Partyman
Your ears are decieving you! You might have gotten a higher volume level when you converted up and there may be some enhancers in play but no matter what you are not getting a better quality file. Pouring a quart of liquid into a gallon jug will not fill it up unless you are adding something else.
My bet is that the re-encoder you are using is adding gain to the file and you are percieving louder as better.
My bet is that the re-encoder you are using is adding gain to the file and you are percieving louder as better.
Posted Thu 09 Mar 06 @ 9:12 pm
Dj Xeo
some encoders in comercial software use DSP to process the file as its being encoded so as to minimise the negetive effects that lossly compressing to mp3 will do. WMP is an example of this when encoding using its WMA format. doing so twice will add 'brilliance' or 'shine' to the music as this counteractive effect is doubled.
you may prefer the sound but its simple fact that it will have reduced fidelity if you compress it twice, although not much less. The MP3 encoding process is such that it removes specific kinds of inaudible sounds, the same sounds time and time again. Encoding a second time the encoder (if its the same one!) will simply find that the information it is trying to do away with has allready gone and not much will change structuraly to the file.
you may prefer the sound but its simple fact that it will have reduced fidelity if you compress it twice, although not much less. The MP3 encoding process is such that it removes specific kinds of inaudible sounds, the same sounds time and time again. Encoding a second time the encoder (if its the same one!) will simply find that the information it is trying to do away with has allready gone and not much will change structuraly to the file.
Posted Thu 09 Mar 06 @ 9:37 pm
vpcdj
xeo my friend u shouldv began by saying, "yes the 320 will sound better than the 128 for this reason....." then continued to say what u want to say. but i dont want to hear those reasons lol. the bottom line is the 320 does sound better. louder, fuller and even less distorted than the 128, even tho it came from the 128 bit rate file.
thats the bottomline.
u can come up with other reasons that DSP this, lossy compression that, kiwi shine this and pour a quart gallon of that.. but people dont want to hear that. the technicalities behind all this is irrelevant.
the truth of the matter is if u play the 2 files to ANYONE who doesnt know what you'r trying to do they will say the 320 file sounds better than the other one. