ton of vinyl as the times change. Much respect to the old school & vinyl crowd, but the days of vinyl in a performance setting are numbered just due to the nature of technology & the capabilities that vinyl simply can't compete with.

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON THAT?

[Moksha]

The basic idea is, if you're going to run audio effects, which have the ability to offer high bit rate/depth enhancements, you should change your low bitrate/depth source material to a high bitrate/depth before running these effects to take full advantage of the effects. These effects ADD information at a high rate and depth, an enhancement that will be lost if you aren't operating at those levels.

I'm not sure if this extrapolates to visual software effects, but does it make any sense on its own?

I get that... I guess I'm having a hard time with the idea that adding "noise" to the signal is really going to make it closer to the source.

[Moksha]

no offense, but is it just me, or does this make absolutely no sense whatsoever?

Basically, he is saying that if you have a low-resolution file (whether sound, image, video, etc), it can be made high resolution by filling in the missing pieces between the digital samples (or pixels or frames).

[Moksha]

Expertise my a**... I should have waited before saying this.

It sounded good in my headphones. When I played the allegedly 'fixed' file at the club,
it was actually a bit more horrible than the original, if that can be managed.

Sorry. The only way we can learn is by making mistakes. But if we keep trying, hopefully we get there....


FK

Thanks for the update! :)

[DeesKo]

I'll defintely defer to FK's expertise... but one thing that just doesn't make sense to me about "up-converting" is the simple fact that you cannot add information (only noise). No software that I know of can extrapolate the missing samples and harmonics that are lost in digitizing music.

I have to explain to PRs every day why they can't just save their shitty little 72 dpi images as 300 dpi pics... because that does not add resoltion. Pixels (and samples) cannot be magically created after an anolog source has been digitized.

The rest of FK's post seems pretty cool, though.

I agree about not being able to recreate lost signal... one thing that I think was missed in FK's explanation was that by reducing the overall volume, you're not attempting to add anything new, but reducing the more negative sounds in the overall mix.... which works to make the other (good) things seem higher in the mix.

For instance, with a lot of MP3's I have, the kicks/bassline sound kinda thin... but with music, it's all relative, so if I tone down the mids and highs a bit, the kicks/bassline will come "up" in the mix so to speak and make their thinness not so apparent.

Now, without a doubt, some things you just can't fix... but it might help some.


(on a seperate note as it KINDA relates to this topic..... )

If you're going to start trying to re-EQ or essentially re-do the final mixdown of a song you've picked up on MP3, one key thing to remember in engineering is that you typically want to go down, not up. Decreasing levels does not add distortion, increasing them does.

If you think the bassline is too low, don't set your frequency to 100 hz and try to boost it 6db. It will add distortion more than anything else. What you would really want to do is reduce the rest of the freq's by say 3db, and it will effectively bring the bassline up 3db, but without the added distortion.

Another thing, regarding your optimal recording level... IMHO, I would target one notch below "red" at the peak of the song... in other words, I wouldn't want any single solitary second in the song to actually be in the red. The minute you're going into the red, you're introducing distortion and quite frankly, with CD's, you've got plenty of headroom on your mixer channel gains/house gains to make up for a CD that's a little low. It's better to have something with minimal distortion that's a tad lower on volume than something that's plenty loud, but distorted.

Lastly,

For Ray (i think he asked this)... recording directly to CD from your vinyl is going to be pretty sufficient, just be very careful that your mixer EQ's etc aren't too far away from zero. Another option would be to get a good high-speed computer, a good semi-external professional grade sound card (you get the good ones with the break out box that's seperate from the PC so you don't risk any fan or electrical interference/noise) and record directly from your turntable into the sound card, save the file as a .wav and then burn it too CD from your computer.

The other good thing about going that route is that you have a backup copy of all of your files should someone walk off with your CD wallet.


Anyway, got work to do

Peace

[ebot9000]

I get that... I guess I'm having a hard time with the idea that adding "noise" to the signal is really going to make it closer to the source.

It makes it no closer to the source material. Changing a 320 mp3 to a CD or higher quality uncompressed format adds empty information to the original file, it will play back with the same quality as the original mp3.

The reason for doing this is to PREP the file for high quality effects that will add high rate/depth information to the file. If you stay at a low sample rate and depth, the effects will not sound as smooth, clear, warm, etc. Plus the software gets clunky to use.

[BrazenMuse]

I agree about not being able to recreate lost signal... one thing that I think was missed in FK's explanation was that by reducing the overall volume, you're not attempting to add anything new, but reducing the more negative sounds in the overall mix.... which works to make the other (good) things seem higher in the mix.

For instance, with a lot of MP3's I have, the kicks/bassline sound kinda thin... but with music, it's all relative, so if I tone down the mids and highs a bit, the kicks/bassline will come "up" in the mix so to speak and make their thinness not so apparent.

Now, without a doubt, some things you just can't fix... but it might help some.


(on a seperate note as it KINDA relates to this topic..... )

If you're going to start trying to re-EQ or essentially re-do the final mixdown of a song you've picked up on MP3, one key thing to remember in engineering is that you typically want to go down, not up. Decreasing levels does not add distortion, increasing them does.

If you think the bassline is too low, don't set your frequency to 100 hz and try to boost it 6db. It will add distortion more than anything else. What you would really want to do is reduce the rest of the freq's by say 3db, and it will effectively bring the bassline up 3db, but without the added distortion.

Another thing, regarding your optimal recording level... IMHO, I would target one notch below "red" at the peak of the song... in other words, I wouldn't want any single solitary second in the song to actually be in the red. The minute you're going into the red, you're introducing distortion and quite frankly, with CD's, you've got plenty of headroom on your mixer channel gains/house gains to make up for a CD that's a little low. It's better to have something with minimal distortion that's a tad lower on volume than something that's plenty loud, but distorted.

Lastly,

For Ray (i think he asked this)... recording directly to CD from your vinyl is going to be pretty sufficient, just be very careful that your mixer EQ's etc aren't too far away from zero. Another option would be to get a good high-speed computer, a good semi-external professional grade sound card (you get the good ones with the break out box that's seperate from the PC so you don't risk any fan or electrical interference/noise) and record directly from your turntable into the sound card, save the file as a .wav and then burn it too CD from your computer.

The other good thing about going that route is that you have a backup copy of all of your files should someone walk off with your CD wallet.


Anyway, got work to do

Peace

sound card recommendations for G5 use? Also for PC use? Hmmmm?

[Monny JcIntosh]

sound card recommendations for G5 use? Also for PC use? Hmmmm?

I have a MOTU Ultralite, which is superb.

[E-Phi]

sound card recommendations for G5 use? Also for PC use? Hmmmm?

Take a look at the Mbox 2 family of digital i/o from Digidesign:
http://digidesign.com/index.cfm?navid=104&langid=100&itemid=23596 (http://digidesign.com/index.cfm?navid=104&langid=100&itemid=23596)

[DOTSmusic]

Trent Reznor and Saul Williams are offering mp3's as well as lossless FLAC formats to choose from for download of their entire album. i can't understand why the DJ targeted online stores haven't offered the FLAC option yet. i'm sure they'd sell a whole lot more.

[martino]

i don't have nearly as much experience as FK, but i have to say a red flag came up when i saw him messing with the multi band compressor on an already mastered file. This can be very risky if you don't have that much experience. I wouldn't recommend it as a rule of thumb... unless the file is problematic. Even using the PSP with the bare minimum of wetness can be a problem DEPENDING ON THE TRACK YOURE WORKING WITH.

At the end of the day, there is no rule that can be applied to every track to make any track sound better automatically.

However, converting to 24bit is the way to go before changing eq or whatever. Think of it as making the canvas larger, so you have more room to play with once you start adding more information to the file.

I would not convert the file back to 16bit in logic (pre-version 8 at least). Use wavelab or whatever. Anything but the old logic.

This is just my opinion of course.

[AK]

I record the old fashion way now...turntable + mixer + cd recorder to blank cd = quality(but time consuming).

Me too. I have pretty much transferred all of my essentials to CD and I now record all of my new vinyl purchases to CD. I continue to buy vinyl when it's available and record it to CD the hard way because it does sound better. It's funny because most of the vinyl I've bought over the last few years has only been played once and will probably never be played again.

[DeesKo]

sound card recommendations for G5 use? Also for PC use? Hmmmm?

hahaha now you're asking for info that someone who may have turned on their PC to create or edit any music in the past 6 months would have to answer.

I'll just say this.... it's been so long for me, I THINK the PC I was using when we were making music still had the words Pentium 4 in the title. :)

The sound card I was using at the time was an Aardvark (if my memory serves correctly) which was nice. Basically you have the actual PC sound card section that plugs into your PC's internal hardware, but then you have cabling that leads to a "break out box" that sits 5-10 feet away from the PC that has XLR and/or 1/4" audio connectors. Mine had 4 inputs, and it also came with a PC based mixing board complete with built in compressors, etc so you could have literally bypassed an external mixing board completely if you so choose and just plugged your Korg or MPC or whatever directly into your PC.

I'm sure others here will give some suggestions.

Peace

[Reggie McKeever]

Trent Reznor and Saul Williams are offering mp3's as well as lossless FLAC formats to choose from for download of their entire album. i can't understand why the DJ targeted online stores haven't offered the FLAC option yet. i'm sure they'd sell a whole lot more.


The FLAC generating programs are just now becoming user friendly. And the last time I checked, the FLAC community was still debating about what tagging system to use. In addition, Serato (arguably the most popular DVS) does not play FLAC files. Only Traktor Scratch as far as I know.

For those that don't know, FLAC is a lossless Codec (as opposed to lossy such as mp3) that requires less space than wav files and also allows the attachment of metadata such as album art.

Right now it appears to be targeted toward archiving cd's. But cd's are only 16 bit/44.1 kHz, barely high fidelity. I'm not sure if it can compress 24/96 which is a much more worthy target for "audiophile" dj's if they are true. But also beyond the capabilities of all CDJ's that I know of.

[vic]

I dont play out like the rest of you guys, but I think I have a good idea of what I am hearing in my headphones. And what I hear is a definite difference in the quality of my mp3s versus my vinyl rips. All of this was solidified last weekend when I decided tomess with traktor for a lil bit. Even without any eq tweaking, the rips sounded much fuller and heavier than the mp3s for the most part. Heck I even tried fiddling with a few files I got from some of you guys here, and when I ran them threw some of my audio restoration software, they had a much better sound. I don know if they would pass muster on big systems, but I can say that they sounded significantly better than the original files I got.

But there is always a downside (at least for me anyway). The vinyls and some of the mp3s I got from here were ripped and eq'd at 24/96, so they are some hefty files. Seeing that Traktor supports 24/96, the files came out sounding great, but unfortunatly, this resolution is not supported by any of the CDJs I've seen on the market; 16/44.1 is the max that any of these will support. I think the lack of higher resolution/ sample rates offered by these companies is another factor in why the music we get and play does not sound as good as it can.

[Reggie McKeever]

Seeing that Traktor supports 24/96, the files came out sounding great, but unfortunatly, this resolution is not supported by any of the CDJs I've seen on the market; 16/44.1 is the max that any of these will support. I think the lack of higher resolution/ sample rates offered by these companies is another factor in why the music we get and play does not sound as good as it can.

CDJ's don't play raw wave files. And cd's are limted to 16/44.1. Anything higher and your not playing a cd. Hence the limitation imposed on the CDJ's. Pioneer's DVJ's play 24/96. But, I'm not sure if they'll play a raw wav file. The new Denon hard drive players will play wav files up to 24/96 I believe. This would be the true audiophile option if you mate a pair of players to a pair of high end DAC's. Or run them through a digital mixer leading to a single high end DAC.

[vic]

CDJ's don't play raw wave files. And cd's are limted to 16/44.1. Anything higher and your not playing a cd. Hence the limitation imposed on the CDJ's. Pioneer's DVJ's play 24/96. But, I'm not sure if they'll play a raw wav file. The new Denon hard drive players will play wav files up to 24/96 I believe. This would be the true audiophile option if you mate a pair of players to a pair of high end DAC's. Or run them through a digital mixer leading to a single high end DAC.

Ah, ok, I did not know that is where the limitation was. I'm gonna take a closer look at the denon unit again.

The other alternative may be to just get a pair of turntables and the Audio 8

[Monny JcIntosh]

I dont play out like the rest of you guys, but I think I have a good idea of what I am hearing in my headphones. And what I hear is a definite difference in the quality of my mp3s versus my vinyl rips. All of this was solidified last weekend when I decided tomess with traktor for a lil bit. Even without any eq tweaking, the rips sounded much fuller and heavier than the mp3s for the most part. Heck I even tried fiddling with a few files I got from some of you guys here, and when I ran them threw some of my audio restoration software, they had a much better sound. I don know if they would pass muster on big systems, but I can say that they sounded significantly better than the original files I got.

But there is always a downside (at least for me anyway). The vinyls and some of the mp3s I got from here were ripped and eq'd at 24/96, so they are some hefty files. Seeing that Traktor supports 24/96, the files came out sounding great, but unfortunatly, this resolution is not supported by any of the CDJs I've seen on the market; 16/44.1 is the max that any of these will support. I think the lack of higher resolution/ sample rates offered by these companies is another factor in why the music we get and play does not sound as good as it can.

96Khz is not, to my ears, any audible improvement over 44.1Khz. You might find more CD players will accept 24 bit with 44.1Khz than will accept 16 bit with 96Khz. I think I can hear a difference between 16 bit and 24 bit, but I am not sure.

I record all vinyl at 24 bit, 44.1Khz these days, using the aforementioned MOTU card, Grado DJ200 carts, and a Trichord Dino phono stage. I then convert to 320 MP3s.

I'm sure that there is a difference to be heard between these 320 MP3s and the original WAV files, but not on my home stereo (most of which I put together back when I worked for a second hand hi-fi shop, and sounds very nice).

As I have said elsewhere, the last time I was in a club with a system good enough to detect the difference was probably before MP3s had been invented.

[vic]

Ok, I just looked at the denon again, and it does have internal sound card that runs 24 bit dac processor (24/ 44.1). So that looks like it may be a my replacement for the 35k I just toasted a few weeks back.

For my rips, Ive been experimenting with a variety of methods. I finally settled down with running the music through an old Pio amp, and recording into my pc via dc7. So far i cant really say I'm disappointed with the way the rips sound, but I will drop the sample rate down to 44.1

[ebot9000]

The engineers I have discussed this with, and read discussions by, generally attest that 24 bit, 96 K is much better than lower audio rates - although higher than that (192K) is a debate. I notice a little difference recording in my studio at 48 K over 44.1 K, but not a ton of difference. I haven't personally worked at higher rates than that, so I can only offer heresay.

All this being said, you're unlikely to hear much of a difference if you're recording with a bad audio interface. The numbers don't mean much if the components are junky. If your computer is recording 96K samples per second but the interface has bad connectors, a clock with lots of errors, bad grounding, or esp a bad converting chip, it's not gonna do much for you to raise those numbers.

That sony CD recorder, set at 44.1K and 16 bit, I bet sounds better than most of the cheap interfaces out there set at higher rates. I remember seeing them in studios, usually used to print a rough mix on a CD at the end of the day, and they always translated in a pleasing way.

[vic]

Just out of curiosity, what has more bearing on how the music will sound, resolution or sample rate? Truth be told, I dont know all the real technical end of this stuff, I just know what sounds good to my ears. And the higher the rates I push for, the better the sound seems to me.

[Walter Stallworth]

Take a look at the Mbox 2 family of digital i/o from Digidesign:
http://digidesign.com/index.cfm?navid=104&langid=100&itemid=23596 (http://digidesign.com/index.cfm?navid=104&langid=100&itemid=23596)
I have an mbox2, you get this speaker whine in the left speaker due to usb. I put a 2.0 usb card in my mac, used the standards, used high quality usb cables and could not get rid of it. Digidesign treats it kinda like we know, we'll get around to it. I upgraded to a digi 002 and no whine at all. I'll be getting a laptop later this year and use the mbox2 for that. Check digidesigns forums on usb whine before you buy it. Just my experience.

[Sal Paradise]

first off I want to call BIG BULLSHIT on the same file sounding better ona CDJ than on a laptop, BIG BULLSHIT.

I'm not surprised to hear you had a hard time playing, especially considering the fact that you were using an ipod. But I'll bet short of the most descerning audiophile you could not tell the difference when I am playing between mp3's and vinyl out at a gig, something I do all the time. It takes some time and experience with files off of cdj's or a laptop to get the hang of them. But you can get a good sound out of them and you can play them with vinyl no problem.

edit: people don't really think you can get a better sound of converting a 192 to a 320 or a 320 to a wave? you can only go down not up.

[Chris Conrad]

Ok, I just looked at the denon again, and it does have internal sound card that runs 24 bit dac processor (24/ 44.1). So that looks like it may be a my replacement for the 35k I just toasted a few weeks back.

For my rips, Ive been experimenting with a variety of methods. I finally settled down with running the music through an old Pio amp, and recording into my pc via dc7. So far i cant really say I'm disappointed with the way the rips sound, but I will drop the sample rate down to 44.1

dc7?

[martino]

Just out of curiosity, what has more bearing on how the music will sound, resolution or sample rate? Truth be told, I dont know all the real technical end of this stuff, I just know what sounds good to my ears. And the higher the rates I push for, the better the sound seems to me.

Basically, sample rate is the the frequency range. Deeper lows and more brighter highs.

Bits is the detail of information per second. So if you have rich sounds like piano's or rhodes or vibes for example, they'll start to sound more like tin cans the lower the bit rate you go.
Early hip hop drum kits were sampled with less bits, so there was more grit to the sound for example.

[E-Phi]

I have an mbox2, you get this speaker whine in the left speaker due to usb. I put a 2.0 usb card in my mac, used the standards, used high quality usb cables and could not get rid of it. Digidesign treats it kinda like we know, we'll get around to it. I upgraded to a digi 002 and no whine at all. I'll be getting a laptop later this year and use the mbox2 for that. Check digidesigns forums on usb whine before you buy it. Just my experience.

I haven't experienced whine with mine.

[E-Phi]

Basically, sample rate is the the frequency range. Deeper lows and more brighter highs.

Bits is the detail of information per second. So if you have rich sounds like piano's or rhodes or vibes for example, they'll start to sound more like tin cans the lower the bit rate you go.
Early hip hop drum kits were sampled with less bits, so there was more grit to the sound for example.

To me the difference between 16 & 24 bit is that there are more levels to approximate an audio signal and the difference between 44.1, 48 & 96khz is the number of samples taken. So if someone comes out with 96bit 1MHz d/a converter I'll buy it :grinyes:

[Slyde]

I can't believe there's any debate about this...you don't need super hearing for this...mp3s on a big system is like watching a video quality movie on a big screen...unacceptable...maybe you can follow the story, but you're forcing your brain to put together all the little pieces and fill in the blanks...vinyl is a mirror image of the sound and a high quality digi file is like a picture, but an mp3 is like a picture of a picture!....a .wav should be the minimum on a big rig right now...this is about literally feeling sound in your body as well as just what frequencies your ears can detect....hopefully everybody listening to shitty files on their ipods is just going to increase the value of a night out listening to music properly...maybe we should be trying to offer a mindblowing experience instead of just getting by?

Been playing with 24bit lately, and it really is a big difference...transfer the same disco record 16 bit then 24bit and the kick drum really pops out and every sound just seems to breathe a lot better...I'm gonna archive everything 24bit so I don't have to do it all over again someday...really hope there will be a higher bitrate CD sooner than later, or at least a CDJ I can plug a harddrive into etc...in the meantime, being able to play 24bit files is a huge argument for Ableton and laptop based DJing.....can you go 24 on Final Scratch and others where you actually beatmatch your tunes?

[The Buddy Love Show]

I can't believe there's any debate about this...you don't need super hearing for this...mp3s on a big system is like watching a video quality movie on a big screen...unacceptable...maybe you can follow the story, but you're forcing your brain to put together all the little pieces and fill in the blanks...vinyl is a mirror image of the sound and a high quality digi file is like a picture, but an mp3 is like a picture of a picture!....a .wav should be the minimum on a big rig right now...this is about literally feeling sound in your body as well as just what frequencies your ears can detect....hopefully everybody listening to shitty files on their ipods is just going to increase the value of a night out listening to music properly...maybe we should be trying to offer a mindblowing experience instead of just getting by?

Been playing with 24bit lately, and it really is a big difference...transfer the same disco record 16 bit then 24bit and the kick drum really pops out and every sound just seems to breathe a lot better...I'm gonna archive everything 24bit so I don't have to do it all over again someday...really hope there will be a higher bitrate CD sooner than later, or at least a CDJ I can plug a harddrive into etc...in the meantime, being able to play 24bit files is a huge argument for Ableton and laptop based DJing.....can you go 24 on Final Scratch and others where you actually beatmatch your tunes?

Define "big system"

False assumption: a large number of djs play on said "big system"

[Slyde]

Define "big system"

False assumption: a large number of djs play on said "big system"

For the sake of argument, I'll say if the speakers are stacked higher than the tallest person there it's a "big system"....but as soon as you get into any kind of bass reinforcement there's a difference...just because we can't hear below 50hz doesn't mean we don't want to feel it in a club...

Yeah, for most people it's irrelevant I guess, but if I'm playing little league football I still want to play as if I'm in the stadium...and if you're a chef and you take pride in what you do, you still want to think about how your food tastes, even if you work in a swanky restaurant where people spend most of the time in the bathroom and hardly touch the steak...

[FK]

To me the difference between 16 & 24 bit is that there are more levels to approximate an audio signal and the difference between 44.1, 48 & 96khz is the number of samples taken. So if someone comes out with 96bit 1MHz d/a converter I'll buy it :grinyes:

http://www.korg.com/gear/images/products/info/info_MR1000.jpg

Well, actually, there is one that samples at .... 5.6448 MHz, the Korg MR-1000 (http://www.korg.com/gear/info.asp?a_prod_no=MR1000)

In other words, that's 5,644.8 kHz. (compared to 44.1 kHz for a CD )

Only thing is, you can't use this thing to natively edit, EQ, or mix in digital. It has to be converted.
But for archival use, many people are starting to look at this as the 'future-proof' solution that will
hold very high quality for a long time.

It's basically DSD, - Direct Stream Digital - the same audio format as Sony's SACD. But it's also a
totally different system from the PCM encoding we all know and use.

FK

[Sal Paradise]

The argument isn't about what's better, I don't think any one is disputing what is. Fact is mp3's get played alot and are acceptable in many, not all professional situations. Crackhouse's ipod experience has nothing to do with how playable digital files are. Trying to match random mp3's off an ipod with your regular dj set is not a good gauge of the digital dj'ing experience.

As far as the future of this all, it seems like some sort of lossless file should be what is settled on. But like it or not in the present world of Djing out side mp3's are getting played and they don't always sound like shit. You'd be surprised what bigroom jocks are playing. DOesn't mean they are playing all mp3's. But it doesn't mean they arn't some mp3's.

[FK]

You'd be surprised what bigroom jocks are playing. DOesn't mean they are playing all mp3's. But it doesn't mean they arn't some mp3's.

Please tell them not to stop, by all means.

When I come on after them, it easily makes me sound like a million bucks, and there's also been a couple of times
when such MP3 big-room dudes came on after me, and the promoter started freaking out that their gear was defective,
something wrong with the sound, and asking the techs to fix it!!

I didn't stick around to find out what happened. LOL

FK

[Chris Wood]

Please tell them not to stop, by all means.

When I come on after them, it easily makes me sound like a million bucks, and there's also been a couple of times
when such MP3 big-room dudes came on after me, and the promoter started freaking out that their gear was defective,
something wrong with the sound, and asking the techs to fix it!!

I didn't stick around to find out what happened. LOL

FK

hey Francois - what was sat night like at the Ministry btw?

(sorry to go off topic!)

[TAD]

Please tell them not to stop, by all means.

When I come on after them, it easily makes me sound like a million bucks, and there's also been a couple of times
when such MP3 big-room dudes came on after me, and the promoter started freaking out that their gear was defective,
something wrong with the sound, and asking the techs to fix it!!

I didn't stick around to find out what happened. LOL

FK

kinda off topic but this reminds me of a very big name dj who requested a specific <crappy> mixer to replace a urei1620 in a very large club. it sounded absolutely horrific in there. sad thing was another very big name dj played afterwards on the same crappy scrap metal heap.

which brings me on topic maybe to suggest budgeting dj's working in shit sounding venues should seriously consider travelling with a small roadcase outfitted with either a urei or a bozak and some processing gear. it would weigh less than a crate of records and will impress the hell out of the boss.

out of consideration for time and budgetary constraints, the above method will produce much better results than actually trying to tweak your file and still play it through a crappy mixer.

sure you'll be able to notice the difference playing mp3's next to vinyl on a urei or bozak, but the average listener won't. a d/a converter, a dre and a boom box added to the chain can "mask" that.

yeah i know too much work right?

[the crackhouse]

Which was: "How do you feel good when playing MP3s? I couldn't!"

MP3s are sounding good for any drunk listenner, but if you would ask the artist who produced the track to tell you if he enjoys his sound, he will definitly say no.

Fact is the MP2 format would get you a file that would be closer to the original than the mp3, why is that?
Simply because the distortion is equally used on all frequencies, instead of MP3 which is simply eating and distorting some particular frequencies.

We are mostly listenning to electronic music, which means that we are hearing sounds processed from synths modulations (if I exclude samples which can be at low bitrates). So, the sounds we listen to are coming from math equations to reproduce a particular sound.
If you just lower the bitrate of the final track/song, all your work which is commonly made at 44.1 will be distorted. Some parts of the sound spectrum will be CHANGED, or will just disappear.

Now, you may not feel that because you just listen to MP3s or CDs on little sound systems with a low quality, but read back at my system specs :
- Analog amplifier,
- Great 250W speakers,
- Allen & Heath Xone:62.

This is no BS system, even for this living-room party.
That's when you can really feel he difference.

Sure, the MP3s were played from an Ipod with no speed modulation possible, but we are not talking about mixer fun here, but about how bad you can feel when launching any MP3 and it sound like shit.

Some will say that the difference between a MP3 at 320 and a wav file will not be much heard, due to the fact that mp3s are playing on the same sound spectrum: 20 - 20 000 Hz.
But bitrate compression has nothing to do with sound spectrum representation, nor is it our subject.

Here's the scheme:

1 - Original recording > Ripped to .wav file > sound spectrum 20 - 20 000 Hz, some but no radical compression of original sounds in the sound spectrum parts

2 - Original recording > Ripped to .mp3 file > sound spectrum 20 - 20 000 Hz, radical compression of original sounds in all the sound spectrum parts

3 - Original recording > Ripped to .wav file > Ripped to .mp3 file > sound spectrum 20 - 20 000 Hz, extreme compression and disappearance of original sounds in all the sound spectrum parts

May I add that the MP3 format is incapable to encode some sounds from a wav file?
See this thread (just watch the pictures if you don't speak french) where a guy who's no scientist did try the ATRAC, MP2 and MP3 format to encode some sounds which are known to be difficult sound algoryhtms:
http://www.minidisc.org/French_tech/res_imp.html
is a sound which could not be encoded in MP3, your can check the other "resultats" (results) links for other sounds and how the encoding distorted the different parts of the sound spectrum each sound.

Get the picture?
Now I know that many of the listenners are headphoners and don't own a great sound system, but when you are listenning to music only on good or excellent soundsystems, the difference is astounding.

So why should we buy great sound systems? To play shitty sound files?

Idance

[kaaos]

I had my first MP3 (and records) mix this saturday, and it was horrible.
The setup:
- Analog amplifier,
- Great 250W speakers,
- Allen & Heath Xone:62,
- 2 Technics MK2,
- An Ipod,
- A Laptop.

I played MP3s that were at least 192Kbps and at best 320 Kbps and maybe 10% of them were illegal ones.

It sounded like shit, honestly!
We were mixing the MP3s and vinyls together and the difference was a pain in the youknowhat.
The sound of records was so high in front of the MP3s, the levels were very hard to keep clear with MP3s, it was an horror to be only busy with that instead of having fun with some hands-on Xone buttons!

So, how do you do to get better experience with MPs? I know it would be better to have some digital turntables, but I mean the sound, it's soo bad!

Let me know please, cause my friend is such a purist in music but he doesn't seem to mind about the sound quality...

Idance

IPOD in disc mode sucks...get a real hard drive with fire wire or a big enough laptop to handel your collection and also the most important thing is the SOUND card ...a card bulit into a laptop SUCK...buy a good aftermarket card.

[Moksha]

MP3s are sounding good for any drunk listenner, but if you would ask the artist who produced the track to tell you if he enjoys his sound, he will definitly say no.


Big soundsystems and big paychecks aside... a DJ isn't getting paid to impress the artist (who isn't even at the party), but the drunk (who is).

Honestly, If I were to play in Ministry's Box, I'd want to play vinyl. Or, if I was a globetrotting jock, I'd bring .wavs with all the trimmings.

But, most people are playing on systems where the source file is the least of their worries, where the rest of the signal path distorts the music far more than the difference between vinyl and mp3. Most soundsystems are probably far worse than Monny's home-build.

Given this fact, I think this discussion is moot for most people.

Strange thing... when I used to play regularly at London's Vibe Bar... CDs and MP3s sounded way BETTER than vinyl. (Why, I don't know.)

[kaaos]

Here's something I don't understand. Why do people spin mp3s off of CDs instead of CD quality music (waves/aiffs)? You can still fit about 8 average length house tracks on a CD, which still gives you a lot of convenience over CDs (CDs about convenience over records, right?)

Seems like people gettin real lazy when they don't even want to carry an extra case of CDs.

I spent my life carrying wurlitzer electric pianos and fender twins in and out of clubs, CDs are practically weightless, why not carry 3 cases of CDs instead of one and bring a better quality show? It's yer damn job, and it should be your passion, so put your back into it!


I use files ripped at 320KBS you cant tell the difference between CD and this file ripped at 320kbs

My songs that I use alot are alll in .wav format which is cd quality


I Can find songs in my collection FASTER than i can on CD and CDs get scratched to easy

[kaaos]

This is what I have been doing since saturday.Recording jams to my computer.

I prefer wav's to mp3's.I catch cd's on sale and stock up on them.

BTW...did anyone catch that dude was playing mp3's from an Ipod???

traktor dj lets you use the ipod ass an external drive and you can import itunes playlists to traktor

[kaaos]

It would be double work...

only way to do this that I know with the same unit is record straight through, finalize, then put it back in the cd player, and start a new blank cd, and on each track where you want to separate it, you have to hit the RECORD button either on the unit or through the remote.

When folks send me untracked mixes, I would have to re-record and just have the remote in my hand and everywhere that I need it to separate(make a new track mark), I would hit the record button on the remote.

Now, I am sure there is a computer program that would allow you to load the cd in and track mark where you need to...at least that was what I was told.


ray hit me up i can send you NERO wich can multitrak any mix into as many tracks you need...or soundforge is great for this too

[Chris Conrad]

kinda off topic but this reminds me of a very big name dj who requested a specific <crappy> mixer to replace a urei1620 in a very large club. it sounded absolutely horrific in there. sad thing was another very big name dj played afterwards on the same crappy scrap metal heap.

which brings me on topic maybe to suggest budgeting dj's working in shit sounding venues should seriously consider travelling with a small roadcase outfitted with either a urei or a bozak and some processing gear. it would weigh less than a crate of records and will impress the hell out of the boss.

out of consideration for time and budgetary constraints, the above method will produce much better results than actually trying to tweak your file and still play it through a crappy mixer.

sure you'll be able to notice the difference playing mp3's next to vinyl on a urei or bozak, but the average listener won't. a d/a converter, a dre and a boom box added to the chain can "mask" that.

yeah i know too much work right?

hahahaha...would that be the pioneer mixer at stereo requests?

</crappy>

[D J 1 3 8]

Tiesto will only use the Pioneer mixer, from what I hear. Not kidding, actually.

[FK]

hey Francois - what was sat night like at the Ministry btw? (sorry to go off topic!)

Well, poor Derrick May was a no-show as he got held up in D. with engine troubles on a plane that couldn't leave, so
there was no way for me to cancel, as I was the only one left for this 'marquee even', which was the official release
party for this new 3xCD compilation I did for them called 'Masterpiece' (first in a series, more to come from other DJs)

Played delirious with ~104 fever, so forgive me for being vague, it was as good as I could make it under those adverse
conditions, but their system has become pretty nicely tweaked up, actually, I was pleasantly surprised of all the upgrades
they did, that is if my hearing could be trusted in that state.

There was definitely more of a Techno/Electronic vibe for that night, BTW, as is customary with Hi-Tek Soul parties there.

FK

[kaaos]

Tiesto will only use the Pioneer mixer, from what I hear. Not kidding, actually.

never heard of him

[MadMixer]

the big ironies in all of this...

#1 every article/interview i read with big name dj's, trance dj's etc...when they talk about their digital setups, they talk about high quality files and computers etc...not mp3's or that budget laptop you just got or some shit soundcard...all the guys that get trashed on this board for playing 'shit drug music' actually give a damn about sound quality...

#2 folks on here talking about how much money they spend on music, vinyl etc, being cheap bastards when it comes to buying cd-r's, which cost pennies, or larger hard drives, which if you do the math are a bargain in many cases..."yeah, i spent $300 on one rare record, but that gemini mixer and old cartridge i never changed are good enough to play it on and transfer to digital, and that $300 laptop i got on a super coupon at walmart is good enoughm, nobody hears the difference...but oh yeah, viva la vinyl!" shit always makes me laugh...

:rofl5::rofl5::rofl5::rofl5: viva la vinyl

[D J 1 3 8]

I suggest budgeting dj's working in shit sounding venues should seriously consider travelling with a small roadcase outfitted with either a urei or a bozak and some processing gear. it would weigh less than a crate of records and will impress the hell out of the boss.

In my experience, this will not "impress the hell out of the boss".
This will PISS OFF the boss, who has no interest in letting some random fuckwit DJ unhook all the wires in his booth to hook up his own prima donna gear.
Most venues DO NOT have a soundman there every single night, and most venue managers are sick to death of the previous night's DJ unhooking everything so that it doesn't work when you get there.
Most managers don't want there to be one single issue with the DJ other than getting you drink tickets.

[TAD]

hahahaha...would that be the pioneer mixer at stereo requests?

</crappy>

stereo?

[TAD]

In my experience, this will not "impress the hell out of the boss".
This will PISS OFF the boss, who has no interest in letting some random fuckwit DJ unhook all the wires in his booth to hook up his own prima donna gear.
Most venues DO NOT have a soundman there every single night, and most venue managers are sick to death of the previous night's DJ unhooking everything so that it doesn't work when you get there.
Most managers don't want there to be one single issue with the DJ other than getting you drink tickets.

yeah certainly not for every club owner.

[Chris Conrad]

stereo?

yup

[Slyde]

Never heard of it.

[Slyde]

Just because lots of people won't notice a difference in sound quality is no reason to treat everybody at your party like idiots.

[FK]

Just because lots of people won't notice a difference in sound quality is no reason to treat everybody at your party like idiots.

Like I said before (and not to sound preachy saying it) but for those who have a coherent, well-thought out
strategy on how to accomplish encoding their music collection, it will be one more way to help them stand
out, and leave their competition in the digital dust.

Hey, I just thought of something! Maybe George W. Bush is like an 'MP3 President' ? A compressed, reduced
version of what the real thing is supposed to be, only focusing on the practicality and size savings, but without
any regards for the quality or consequences (to the audience)?

FK

[Pang]

Like I said before (and not to sound preachy saying it) but for those who have a coherent, well-thought out
strategy on how to accomplish encoding their music collection, it will be one more way to help them stand
out, and leave their competition in the digital dust.

Hey, I just thought of something! Maybe George W. Bush is like an 'MP3 President' ? A compressed, reduced
version of what the real thing is supposed to be, only focusing on the practicality and size savings, but without
any regards for the consequences (to the audience)?

FK

http://deephousepage.com/smilies/biglaugha.gif

[Armento]

Hey, I just thought of something! Maybe George W. Bush is like an 'MP3 President' ? A compressed, reduced
version of what the real thing is supposed to be, only focusing on the practicality and size savings, but without
any regards for the quality or consequences (to the audience)?

FK
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GoNVOH9ygNM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GoNVOH9ygNM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[ebot9000]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GoNVOH9ygNM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GoNVOH9ygNM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

There is no Bush impersonator out there that's funnier than the real thing.




(lesson to learn re: ripping records?)

e

[E-Phi]

http://www.korg.com/gear/images/products/info/info_MR1000.jpg

Well, actually, there is one that samples at .... 5.6448 MHz, the Korg MR-1000 (http://www.korg.com/gear/info.asp?a_prod_no=MR1000)

In other words, that's 5,644.8 kHz. (compared to 44.1 kHz for a CD )

Only thing is, you can't use this thing to natively edit, EQ, or mix in digital. It has to be converted.
But for archival use, many people are starting to look at this as the 'future-proof' solution that will
hold very high quality for a long time.

It's basically DSD, - Direct Stream Digital - the same audio format as Sony's SACD. But it's also a
totally different system from the PCM encoding we all know and use.

FK
Getting there...
http://www.popwink.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/homer%20drooling.jpg

[Chris Chase]

FK, you and your colleagues sounded great @ B&S on Sunday. What medium were you using at that party?

[Sal Paradise]

Please tell them not to stop, by all means.

When I come on after them, it easily makes me sound like a million bucks, and there's also been a couple of times
when such MP3 big-room dudes came on after me, and the promoter started freaking out that their gear was defective,
something wrong with the sound, and asking the techs to fix it!!

I didn't stick around to find out what happened. LOL

FK


I'm not disputing this. And I love when you come on these threads, because you always have updated and thorough information on the subject. But I bring up this point strongly because I feel like people that havn't gotten there hands dirty with digital dj'ing come off with an impression that is not quite the truth. Fact is a Loui Vega (i'm just pulling his name out of the air, not accusing him of anything) might drop a edit some one hands him that is a 320 mp3. Four of these files played through out the night is not going to ruin the sonic quality of the night in my opinion. Especially if the bulk of tunes are being run as Vinly or Wave files.

Most hiphop Dj's big and small are just starting to play 320's. The first wave was all 192's all the way up to people like FunkMaster Flex and Dj AM. Your in a situation where a pursuit of the highest sound quality makes sense. But if your playing a room like say Sin Sin or even a system a bit more substantial, it really doesn't matter if your dropping mp3's or vinyl and if you have any skill as a DJ 99% of your patrons will have no idea when your going between one or the other if your willing to work the eq to get a sound out of an mp3.

Unfortunatley laptops still have alot of stigma in this scene. An absurdity considering how ubiqutous playing cdj's has become. If it was all about vinyl still I could get with it, but being okay with cdj's and being anti laptop is just ignorant. A file is a file and doesn't sond better in one hosting unit or another. I mean most wav files are to large to host on a cdj anyway. So usually the sound quality is going to be better out of a laptop because you can infact play Wav files.

Playing compression sux, but it's not even close to as bad as all would make it out to be. And my point is alot of people who think it would be terrible have infact listened to many mp3's played in a club and have no idea that they have. Personally I can't wait for a the right way to emerge to convert files. ' reluctant to really dig into my vinyl collection because I don't have an end result that feels solid and withstanding of time.

[djmarbll]

you would fall over if you knew how many 'celebrity dj's' do this...they get booked to play based on celebrity, get paid big money and show up with an ipod, plug it in and scroll through songs...no mixing...then tell people in interviews that anyone can dj and its good money...there are places that have 'open nights' where you can bring in your ipod and 'dj'...

Yeah, I've been to parties in Manhattan where these so-called "dj's" play from an Ipod all night and the sound is horrible. A majority of the crowd still dances since they're too drunk to realize what's actually happening to their ears, LOL. I ended up walking out to avoid a headache.

[FK]

FK, you and your colleagues sounded great @ B&S on Sunday. What medium were you using at that party?

They were playing vinyl & CD

I was playing using Traktor, through an RME Fireface 400; mostly 24-bit / 96 kHz audio files transfered from vinyl (that's 4608 kb/sec compared to your
'LOL-high-end' MP3 which are encoded at 320 kb/sec) and some standard CD resolution files at 16-bit / 44.1 kHz (which would represent 1411 kb/sec)

FK

[ebot9000]

Unfortunatley laptops still have alot of stigma in this scene. An absurdity considering how ubiqutous playing cdj's has become. If it was all about vinyl still I could get with it, but being okay with cdj's and being anti laptop is just ignorant.

I don't know the answer to "why" but the laptop sets I have heard have sounded significantly worse than CDJ sets, and it doesn't sound like a file compression issue to me. It has something with the conversion, the time stretching, or the audio cards on laptops versus CDJs.

Or maybe all of the above.

Noone's arguing the difference between file type, it's something else about the technologies that's different. Can someone explain this to me?

[ebot9000]

They were playing vinyl & CD

I was playing using Traktor, through an RME Fireface 400; mostly 24-bit / 96 kHz audio files transfered from vinyl (that's 4608 kb/sec compared to your
'LOL-high-end' MP3 which are encoded at 320 kb/sec) and some standard CD resolution files at 16-bit / 44.1 kHz (which would represent 1411 kb/sec)

FK

I guess it's this? Most people are spinning mp3s through their laptop headphone outs, instead of high quality AIFs through a good interface.

[Sal Paradise]

I don't know the answer to "why" but the laptop sets I have heard have sounded significantly worse than CDJ sets, and it doesn't sound like a file compression issue to me. It has something with the conversion, the time stretching, or the audio cards on laptops versus CDJs.

Or maybe all of the above.

Noone's arguing the difference between file type, it's something else about the technologies that's different. Can someone explain this to me?

I'm interested to hear a gear heads response. But I feel like it could be other variables, like the DJ. Its real easy to play cdj's or laptops poorly. Everything distorted, gain to high, eq'd poorly etc. It could come down to a coincedence. Jocks you heard playing a laptop caring less or knowing less about the rooms sound than the jocks you heard playing a cdj.

It could also be an issue with the actual conversion box. I know for example Serato's is not so great. I imagine peeps could do real well to customize these boxes by busting open a Serato or a Traktor box and upgrading all the components in it. If I'm going to be playing alot of vinyl or am playing with some one that will be playing alot of vinyl I run the serato through the cdj's not the turntables for this very reason. So the vinyl doesn't have to run through the box, taking the sound quailty down.

[ebot9000]

I'm interested to hear a gear heads response. But I feel like it could be other variables, like the DJ. Its real easy to play cdj's or laptops poorly. Everything distorted, gain to high, eq'd poorly etc. It could come down to a coincedence. Jocks you heard playing a laptop caring less or knowing less about the rooms sound than the jocks you heard playing a cdj.

I really can't name names, but one guy in particular is someone's who's expertise on leveling and mixing i highly respect (I am not alone), i don't think he was these were the issues, and the sound quality to me reminded me of when I used to use Reason through my laptop headphone outs on gigs. When I switched to a dedicated synth (nord lead) it was a world of improvement.

Yeah, DJ gear heads may be able to explain this to me, but it wasn't a distortion or EQ issue. I can hear those things. And the DJ before us sounded fine using CDJs.

[Sal Paradise]

I guess it's this? Most people are spinning mp3s through their laptop headphone outs, instead of high quality AIFs through a good interface.


No one taking this seriouse would ever spin out of there laptops headphones out, jus sayin.

[djmarbll]

This is a slippery slope that I've seen with musicians as well.

Gigs pay poorly so you try to spend less. You spend less so you sound worse. You sound worse so your gigs pay less.

You gotta spend money to make money.

Besides, what about Chris's point that people don't even know how to work their equipment. Knowledge is free and the payoffs can be huge.

With musicians though, they can still get a decent sound even with not-so-great equipment. The reverse is also true. I've heard bass players with old Music Man basses sound so much better than other players with Fideras or Sadowsky basses. I've had my Pearl export drumset since 1998, and it still sounds better than half new sets I hear. My Ludwig snare drum is a Black Beauty from 1979, and it kills every new snare I've heard. Working your equipment can be so important. My 1200's are from 1993, and they still work great. Because so many people are playing songs from their Ipod jukebox and calling themselves dj's, every time I walk into the spot with vinyl, people immediately start paying attention, especially Willyburg hipsters, who are starting to collect vinyl in droves, lol.

[Sal Paradise]

I really can't name names, but one guy in particular is someone's who's expertise on leveling and mixing i highly respect (I am not alone), i don't think he was these were the issues, and the sound quality to me reminded me of when I used to use Reason through my laptop headphone outs on gigs. When I switched to a dedicated synth (nord lead) it was a world of improvement.

Yeah, DJ gear heads may be able to explain this to me, but it wasn't a distortion or EQ issue. I can hear those things. And the DJ before us sounded fine using CDJs.

I remain skeptical.

[ebot9000]

With musicians though, they can still get a decent sound even with not-so-great equipment. The reverse is also true. I've heard bass players with old Music Man basses sound so much better than other players with Fideras or Sadowsky basses. I've had my Pearl export drumset since 1998, and it still sounds better than half new sets I hear. My Ludwig snare drum is a Black Beauty from 1979, and it kills every new snare I've heard. Working your equipment can be so important. My 1200's are from 1993, and they still work great. Because so many people are playing songs from their Ipod jukebox and calling themselves dj's, every time I walk into the spot with vinyl, people immediately start paying attention, especially Willyburg hipsters, who are starting to collect vinyl in droves, lol.

True. Quality with instruments does not necessarily equal money. I'm sure it's the same for DJs, using your ears and picking the right equipment for your style is all that matters.

On the other hand, you're toting vinyl because you know it will make your gigs better, and vinyl is more expensive and more difficult to carry. You could save a lot of money and get to your gigs on the subway instead of driving/cabbing if you switched to mp3s. But would it cost you your respect and eventually your gigs? You tell me...

[djmarbll]

then why the dozens of threads i see on many other boards about dj's showing up to gigs and everything on the mixer is maxed out, meters hard into the red on everything? that pretty much sums up almost everywhere i've played last several years...then they get mad when you turn things down...find any audio thread on this board...people who have been doing this for years not knowing setup basics...and i mean just basics, nothing exotic...

true story: several years ago, a dj/producer who has many records out who is discussed on this board calls me up: "hey, i have a gig at club xxx, i have to bring my own cdj's to this gig, are planning on coming out, because if you do, can you get there early to hook these up for me when i bring them?"this from a guy who works out of a studio filled with all sorts of gear hooked up to computers and all sorts of other gear, can't connect two cd players to a mixer?

I don't understand how a guy with studio experience can't hook up a cdj mixer. RCA-quarter inch-1/8 inch-XLR work the same no matter whether you have a Hasbro turntable or a digital tape deck from NASA.

[djmarbll]

easier but also better sounding.

Please take my words regarding DJing with some grain of salt, I don't DJ. I do work with audio as a producer and a musician. I consider knowing the technical aspects of what I do to be required - and beneficial, that's why I learned how to repair and tune my rhodes and wurlitzer pianos when I toured, why I learned how to book and manage my band when we took to the road, and why I'm now learning electronics so I can repair and build equipment in my studio.

If I spent countless hours and years practicing piano, I can't think of any reason not to set aside a relatively small amount of time to learn the other parts of this business. It helps

A buddy of mine just learned how to tune his Wurly. In fact your buddy Sean plays bass with him every Thursday at Black Betty, lol.

[Pang]

he said "tune his Wurly". . hahahahahaha J/K

[Pang]

I mean most wav files are to large to host on a cdj anyway...

How is that so. . . the cdj is just reading the information imbedded onto the cd?

[Sal Paradise]

How is that so. . . the cdj is just reading the information imbedded onto the cd?

I might be completly wrong, as I don't work with cd's much so there might be a way around it I don't know about. Most wav files are to large of a file to fit on a cd. If I try to burn a cd with a wav file it tells me the file is to large.

[Chris Conrad]

I might be completly wrong, as I don't work with cd's much so there might be a way around it I don't know about. Most wav files are to large of a file to fit on a cd. If I try to burn a cd with a wav file it tells me the file is to large.


what do you think you are playing when you play a non-mp3 audio cd?

all that's happening is you're probably trying to put too large of a wav file onto a cd...a cd-r holds 700MB/80 mins of music...so a two hour mix won't fit...

[Pang]

I might be completly wrong, as I don't work with cd's much so there might be a way around it I don't know about. Most wav files are to large of a file to fit on a cd. If I try to burn a cd with a wav file it tells me the file is to large.

Negative amigo . . . that can't be right, a file @ 1411/kbps is just an uncompressed song . . the bit rate won't matter but the length of the song will . . .you follow? if you have a 90 min song then you should worry.

[djmarbll]

96Khz is not, to my ears, any audible improvement over 44.1Khz. You might find more CD players will accept 24 bit with 44.1Khz than will accept 16 bit with 96Khz. I think I can hear a difference between 16 bit and 24 bit, but I am not sure.

I record all vinyl at 24 bit, 44.1Khz these days, using the aforementioned MOTU card, Grado DJ200 carts, and a Trichord Dino phono stage. I then convert to 320 MP3s.

I'm sure that there is a difference to be heard between these 320 MP3s and the original WAV files, but not on my home stereo (most of which I put together back when I worked for a second hand hi-fi shop, and sounds very nice).

As I have said elsewhere, the last time I was in a club with a system good enough to detect the difference was probably before MP3s had been invented.

44.1khz is the best resolution I've heard that still keeps the intergity of the song without sounding to sterile. I've heard higher resolutions and the sound is brighter, but it loses it warmth, which is probably why the MPC series has stayed with 44.1 as a sampling rate. More than 75% of the hip-hop records we consider classics were either made on an MPC, SP1200, or Ensoniq ASR-10, all of which use 44.1 (or even lower) for sample rates.

[the crackhouse]

I don't know the answer to "why" but the laptop sets I have heard have sounded significantly worse than CDJ sets, and it doesn't sound like a file compression issue to me. It has something with the conversion, the time stretching, or the audio cards on laptops versus CDJs.

Or maybe all of the above.

Noone's arguing the difference between file type, it's something else about the technologies that's different. Can someone explain this to me?

The soundcard is very important, playing from the headphones doesn't mean "issues" all the time, if your card is good, you will have a great sound. But if you have a great soundcard, you should have that dedicated "audio out" plug anyway.

On another point, most of the CPUs (desk or lap) have a problem of inner static electricity which is always distorting sound, a CPU is made of a lot of electric processes running at different frequencies in the main board.
If it does not affect your CPU processes, it always have an impact on audio outputs. Some isolators exists at low prices and get you off these disturbancies.

Also, the ground doesn't exist on each and every CPU (it's rare) as the main power is adapted to distribute different voltages to each device, you are safe from an electrical shock. But this means that you gain more and more electrical disturbance (one device is @ 50 Volts and another one is at 3.5 Volts).
You can hear this ground effect if you don't plug your turntables on your mixers without plugin the ground wire.

Then there's the USB or Firewire audio output, which should be transmitting data to a box which send back the data into digital audio (external device). The problem is the bitrate of transfer between USB 1.0, 2.0, firewire, and the loss of sound bitrate which can appear when you manage to do that.

Last thing is the wire you use between your CPU and your mixer. Better get a gold one.

Blame it on the electrical boogie!

Idance

[ebot9000]

44.1khz is the best resolution I've heard that still keeps the intergity of the song without sounding to sterile. I've heard higher resolutions and the sound is brighter, but it loses it warmth, which is probably why the MPC series has stayed with 44.1 as a sampling rate. More than 75% of the hip-hop records we consider classics were either made on an MPC, SP1200, or Ensoniq ASR-10, all of which use 44.1 (or even lower) for sample rates.

You're touching on my feeling regarding bit rate, etc. The numbers have an effect, but not as much as other factors, like good wiring, proper leveling, quality conversion devices, etc. & raising your rate and depth on junky equipment is still not going to sound better than just upgrading your shit.. and.. some of the older devices which operated at lower depths/rates sound better than these 24 bit/192K devices.

If your vinyl rips aren't sounding good enough and you're recording at CD quality, I wouldn't suspect the depth and rate before all the other components. Maybe that $199 USB interface ain't so hot after all, even though it's 24 bit/192K.

[Sal Paradise]

what do you think you are playing when you play a non-mp3 audio cd?

all that's happening is you're probably trying to put too large of a wav file onto a cd...a cd-r holds 700MB/80 mins of music...so a two hour mix won't fit...

I can only fit 80 minutes of a 160 mp3 mix on a 700mb/80 min cd. One smaller wave file might fit on one cd. But many are too large. I'm speaking on my limited experience, not sayin this is how it is.

[FK]

A file is a file and doesn't sond better in one hosting unit or another. I mean most wav files are to large to host on a cdj anyway. So usually the sound quality is going to be better out of a laptop because you can infact play Wav files.

Sal, I hate to point this out to you and in no way intend it as a diss, but from reading this statement you just made,
it would appear that you might greatly benefit from making the time to catch up on a whole lot of the basics of digital audio
before making such comments. (As everyone else, I also had to do this, but this was 15~20 years ago, when it was a lot
harder than it is today to dig up this information. More than ever, Wikipedia is your friend today!)

Hopefully, you'll appreciate that I have taken the time to try and give you some leads on finding the real answers to your
misconceptions. Whoever gave you those, I would be careful and take any more from them with a grain of salt. And certainly,
it's not a point of trying to humiliate you in public with this, but rather than sending this as a PM, I felt that other peepz might
benefit from reading this. If it was about showing off, there are a bunch of rocket scientists over at the Hydrogen Audio Forums
that could make me look like a total n00b on this. My own knowledge is also quite limited, but I may have a bit more experience
than you do, and happy to share, in the spirit of helping you understand it better....


I mean most wav files are to large to host on a cdj anyway.

• The CD Format is called 'Red Book Audio'. There is only one resolution, 16-bit 44.1 kHz .wav files and nothing else.
All a CDJ is capable of playing is those .wav files above, although some of the newer models now also offer MP3 playback, I know.
There can, however be many different types of .wav files that are 24 or even 32-bits on a computer, but when attempting to burn
these onto a Red-Book Audio CD, the 'upper-bits' get chopped off.... (You might want to read up on why Sony invented
a technology called SBM (Super Bit Mapping) to make certain file formats sound better and why certain CDs were marketed
as '20-bit mastered'). Further, .wav files can be at any sample rate, not just 44.1 kHz, at which point you'd have to convert
them back to that first before burning them to an audio CD.


A file is a file and doesn't sond better in one hosting unit or another.

• The sound quality will greatly vary from unit to unit, due to the type, quality and make of their D/A convertors
(D/A: digital to analog). You could test this by taking a CDJ-1000 Mk II and above, and instead of just going from
the analog outputs, also go digitally into a really spiffy high-end Apogee or dCS D/A converter, and again, when
comparing both, I am sure the difference in imaging, soundstage and clarity would surprise you.

• Then there is a matter of the reference clock (without which the device will not function at all). An audiophile
CD player might incorporate an ultra-accurate super-stable $5,000 master clock, and I'm sure you'd immediately
hear the difference when comparing it to a CDJ-1000, where the clock while stable still introduces small but noticeable
amounts of 'jitter' and other nasty little artifacts that actually affect your perception of sound. Different sound cards
use vastly different qualities of master clocks, and are many times rated from that, as well as their A/D and D/A
conversion, which explains the huge price differences you can find.


So usually the sound quality is going to be better out of a laptop because you can infact play Wav files.
On the other extreme, a normal 16-bit CD played back on a CDJ-1000 will sound much better than the 24-bit version of
the same file poorly reproduced through a budget LOL sound card with a $0.61 stock D/A chip that was really designed
for telemarketing and general voice purposes.


• Rather than being fixed on playing CDs, there are much higher-resolution formats available for people that insist
on using optical discs and do not want to move to a computer, such as the Pioneer DVJ-1000. Then, if I am not
mistaken you could burn DVD-A discs (DVD-Audio) which will allow you to play DVD-A discs containing
.wav files up to 24-bit and 96 kHz from this Pioneer unit. I never tried it, but you'd need DVD-A-compatible authoring
software to burn the disc with. They will definitely sound better than regular CDs, but only as good as the A/D hardware
you encoded them with in the first place, and possibly not as good as through a high-end sound card like my RME Fireface 400
or a Metric Halo 2882, which may have better playback D/A and clocking than the Pioneer.

So in the end, the point is that there are MANY FACTORS, and to best decide what's to work for the long term, and rather
than just focusing on manufacturer's published specs, we also still have to use our ears.

Waiting for Colin Powell's magical appearance any moment now...

FK

[djmarbll]

True. Quality with instruments does not necessarily equal money. I'm sure it's the same for DJs, using your ears and picking the right equipment for your style is all that matters.

On the other hand, you're toting vinyl because you know it will make your gigs better, and vinyl is more expensive and more difficult to carry. You could save a lot of money and get to your gigs on the subway instead of driving/cabbing if you switched to mp3s. But would it cost you your respect and eventually your gigs? You tell me...

It remains to be seen, but every time I've heard guys play mp3's at a venue, it just sounds so sterile, which makes me not wanna invest in it for playing out. I've heard one dj in Williamsburg play mp3's from Serato that sounded decent, but even he played majority vinyl because he liked the sound better. I plan on converting most of my vinyl collection to mp3 soon, but I'm still iffy about the sound quality that I'm used to hearing from vinyl.

[Sal Paradise]

Sal, I hate to point this out to you and in no way intend it as a diss, but from reading this statement you just made,
it would appear that you might greatly benefit from making the time to catch up on a whole lot of the basics of digital audio
before making such comments. (As everyone else, I also had to do this, but this was 15~20 years ago, when it was a lot
harder than it is today to dig up this information. More than ever, Wikipedia is your friend today!)

Hopefully, you'll appreciate that I have taken the time to try and give you some leads on finding the real answers to your
misconceptions. Whoever gave you those, I would be careful and take it with a grain of salt.



• The CD Format is called 'Red Book Audio'. There is only one resolution, 16-bit 44.1 kHz .wav files and nothing else.
All a CDJ is capable of playing is those .wav files above, although some of the newer models now also offer MP3 playback, I know.
There can, however be many different types of .wav files that are 24 or even 32-bits on a computer, but when attempting to burn
these onto a Red-Book Audio CD, the 'upper-bits' get chopped off.... (You might want to read up on why Sony invented
a technology called SBM (Super Bit Mapping) to make certain file formats sound better and why certain CDs were marketed
as '20-bit mastered'). Further, .wav files can be at any sample rate, not just 44.1 kHz, at which point you'd have to convert
them back to that first before burning them to an audio CD.



• The sound quality will greatly vary from unit to unit, due to the type, quality and make of their D/A convertors
(D/A: digital to analog). You could test this by taking a CDJ-1000 Mk II and above, and instead of just going from
the analog outputs, also go digitally into a really spiffy high-end Apogee or dCS D/A converter, and again, when
comparing both, I am sure the difference in imaging, soundstage and clarity would surprise you.

• Then there is a matter of the reference clock (without which the device will not function at all). An audiophile
CD player might incorporate an ultra-accurate super-stable $5,000 master clock, and I'm sure you'd immediately
hear the difference when comparing it to a CDJ-1000, where the clock while stable still introduces small but noticeable
amounts of 'jitter' and other nasty little artifacts that actually affect your perception of sound. Different sound cards
use vastly different qualities of master clocks, and are many times rated from that, as well as their A/D and D/A
conversion, which explains the huge price differences you can find.


On the other extreme, a normal 16-bit CD played back on a CDJ-1000 will sound much better than the 24-bit version of
the same file poorly reproduced through a budget LOL sound card with a $0.61 stock D/A chip that was really designed
for telemarketing and general voice purposes.


• Rather than being fixed on playing CDs, there are much higher-resolution formats available for people that insist
on using optical discs and do not want to move to a computer, such as the Pioneer DVJ-1000. Then, if I am not
mistaken you could burn DVD-A discs (DVD-Audio) which will allow you to play .wav files up to 24-bit and 96 kHz from this
Pioneer unit. I never tried it, but you'd need DVD-A-compatible authoring software to burn the disc with. They
will definitely sound better than regular CDs, but only as good as the A/D hardware you encoded them with in the first place.

Waiting for Colin Powell's magical appearance any moment now...

FK

no offense. Great information. I was wrong about how much information a blank cdj can hold. I jumped from vinyl to serato, so I kind of skipped the cdj thing.

I am speaking from perhaps a certain amount of technical ignorance, but I am speaking from alot of everyday personal experience. With all the variouse ways to convert files, play files etc. Your law of averages says that the difference is null between a guy running cd's and a guy running serato or traktor in your everyday sort of a club. Super systems like you play on not withstanding. My aim is to dispell the myth that your going to ruin a night by pluggin your laptop into a system. While cd's are all ready being run.

[ebot9000]

My aim is to dispell the myth that your going to ruin a night by pluggin your laptop into a system. While cd's are all ready being run.

I think the point is, CDJs have good methods for doing their jobs, whereas computers have a wide variance. Some probably sound better than CDJs, but some noticeably worse.

Usually the numbers are the same - same mp3s or waves off both machine. But the numbers are a small part of the equation - people concentrate too hard on them - it's more about the components.

A laptop set out the headphones jack is going to sound worse than a CDJ set of the same material. That is my experience as a listener.

[Chris Conrad]

I can only fit 80 minutes of a 160 mp3 mix on a 700mb/80 min cd. One smaller wave file might fit on one cd. But many are too large. I'm speaking on my limited experience, not sayin this is how it is.

huh? i have burned the cd-r limits worth of an entire mixshow as a cd standard wav file...

[FK]

I plan on converting most of my vinyl collection to mp3 soon, but I'm still iffy about the sound quality that I'm used to hearing from vinyl.

What is it about 'MP3' that is so magical that you (who seems to care so much and passionately about so many
other things) would settle for spending all of this time transferring audio using a format designed for portability
and fast file transmission, with little regards for quality, when encoding it properly at much higher quality will
take the same exact amount of your time? (and you can always batch-convert those to MP3 if you ever feel like it).

And if you claim that it's the added expense of hard disk space and sound card, what is that compared to the
thousands of hours of your time you'd need to spend re-encoding it properly again.... Is there a down side I am blind to?

Or is it just, "Yeah, everyone else is doin' it that way, so if it's good enough for them...." ??

Curious. I mean, it certainly is your prerogative to do it however you want to, but I'm a bit surprised reading this from
someone who just posted about quality of bass instruments.

FK

[E-Phi]

I can only fit 80 minutes of a 160 mp3 mix on a 700mb/80 min cd. One smaller wave file might fit on one cd. But many are too large. I'm speaking on my limited experience, not sayin this is how it is.
You can only fit 80 min of a 320kbps mp3 on a 700mb/80 min cd. You can also only fit 80 min of a 1411kbps mp3 on a 700mb/80 min cd. You starting to get it yet?:acclaim:

[Monny JcIntosh]

What is it about 'MP3' that is so magical that you (who seems to care so much and passionately about so many
other things) would settle for spending all of this time transferring audio using a format designed for portability
and fast file transmission, with little regards for quality, when encoding it properly at much higher quality will
take the same exact amount of your time? (and you can always batch-convert those to MP3 if you ever feel like it).

And if you claim that it's the added expense of hard disk space and sound card, what is that compared to the
thousands of hours of your time you'd need to spend re-encoding it properly again.... Is there a down side I am blind to?

Or is it just, "Yeah, everyone else is doin' it that way, so if it's good enough for them...." ??

Curious. I mean, it certainly is your prerogative to do it however you want to, but I'm a bit surprised reading this from
someone who just posted about quality of bass instruments.

FK

I can only speak for myself on this, but for me it is the added expense and space of hard disk space with no discernible, i.e. audible advantage for home listening. (I have no DJing pretensions.) That's *not* to say that I have little regard for quality - I have every regard for quality. But I can't justify paying for (and providing space in a small London flat for) quality that I cannot hear.

[Sal Paradise]

You can only fit 80 min of a 320kbps mp3 on a 700mb/80 min cd. You can also only fit 80 min of a 1411kbps mp3 on a 700mb/80 min cd. You starting to get it yet?:acclaim:

I got it a few posts ago. This seems a small point conceded some time ago to keep getting brought up. From the get I put for the information with a disclaimer as to my lack of knowledge on the subgject of cdj's.

The components is where the discrepancy is, this makes sense to me. My question is how do the components of a pioneer cdj vs a traktor/serato set up coming out of a macbook into a set of cdj's or a pair of techniques 1200's differ?

Is FK even using Traktors box to get into turntables or cdj's?

[FK]

You can only fit 80 min of a 320kbps mp3 on a 700mb/80 min cd. You can also only fit 80 min of a 1411kbps mp3 on a 700mb/80 min cd. You starting to get it yet?:acclaim:

You may want to explain it in a bit more detail:

When writing a Red-Book Audio CD, whatever file format you were originally using gets automatically converted
by the CD-authoring software to a temporary 16-bit / 44.1 kHz version, (which as I stated above is the only format
Red-Book Audio accepts) and THEN gets burned onto the CD media.

But because it is done behind-the-scenes by the software, people bug out trying to figure out why they
lost all of the space.

On the other hand, if you take the same file, and burn it using the same software but as a 'CD- ROM' this
time, you will only have the exact same file, and it will not play back on a standard CD player, only on one
that is equipped to recognize and play back audio files contained on CD-ROMs or DVD-ROMs.

The other big misconception I keep reading about over and over again is how is you make MP3 files sound
better if you turn them in .wav and burn them onto a CD. False and dangerous, because once it's on
CD, everyone will assume that it was not an MP3, and it can be difficult to trace it back!

FK

[Sal Paradise]

The other big misconception I keep reading about over and over again is how is you make MP3 files sound
better if you turn them in .wav and burn them onto a CD. False and dangerous, because once it's on
CD, everyone will assume that it was not an MP3, and it can be difficult to trace it back!
FK

worth repeating. Isn't it true that the file infact gets worse when you do this?

[FK]

Is FK even using Traktors box to get into turntables or cdj's?

You might be stuck on that Serato concept of passing through something, which people also use with 'Final Scratch' or
Traktor 'Scratch'.

You do NOT have to do that in order to play audio from a laptop's audio interface. I don't use time-coded disks to
control my decks. I find it a lot more easier to use Traktor DJ Studio 3 as a stand-alone application, with a separate
high-quality audio interface, (RME) sending three of its separate stereo outputs to three inputs on any normal
DJ mixer, and operate Traktor through a combination of my laptop's keyboard key commands, and a USB
controller (in my case Evolution UC-33e). I just took the time to map out the functions I need -like pitch control and
such- to specific sliders and pots on either the computer keyboard or the UC-33e, according to my personal needs.
You can even easily save or recall multiple versions of those mapping assignments into Traktor.

When I play without a DJ mixer, I add a second USB controller (you can run more than one) to replicate the internal
mixer's functions, and can easily do headphone cueing and everything else through the sound card, but now all of
this is coming out of just ONE stereo output on the soundcard, and my headphone is also plugged into another
one of the soundcard's outputs. (Actually, it's a bit more involved, but basically you tell the sound card software
and Traktor both where to send the cue mix, and you're done)

FK

[Sal Paradise]

You might be stuck on that Serato concept of passing through something, which people also use with 'Final Scratch' or
Traktor 'Scratch'.

You do NOT have to do that in order to play audio from a laptop's audio interface. I don't use time-coded disks to
control my decks. I find it a lot more easier to use Traktor DJ Studio 3 as a stand-alone application, with a separate
high-quality audio interface, (RME) sending three of its separate stereo outputs to three inputs on any normal
DJ mixer, and operate Traktor through a combination of my laptop's keyboard key commands, and a USB
controller (in my case Evolution UC-33e). I just took the time to map out the functions I need -like pitch control and
such- to specific sliders and pots on either the computer keyboard or the UC-33e, according to my personal needs.
You can even easily save or recall multiple versions of those mapping assignments into Traktor.

When I play without a DJ mixer, I add a second USB controller (you can run more than one) to replicate the internal
mixer's functions, and can easily do headphone cueing and everything else through the sound card, but now all of
this is coming out of just ONE stereo output on the soundcard, and my headphone is also plugged into another
one of the soundcard's outputs. (Actually, it's a bit more involved, but basically you tell the sound card software
and Traktor both where to send the cue mix, and you're done)

FK

Why do you avoid Traktor scratch? So you can custamize control or is it to avoid using the components in traktor scratche boxes? or both?

[FK]

worth repeating. Isn't it true that the file infact gets worse when you do this?

It can't be better, only worse or equal.

Search for this on Hydrogen Audio Forums, it's probably been answer 1,000 times.

I'd wager something does happen when it gets converted from MP3 to .wav (or to any other format for that matter), that's
called a 'trans-code' and usually a very big no-no- with the audio gurus in the white lab coats that seem to hang out there.

MP3 was originally designed as the 'end-of-the-line' product, not to ever be converted, edited or changed again, just played
back. There are tools today that allow some of that but I have limited experience with MP3 editors.

FK

[Jamie 3:26]

FK...copy and paste this to a document,so you don't have to keep typing this over and over again....:grinyes:

I appreciate the wisdom.

Hope ya feel better...

[FK]

Why do you avoid Traktor scratch? So you can custamize control or is it to avoid using the components in traktor scratche boxes? or both?

This whole thing of controlling your music with a round spinning object is not something I stayed stuck with. It was
great in the 70's, granted. I still do it and love it, nothing wrong.

But I prefer something where it's like a blank slate, and I can set up multiple loops at the same time, sound effects,
sampler-like triggering situations from keys on my laptop keyboard, and other kinds of advanced audio madness,
which have little or nothing whatsoever to do with being tethered to these controlling discs in order to hear sound
coming out. Also, I use at least three and on occasion even four separate 'decks'. As far as I know, Serato and
everyone only else use 2 decks, end of story. Switching decks to 3/4 would be a nightmare, I'd get lost, it goes too fast.

If you think of my - now-notorious - position on trainwrecking, I prefer to use the tool for 90% of the time (i.e. :
while the song is actually playing) than limit myself to what may make the task easier for me only 10% of the time
(i.e.: beat-mixing)

I kind of got used to it. In the 80's I sometimes played between two Technics tape decks, or later using a DAT
machine (no pitch control, adjusting the speed of the record I was mixing out of instead) so I could carry a
ton of music wherever I went traveling, and had years of practice at it. Sort of like real torture scales some jazzmen
practice. Compared to those two, this stuff here is really kindergarten...

Also, you are limited to the audio quality of what components Serato or T'Scratch' decided to put in their
glorious $200 audio interfaces. Serato doesn't even go beyond 44.1 kHz.

Variety is the spice of life.

FK

[Moksha]

I can only speak for myself on this, but for me it is the added expense and space of hard disk space with no discernible, i.e. audible advantage for home listening. (I have no DJing pretensions.) That's *not* to say that I have little regard for quality - I have every regard for quality. But I can't justify paying for (and providing space in a small London flat for) quality that I cannot hear.

Blank CDs are cheap as chips. Why not just burn at CD quality too discs... then anything you want to play through iTunes (or whatever software jukebox you are using) make MP3s of? As François said, it's better than having to go back and redo your entire collection.

[Monny JcIntosh]

Blank CDs are cheap as chips. Why not just burn at CD quality too discs... then anything you want to play through iTunes (or whatever software jukebox you are using) make MP3s of? As François said, it's better than having to go back and redo your entire collection.

I hadn't thought of that, but I'm not all that tempted. Blank CDs don't last all that long in my experience.

[Sal Paradise]

thanx for alll the great info FK

:respent:

[FK]

I have every regard for quality. But I can't justify paying for (and providing space in a small London flat for) quality that I cannot hear.

Dood, hard disk prices are now £100 or less for 500 Gigs, the size of a book on your shelf. I see people chucking out
anything under 40 Gigs as worthless, so you may be able to blag an 80 Gig one for £25 to start. Throw out five
magazines. Skip a couple of drinks here and there, sell a few records after you've encoded them, and you're
there. Blag a second one from a mate, or sell more records that are not crucial to have a second safety disk
of your music library. Only keep the records you REALLY need. I'm sure if you had to flee somewhere, it'd be
a lot easier to carry a hard disk than crates and crates. Sorry to hear that things are so tight, just playing devil's
advocate with this, but I have been in tough spots too, and always found a way to somehow make it work with a
little creativity.

Also, you can encode everything using FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) to reduce the total size of your files
by 40%, and still restore them back to full size if you ever feel like it. Many players like WinAmp play FLAC files,
and what's great over .wav is that FLAC has tagging like ID3 for MP3's, so all of the information shows up on your
media player and doesn't get lost.

Lossless = NO LOSS. Same CD quality. If I take a FLAC file and re-convert it back to 16-bit / 44.1 kHz, it will
be bit-for-bit identical clone of the original CD I took it from.

MP3, ATRAC, AAC = Lossy. Never comes back.

Your move.

FK

[Moksha]

I hadn't thought of that, but I'm not all that tempted. Blank CDs don't last all that long in my experience.

They last longer than hard drives!

[Moksha]

Dood, hard disk prices are now £100 or less for 500 Gigs, the size of a book on your shelf. I see people chucking out anything under 40 Gigs as worthless, so you may be able to blag an 80 Gig one for £25 to start. Throw out five magazines. Skip a couple of drinks here and there, sell a few records after you've encoded them, and you're there. Blag a second one from a mate, or sell more records that are not crucial to have a second safety disk of your music library. Only keep the records you REALLY need. I'm sure if you had to flee somewhere, it'd be a lot easier to carry a hard disk than crates and crates. Sorry to hear that things are so tight, just playing devil's advocate with this, but I have been in tough spots too, and always found a way to somehow make it work with a little creativity.

Also, you can encode everything using FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) to reduce the total size of your files by 40%, and still restore them back to full size if you ever feel like it. Many players like WinAmp play FLAC files, and what's great over .wav is that FLAC has tagging like ID3 for MP3's, so all of the information shows up on your media player and doesn't get lost.

Lossless = NO LOSS. Same CD quality. If I take a FLAC file and re-convert it back to 16-bit / 44.1 kHz, it will be bit-for-bit identical clone of the original CD I took it from.

MP3, ATRAC, AAC = Lossy. Never comes back.

Your move.

FK

Hahahah at François talkin' all British with Jonny!

[ebot9000]

They last longer than hard drives!

Nah, not cheap CDs. You gotta back your shit up on hard drive and put that drive somewhere where you don't spill your drinks.

[Monny JcIntosh]

Dood, hard disk prices are now £100 or less for 500 Gigs, the size of a book on your shelf. I see people chucking out
anything under 40 Gigs as worthless, so you may be able to blag an 80 Gig one for £25 to start. Throw out five
magazines. Skip a couple of drinks here and there, sell a few records after you've encoded them, and you're
there. Blag a second one from a mate, or sell more records that are not crucial to have a second safety disk
of your music library. Only keep the records you REALLY need. I'm sure if you had to flee somewhere, it'd be
a lot easier to carry a hard disk than crates and crates. Sorry to hear that things are so tight, just playing devil's
advocate with this, but I have been in tough spots too, and always found a way to somehow make it work with a
little creativity.

Also, you can encode everything using FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) to reduce the total size of your files
by 40%, and still restore them back to full size if you ever feel like it. Many players like WinAmp play FLAC files,
and what's great over .wav is that FLAC has tagging like ID3 for MP3's, so all of the information shows up on your
media player and doesn't get lost.

Lossless = NO LOSS. Same CD quality. If I take a FLAC file and re-convert it back to 16-bit / 44.1 kHz, it will
be bit-for-bit identical clone of the original CD I took it from.

MP3, ATRAC, AAC = Lossy. Never comes back.

Your move.

FK

I started storing WAVs at 24/96, but very quickly filled a 500GB drive. To store everything I am storing as a 24/96 WAV, I would need an insane number of drives. And again, I cannot detect a difference between the WAVs and the MP3s on my home system, and do not DJ.

[Monny JcIntosh]

They last longer than hard drives!

Not in my experience. And backing up (and checking) one 500GB drive is a lot easier than backing up (and checking) 500 CDs.

[Monny JcIntosh]

Dood, hard disk prices are now £100 or less for 500 Gigs, the size of a book on your shelf. I see people chucking out
anything under 40 Gigs as worthless, so you may be able to blag an 80 Gig one for £25 to start. Throw out five
magazines. Skip a couple of drinks here and there, sell a few records after you've encoded them, and you're
there. Blag a second one from a mate, or sell more records that are not crucial to have a second safety disk
of your music library. Only keep the records you REALLY need. I'm sure if you had to flee somewhere, it'd be
a lot easier to carry a hard disk than crates and crates. Sorry to hear that things are so tight, just playing devil's
advocate with this, but I have been in tough spots too, and always found a way to somehow make it work with a
little creativity.

Also, you can encode everything using FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) to reduce the total size of your files
by 40%, and still restore them back to full size if you ever feel like it. Many players like WinAmp play FLAC files,
and what's great over .wav is that FLAC has tagging like ID3 for MP3's, so all of the information shows up on your
media player and doesn't get lost.

Lossless = NO LOSS. Same CD quality. If I take a FLAC file and re-convert it back to 16-bit / 44.1 kHz, it will
be bit-for-bit identical clone of the original CD I took it from.

MP3, ATRAC, AAC = Lossy. Never comes back.

Your move.

FK

Also, affording the cost is not the same as justifying the cost.

In any case, each to their own. MP3s serve my purposes; they will not serve everyone's. That said, I sincerely doubt that anyone who, like me, has no DJing ambition will need anything more than a high quality MP3.

[vic]

Someone posted on here that a wav file is pretty much the same as an mp3; in that both work within the 20hz-20khz range. That does not make sense to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that part of the way mp3s work is by removing the data that cannot be heard; so to me that would be anyting under 20hz and anything above 20khz (@16/44.1). Unless we are talking about a lossless wav, i think the highest bit rate you can acheive in an mp3 is 320; and as far as I can tell, this only covers the 20-20 range, albeit with better sound than 256, 192, 128, etc (this of course assumes everything was mastered well at the studio where the music came from).

If I am ripping to wav (16/ 44.1), the data file is 1411. If I rip @ 24/ 44.1, the file is 2116. And if i just go buck wild, and rip @ 24/ 96, the file is a whopping 4608.

Now, assumming that the software and the sound cards are capable of reproducing a signal above and below the 20s', seems to me that a lot of the "felt" signals will be within the wavs, no?

Someone help me understand this, cause I need some further guidance.

[MadMixer]

Someone posted on here that a wav file is pretty much the same as an mp3; in that both work within the 20hz-20khz range. That does not make sense to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that part of the way mp3s work is by removing the data that cannot be heard; so to me that would be anyting under 20hz and anything above 20khz (@16/44.1). Unless we are talking about a lossless wav, i think the highest bit rate you can acheive in an mp3 is 320; and as far as I can tell, this only covers the 20-20 range, albeit with better sound than 256, 192, 128, etc (this of course assumes everything was mastered well at the studio where the music came from).

If I am ripping to wav (16/ 44.1), the data file is 1411. If I rip @ 24/ 44.1, the file is 2116. And if i just go buck wild, and rip @ 24/ 96, the file is a whopping 4608.

Now, assumming that the software and the sound cards are capable of reproducing a signal above and below the 20s', seems to me that a lot of the "felt" signals will be within the wavs, no?

Someone help me understand this, cause I need some further guidance.

A couple of long islands and some ass that youve been grinding on all night will help clear this up for you

[Slyde]

I've heard that women feel sub-bass in a special way...and that mp3s compress their knees and give them headaches. ;)

[MadMixer]

I've heard......

K

[Delmar Browne]

I'll say that both Final Scratch 2 and My Book became excellent components for me.

FK is definitely the source!

[Slyde]

K

Compressed reply? Need more detail. :)

[Moksha]

Someone posted on here that a wav file is pretty much the same as an mp3; in that both work within the 20hz-20khz range. That does not make sense to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that part of the way mp3s work is by removing the data that cannot be heard; so to me that would be anyting under 20hz and anything above 20khz (@16/44.1). Unless we are talking about a lossless wav, i think the highest bit rate you can acheive in an mp3 is 320; and as far as I can tell, this only covers the 20-20 range, albeit with better sound than 256, 192, 128, etc (this of course assumes everything was mastered well at the studio where the music came from).

If I am ripping to wav (16/ 44.1), the data file is 1411. If I rip @ 24/ 44.1, the file is 2116. And if i just go buck wild, and rip @ 24/ 96, the file is a whopping 4608.

Now, assumming that the software and the sound cards are capable of reproducing a signal above and below the 20s', seems to me that a lot of the "felt" signals will be within the wavs, no?

Someone help me understand this, cause I need some further guidance.

CDs have the same frequency range...

[djmarbll]

What is it about 'MP3' that is so magical that you (who seems to care so much and passionately about so many
other things) would settle for spending all of this time transferring audio using a format designed for portability
and fast file transmission, with little regards for quality, when encoding it properly at much higher quality will
take the same exact amount of your time? (and you can always batch-convert those to MP3 if you ever feel like it).

And if you claim that it's the added expense of hard disk space and sound card, what is that compared to the
thousands of hours of your time you'd need to spend re-encoding it properly again.... Is there a down side I am blind to?

Or is it just, "Yeah, everyone else is doin' it that way, so if it's good enough for them...." ??

Curious. I mean, it certainly is your prerogative to do it however you want to, but I'm a bit surprised reading this from
someone who just posted about quality of bass instruments.

FK

I was being urged by fellow dj's to convert my collection at one time and after serious thought, I decided not too. I actually gained a greater appreciation for records I had overlooked for years because I'd only bring two crates (and a few 45's and cd's) to the venue, which forces you to be creative with what you have. Meanwhile, the guy before me was playing songs from his massive library on his laptop and couldn't keep people interested. I learned a valuable lesson: its not how much you have to play, but how well you can play what you have.

[vic]

CDs have the same frequency range...

So then it makes no sense to go al out on this since the limit is 20-20 then. In order to expand the freq range, I'd have to move out of cds and into an almost totally digital realm (traktor, ableton, and some sort of controller), or go the strictly vinyl route?

Forgive the questions folks. I know some will say its not that serious, but it is to me. My only limitations are budget and higher intelligence.

[liL Ray]

I learned a valuable lesson: its not how much you have to play, but how well you can play what you have.
PREACH!!!

[Chris Conrad]

I was being urged by fellow dj's to convert my collection at one time and after serious thought, I decided not too. I actually gained a greater appreciation for records I had overlooked for years because I'd only bring two crates (and a few 45's and cd's) to the venue, which forces you to be creative with what you have. Meanwhile, the guy before me was playing songs from his massive library on his laptop and couldn't keep people interested. I learned a valuable lesson: its not how much you have to play, but how well you can play what you have.

the big paradox...ever notice how the people who have every track, every exclusive thing, cd's or hardrives full of tracks, always play the same damn set!?

or that the folks who are repeatedly screaming about having the latest technologies, encoding vinyl, 'this is the future' etc, aren't really playing anywhere!?

[Pang]

You may want to explain it in a bit more detail:

When writing a Red-Book Audio CD, whatever file format you were originally using gets automatically converted
by the CD-authoring software to a temporary 16-bit / 44.1 kHz version, (which as I stated above is the only format
Red-Book Audio accepts) and THEN gets burned onto the CD media.

why does the software do this? are you saying that it can't handle a 24 bit version and thats why it temporarily compresses it?


On the other hand, if you take the same file, and burn it using the same software but as a 'CD- ROM' this
time, you will only have the exact same file, and it will not play back on a standard CD player, only on one
that is equipped to recognize and play back audio files contained on CD-ROMs or DVD-ROMs.

This would be only on a PC? not on a consumer product.


The other big misconception I keep reading about over and over again is how is you make MP3 files sound
better if you turn them in .wav and burn them onto a CD. False and dangerous, because once it's on
CD, everyone will assume that it was not an MP3, and it can be difficult to trace it back!

FK

I did this once thinking the file would act like an acordian, only to find out that you cannot get back the information that was lost when it was compressed . .

[D J 1 3 8]

why does the software do this? are you saying that it can't handle a 24 bit version and thats why it temporarily compresses it?


From what I understand, yes.

I believe he's saying CDs ONLY play 16bit 44.1 files.

So you cannot preserve higher quality when burning on to CD, unless you switch to a CD-ROM/DVD-ROM burner, but those won't play on CD players.

CD burners are converting WHATEVER signal you send them in to 16bit 44.1 since that is the ONLY format they employ.

[Chris Conrad]

From what I understand, yes.

I believe he's saying CDs ONLY play 16bit 44.1 files.

So you cannot preserve higher quality when burning on to CD, unless you switch to a CD-ROM/DVD-ROM burner, but those won't play on CD players.

CD burners are converting WHATEVER signal you send them in to 16bit 44.1 since that is the ONLY format they employ.

yup, if you are burning as a regular audio cd, that is what anything gets converted to and played back as...

[Chris Conrad]

"This would be only on a PC? not on a consumer product."

what he is saying is to burn whatever the file is as a 'data disc', not a regular audio cd...so if you have some high end audio file, burn it as just a file, not an audio cd and it preserves what the file is...as soon as you hit 'burn as audio cd', it is converting to the cd standard described above...

this is what's done when you burn mp3 discs as mp3's...you are making a data disc, not an audio disc...mp3 is just a data format...now, yes, some cd players like the newer cdj's do play mo3 files, but the disc itself is not an audio cd like a regular cd, and the decoding for mp3 is a different process that takes place within the cd player that can play these...

[Chris Conrad]

I did this once thinking the file would act like an acordian, only to find out that you cannot get back the information that was lost when it was compressed . .

yup. let's say you have a 128 mp3. if you burn as an audio cd or turn it into a wav or whatever then burn, you are not improving anything. what goes in is what comes out basically...there is no 'upconversion'.

[D J 1 3 8]

What I wonder from all of this, with Body & Soul having just went down at Webster Hall, is what kind of set up doe Danny & Joe use so that, when FK gets on, there's not a hug leap in sound quality. I was not there this last time, so I have no idea.

[djmarbll]

the big paradox...ever notice how the people who have every track, every exclusive thing, cd's or hardrives full of tracks, always play the same damn set!?

or that the folks who are repeatedly screaming about having the latest technologies, encoding vinyl, 'this is the future' etc, aren't really playing anywhere!?

Great point!:thumbsup:

The three dj's I know who play off of laptops exclusively, always play the same sets every party. I'm like, how can you play the same music with all those songs available? People are starting to confuse having a large digital music library with being a dj. Playing songs (no matter how high the bitrate or quality of the recording) off an Ipod, Serato, Final Skratch, or laptop without the art of blending them together doesn't make you any more than an intelligent jukebox.

[djmarbll]

Great point!:thumbsup:

The three dj's I know who play off of laptops exclusively, always play the same sets every party. I'm like, how can you play the same music with all those songs available? People are starting to confuse having a large digital music library with being a dj. Playing the same songs (no matter how high the bitrate or quality of the recording) off an Ipod, Serato, Final Skratch, or laptop without the art of blending them together doesn't make you any more than an intelligent jukebox.

Fixed.:thumbsup:

[Pang]

thanks fellas.

[Moksha]

So then it makes no sense to go al out on this since the limit is 20-20 then. In order to expand the freq range, I'd have to move out of cds and into an almost totally digital realm (traktor, ableton, and some sort of controller), or go the strictly vinyl route?

Forgive the questions folks. I know some will say its not that serious, but it is to me. My only limitations are budget and higher intelligence.

There's a lot more to this than just frequency range.The real issue is we are talking about is "resolution."

When music is digitized, it is divided into lots of little samples. The number of "samples" is what the 44.1 represents for CD audio (44,100 samples per second). More samples, the closer to analog.

Each of these samples has a certain amount of resolution. (CDs are at 16 bits). The more bits there are, the higher the resolution. This doesn't necessarily correspond to frequency range... but rather the amount of data used to resolve the recorded audio.

(Hopefully I explained this right... pros, feel free to correct me.)

[the crackhouse]

There's a lot more to this than just frequency range.The real issue is we are talking about is "resolution."

When music is digitized, it is divided into lots of little samples. The number of "samples" is what the 44.1 represents for CD audio (44,100 samples per second). More samples, the closer to analog.

Each of these samples has a certain amount of resolution. (CDs are at 16 bits). The more bits there are, the higher the resolution. This doesn't necessarily correspond to frequency range... but rather the amount of data used to resolve the recorded audio.

(Hopefully I explained this right... pros, feel free to correct me.)
I was about to write this down.
in digital audio format, the sound spectrum has nothing to do with the bitrate. You could have a 1000 to 1001 Hz spectrum width on a 24Kbits audio file.
Sound spectrum is from low to highs and bitrate is the resolution (volume, distortion, @ of samples per second.
Sound spectrum is the horizontal axis and DB (volume) is the vertical axis, then the "Z" axis is bit rate, which is inherent to seconds (and the mix of the 3 is the sounds played in a second).
You cannot see the 3 axis in most virtual software cause the "Z" axis cannot be displayed through curves but only into mathematical equations or data).

If you know what latency is for a keyboard, you know what I'm talking about.

Idance

PS: Now this is a real music discussion thread!

[FK]

The three dj's I know who play off of laptops exclusively, always play the same sets every party.

I can see this headline in Newsweek:

"DJ's that use computers unable to change set list" (3 were surveyed)

Has a certain ring to it, and it does sound extremely authoritative.


Playing songs ....... without the art of blending them together doesn't make you any more than an intelligent jukebox.

Kindly please re-read what you said, and tell it to DM's face next time you see him.


the big paradox...ever notice how the people who have every track, every exclusive thing, cd's or hardrives full of tracks, always play the same damn set!?

or that the folks who are repeatedly screaming about having the latest technologies, encoding vinyl, 'this is the future' etc, aren't really playing anywhere!?

I feel honored by your blanket statement. As if all those who play in some other format did any better.
As if by magic, playing a certain format was going to change the type of DJ you were. Yes, it is that easy!!

I mean, seriously guys, was there something in the water you drank today???

FK

[Chris Conrad]

I can see this headline in Newsweek:

"DJ's that use computers unable to change set list" (3 were surveyed)

Has a certain ring to it, and it does sound extremely authoritative.



Kindly please re-read what you said, and tell it to DM's face next time you see him.



I feel honored by your blanket statement. As if all those who play in some other format did any better.
As if by magic, playing a certain format was going to change the type of DJ you were. Yes, it is that easy!!

I mean, seriously guys, was there something in the water you drank today???

FK

to clarify what i meant...and what is aid is regardless of format...i can go back to vinyl and say the same thing, as there were guys buying everything but playing nothing...what i mean is the guys you see bragging that they have everything, every track, released or unreleased, the latest, hottest stuff, often play the same sets...what i said had less to do with format. marbl said what he said about laptop dj's, i did not say that...i did see more of this with the cdr craze a few years back, guys filling up cd books every week, with cd's in them with dozens of tracks each on them, then playing the same set week after week...i do not personally feel changing format will necessarily change how you play, some of my favorite dj's have changed formats and are still my favorite dj's and still play different from everyone else...

[Moksha]

Someone posted on here that a wav file is pretty much the same as an mp3; in that both work within the 20hz-20khz range. That does not make sense to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that part of the way mp3s work is by removing the data that cannot be heard; so to me that would be anyting under 20hz and anything above 20khz (@16/44.1). Unless we are talking about a lossless wav, i think the highest bit rate you can acheive in an mp3 is 320; and as far as I can tell, this only covers the 20-20 range, albeit with better sound than 256, 192, 128, etc (this of course assumes everything was mastered well at the studio where the music came from).

If I am ripping to wav (16/ 44.1), the data file is 1411. If I rip @ 24/ 44.1, the file is 2116. And if i just go buck wild, and rip @ 24/ 96, the file is a whopping 4608.

Now, assumming that the software and the sound cards are capable of reproducing a signal above and below the 20s', seems to me that a lot of the "felt" signals will be within the wavs, no?

Someone help me understand this, cause I need some further guidance.


Also, I don't think most styluses are rated to play below 20hz, and nobody would master vinyl with frequencies that low...

[the crackhouse]

Kindly please re-read what you said, and tell it to DM's face next time you see him.

Are you talking about DM, aka David Geezercuso?

Yeah, for sure.

He is a living example of quality audio, and quality music programming too.

Idance

[Pang]

I was about to write this down.
in digital audio format, the sound spectrum has nothing to do with the bitrate. You could have a 1000 to 1001 Hz spectrum width on a 24Kbits audio file.
Sound spectrum is from low to highs and bitrate is the resolution (volume, distortion, @ of samples per second.
Sound spectrum is the horizontal axis and DB (volume) is the vertical axis, then the "Z" axis is bit rate, which is inherent to seconds (and the mix of the 3 is the sounds played in a second).
You cannot see the 3 axis in most virtual software cause the "Z" axis cannot be displayed through curves but only into mathematical equations or data).

If you know what latency is for a keyboard, you know what I'm talking about.

Idance

PS: Now this is a real music discussion thread!

I think I like Moksha's version better. . . .

[Moksha]

David Geezercuso


:eek:

[the crackhouse]

:eek:

I've called him that way for ages, he doesn't seem to worry about it, he even laughed.

It was from an Ali G translator website.

I'm an iconoclast, init'?

Idance

[the crackhouse]

I think I like Moksha's version better. . . .

This is not as complicated as it seems. Codes are like different languages to tell the same thing, some are more rubbish and some are more cultural.
MP3 would be mainstream and wav would be poetry.

Heehee just teasin'...

Idance

[Armento]

I've called him that way for ages, he doesn't seem to worry about it, he even laughed.

It was from an Ali G translator website.

I'm an iconoclast, init'?

Idance
respect your elders, crackho :wink:

[djmarbll]

I can see this headline in Newsweek:

"DJ's that use computers unable to change set list" (3 were surveyed)

Has a certain ring to it, and it does sound extremely authoritative.



Kindly please re-read what you said, and tell it to DM's face next time you see him.



I feel honored by your blanket statement. As if all those who play in some other format did any better.
As if by magic, playing a certain format was going to change the type of DJ you were. Yes, it is that easy!!

I mean, seriously guys, was there something in the water you drank today???

FK

My statements have to do with the art of being creative as a dj and song selector and not just someone with the latest technology and then claims to all of a sudden be an artist. Sorry if I worded it the way I did. All I'm saying is don't let your technology give you a false sense of who you are because its disrespectful to those who actually spent time perfecting their craft with the tools those same computers are trying to emulate. Just because I can download Pro-tools and use it doesn't make me an engineer, just because I can download and play Memorymoog thru a digital keyboard controller doesn't make me a keyboardist, just because I can download or purchase acoustic drum software and then play it thru ddrums electronically in front of an audience doesn't make me a drummer. So why if I purchase dj software and can play songs in front of an audience am I called a dj?

I don't know DM, but I mean no disrespect. I just want people to understand there's an art to being a dj, which I'm sure you can agree with, and I don't want people thinking they're something they're not just because of what type of technology they possess. Technology can't replace skill and passion, which I think people often miss when going for the latest in technology. If your passion to "beat the damn box" as J326 would say, isn't there, what will Serato do for you?

[djmarbll]

I'm sorry, I just realized you meant Mr. Mancuso., who's a master song selector and also one of the greatest progenitors of quality sound I know on this page. So again, I apologize for the poor choice of words, FK.:frown:

[Moksha]

Just because I can download Pro-tools and use it doesn't make me an engineer, just because I can download and play Memorymoog thru a digital keyboard controller doesn't make me a keyboardist, just because I can download or purchase acoustic drum software and then play it thru ddrums electronically in front of an audience doesn't make me a drummer.

I really wish some of today's so-called "producers" would take note of the above! But that's a whole different topic...

[Coach Biskit]

I just want people to understand there's an art to being a dj, which I'm sure you can agree with, and I don't want people thinking they're something they're not just because of what type of technology they possess. Technology can't replace skill and passion, which I think people often miss when going for the latest in technology. If your passion to "beat the damn box" as J326 would say, isn't there, what will Serato do for you?

I need to put this on sign in my DJ Booth for every knucklehead that sez "All I need is that (Serato) and I can DJ?!?! :rolleyes:

[the crackhouse]

respect your elders, crackho :wink:

A french elder of mine did say in the 70's : "Long hairs, short ideas."

Maybe that's why I couldn't restrain to call the D-ude like this.

Idance

[ebot9000]

I've called him that way for ages, he doesn't seem to worry about it, he even laughed.

It was from an Ali G translator website.

I'm an iconoclast, init'?

Idance

Ah see, here's a little difference between American and British english. Geezer in Britain is just a man, like a regular guy, but geezer in America is an OLD man, like a REALLY old man.

So to us americans you called David MANcuso: "David OLDASSMANcuso" :eek:

[the crackhouse]

I think also that some people are truly passionated but don't get an audience because their choices are not crowd-friendly or too strange, or too raw.

I don't think, and David G is a perfect example, that Deejaying is only related to the piece of equipment you have or your technical skills, but on the atmosphear you share with listenners (they can be dancers but Djs are coming from radio shows).

There are plenty of things that rely to a good party when I think about The Loft and David, I'm sure even if just half the songs would be really hot for me, it would still be a great party just because of the mood he creates. Good food, recreative decoration, excellent audio, cool party people, that is also a rich part of David's venues: leading you to intimacy and friendlyness.

Idance (who never went to a DG party by the way)

[the crackhouse]

Ah see, here's a little difference between American and British english. Geezer in Britain is just a man, like a regular guy, but geezer in America is an OLD man, like a REALLY old man.

So to us americans you called David MANcuso: "David OLDASSMANcuso" :eek:

I know, and I know David can take a joke.

Idance

[FK]

All I'm saying is don't let your technology give you a false sense of who you are because its disrespectful to those who actually spent time perfecting their craft

You may need a little perspective here. Is this specific to computers? I don't think so ...

... IT'S AS OLD AS HUMANITY!

50 years ago, kid with an electric guitar and power amp thinking he was gonna rock this town like nobody else,
25 years ago, it was cats with 1200's and a mixer thinking that they were gonna take the world by storm.
8 years ago, all of these college kids thinking that with 2 CDJ's they could rule the roost. Most of them just
got a regular job instead, but a few of them stuck to it and got somewhere with it, and I am really not sure
as to why you'd think that suddenly, the proportion of people successfully using ANY tool to be creative
would change overnight?

Any such tool can be amazing when placed in the right hands. That you haven't seen people do it is not
the same as saying that no one is doing it. You might just not have had that opportunity to see it yet.

Better yet, try it for yourself for a while, to see what CAN be done with it.

Then, judge it all you want.

FK

[mattymatt]

What I wonder from all of this, with Body & Soul having just went down at Webster Hall, is what kind of set up doe Danny & Joe use so that, when FK gets on, there's not a hug leap in sound quality. I was not there this last time, so I have no idea.


They were playing vinyl & CD

I was playing using Traktor, through an RME Fireface 400; mostly 24-bit / 96 kHz audio files transfered from vinyl (that's 4608 kb/sec compared to your
'LOL-high-end' MP3 which are encoded at 320 kb/sec) and some standard CD resolution files at 16-bit / 44.1 kHz (which would represent 1411 kb/sec)

FK

-matt

[Chris Conrad]

from Remix magazine, January 2008 issue:

http://remixmag.com/performance/dj_tips_techniques/remix_microwave_djs/

Microwave DJs
By Ean Golden
<!--endclickprintinclude--><!--begin page--><!--startclickprintinclude--> <!--begin image-->

<!--end image--> <!--begin paragraph-->Have you ever introduced your sister to a buddy and then ended up regretting it for years to come? That's how I feel sometimes about DJing. It's beginning to feel like 1998 again when everyone owned a pair of decks and was convinced they were definitely a better DJ than Paul Oakenfold. The club scene is officially in the midst of a nu-dance, nu-rave revival that is looking more and more like the '90s every day. With another Clinton running for the hot seat, all we need is a reunion tour of Technotronic, and then it's all Girbauds and fat pants from there. And that's not even the scary part.
<!--end paragraph--> <!--begin paragraph-->What's worrisome is what has happened to the quality of DJs. The situation has gotten bad enough that a new term has risen from the flame wars frequently scorching the Serato Scratch Live forums. “Microwave DJ” is a term applied to anyone who has not “paid their dues,” but because they own a laptop and thousands of MP3s, they are now qualified to play in a club. This, of course, threatens the old-school cats who spent 10 years and thousands of dollars honing their craft — as well it should. The game is changing fast, and DJing as we know it is appropriately morphing into the Internet age. The trouble is not with the technology itself but with new DJs taking technology shortcuts and failing to learn the crucial aspects of the craft.
<!--end paragraph--> A STAR IS BORN

<!--begin paragraph-->Let me give you one shining example of this common pitfall. About four years ago, an acquaintance started DJing with popular DJ software that performs the arduous task of beat matching for you, albeit not always so well. This particular individual was genuinely proud of the fact that after only six months, he was being booked to play clubs all over Brazil. During one of my first tours there, he opened for me at a major nightclub, and the resulting sonic mess was sadly predictable. Even though the software was able to match up the songs 60 percent of the time, he was not able to tell that everything else was completely off. Technology had fast-tracked the learning curve, and his ears did not get the chance to become properly trained.
<!--end paragraph--> <!--begin paragraph-->Mix timing is not the only casualty when a newcomer opts out of DJ basic training. During the years that it takes most people to learn, hone and subsequently improve their craft, normally their tastes grow and get more critically focused. That applies to all arts, including the simple task of playing music in a club. Without that crucial time it takes to train the ears musically and rhythmically, a DJ is really not ready to hold the reins of a proper dancefloor.
<!--end paragraph--> INST-O-MATIC MUSIC

<!--begin paragraph-->You really can't place all the blame on the DJ — it's a bad combination of several wrong ingredients that turned sour when placed in the sun for hours. Consider this formula: × [bad taste] = bad music. When the Hype Machine (www.hypem.com (http://www.hypem.com/)) and other music blog aggregators showed up, it was basically the Second Coming for DJs. Seemingly endless supplies of unreleased, one-of-a-kind remixes stretched out for days, promising fresh new music as long as the Internet bill was paid. This was in the “early days” (one year ago in modern technology time), so the smaller music blogs had not yet become the major tastemakers that they are today. Submissions were fewer, and the bloggers seemed to try to outdo each other with the hottest cuts they could dig up. Then it caught on like wildfire and everyone with a few MP3s and Ableton Live started pumping out carbon-copy remixes based on the latest submicro-genre fad. Conveniently, these fads implode after a month, but with each death a more horrendous one seems to grow from its still-warm ashes. [Nonexistent music training + zero filter] × [unlimited distribution] = endless supply of bad micro-genres.
<!--end paragraph--> [B]FOR BEST RESULTS

<!--begin paragraph-->Now before anyone gets too insulted, let me reiterate that blogosphere and the new world of DJing are wonderful things. We are in an exciting time when digital DJ technology, broader access to music and the proliferation of music blogs has resulted in a second honeymoon for music lovers everywhere — no complaints there. It just seems a little more restraint on the part of the DJ and bloggers everywhere might improve the uncharted terrain of this new musical frontier. Just because you can post or play anything does not mean you should. The final layer of quality control, nightclub bookers, also seems to be losing to the laws of the free market. From a promoter standpoint, it's quite simple: Why should I pay you all that money when this guy over here will play for next to nothing? The common excuse: Sure, his mixes might be a bit messy 80 percent of the time, but the crowd is piss drunk. Who really notices anyway?
<!--end paragraph--> <!--begin paragraph-->When you blend all the conditions together, it's no surprise that the established veterans are up in arms about Microwave DJs taking their hard-earned gigs. It's enough to almost throw in the towel and start a jam band. Maybe that's why it's such a breath of fresh air hanging out in Berlin, where the status quo is pure minimal predominantly played on 12-inch vinyl by a seasoned DJ crop. Yes, it almost sounds like this could be the incredibly tired “nothing sounds like vinyl, man” debate. Well, it's not: Digital technology rules. I personally switched over five years ago without a single regret. Blogs and MP3s have revived a dying music industry, and it's great that so many people have access to DJ technology. Unfortunately, I just kind of wish I hadn't introduced it to my little sister because next week I am going to have to open for her epic rave-rap-electro-rock-ghetto-tech-favella-crunk set.

[GrantB]

"Blogs and MP3s have revived a dying music industry"

?!?!?!

[Delmar Browne]

The truth of the matter with modern technology is beat matching is the wave now and the future. "Can some of these new school DJ's mix records from the 70's that used live instruments?"

This is the reason why I respected someone such as Francois K from an engineering and disc jockey standpoint. Handling the change of modern technology to become one of the all-time Dance Music DJ's.

Experience is the best teacher!

Trust me, I know the deal!

[Koffy Brown]

I wonder does a program like Serato makes a difference.

Makes a huge difference

[ebot9000]

... the audio gurus in the white lab coats ...

It's amazing sometimes, when you look behind the scenes at some of the most finicky of audio guru/expert types on audio forums. a lot of them are making horrible music.

i can't tell you how many times i've lurked on those sites, reading long debates about gear or audio quality, dudes debating every little nuance of the technology, only to click on someone's personal home page link and hear they play blues guitar for some jersey bar band.

Talent and technical expertise are two separate discussions. Having one never guarantees the other, but it certainly doesn't negate the other either.

This article lampooning new DJs on computer rigs not playing well misses an important point. Most people suck when they start out, of course that guy tanked on his first tour, he's still learning! Don't blame it on the technology, blame it on his lack of experience, and come back in 2 years and see if he's gotten good yet. Didn't folks suck on vinyl when they started out, back in the day? (i was in grade school, we DJed on fisher price)

I'm sure everyone can name some cats who have serious skills AND know their nerdy technology shit, as well as some who don't. And the opposite, people who know their technology but don't have skills.

The bottom line is learning won't going to destroy your skills, but it isn't going to create talent either. It just give you an edge if you care to have one

[Delmar Browne]

It's amazing sometimes, when you look behind the scenes at some of the most finicky of audio guru/expert types on audio forums. a lot of them are making horrible music.

i can't tell you how many times i've lurked on those sites, reading long debates about gear or audio quality, dudes debating every little nuance of the technology, only to click on someone's personal home page link and hear they play blues guitar for some jersey bar band.

Talent and technical expertise are two separate discussions. Having one never guarantees the other, but it certainly doesn't negate the other either.

This article lampooning new DJs on computer rigs not playing well misses an important point. Most people suck when they start out, of course that guy tanked on his first tour, he's still learning! Don't blame it on the technology, blame it on his lack of experience, and come back in 2 years and see if he's gotten good yet. Didn't folks suck on vinyl when they started out, back in the day? (i was in grade school, we DJed on fisher price)

I'm sure everyone can name some cats who have serious skills AND know their nerdy technology shit, as well as some who don't. And the opposite, people who know their technology but don't have skills.

The bottom line is learning won't going to destroy your skills, but it isn't going to create talent either. It just give you an edge if you care to have one

Very true with your quote, "E!"

The majority of us truly know who have skills as DJ's, Musicians, Singers, etc.,
Unfortunately with the hatred being out there, acknowledgement of their skills as being either upcoming or great aren't being mentioned.

If you don't study your lessons, you'll evolve as a failure at the end of the term!

Each One, Teach One!

[Chris Conrad]

It's amazing sometimes, when you look behind the scenes at some of the most finicky of audio guru/expert types on audio forums. a lot of them are making horrible music.

i can't tell you how many times i've lurked on those sites, reading long debates about gear or audio quality, dudes debating every little nuance of the technology, only to click on someone's personal home page link and hear they play blues guitar for some jersey bar band.

Talent and technical expertise are two separate discussions. Having one never guarantees the other, but it certainly doesn't negate the other either.

This article lampooning new DJs on computer rigs not playing well misses an important point. Most people suck when they start out, of course that guy tanked on his first tour, he's still learning! Don't blame it on the technology, blame it on his lack of experience, and come back in 2 years and see if he's gotten good yet. Didn't folks suck on vinyl when they started out, back in the day? (i was in grade school, we DJed on fisher price)

I'm sure everyone can name some cats who have serious skills AND know their nerdy technology shit, as well as some who don't. And the opposite, people who know their technology but don't have skills.

The bottom line is learning won't going to destroy your skills, but it isn't going to create talent either. It just give you an edge if you care to have one

i think a point the article made was how the hell did he get that tour in the first place...read it again, because i've experienced this stuff first hand...gigs being aken away by some kid who just downloaded some songs for free, started 'dj'ing' three months ago and will do it for drink tickets and a guest list...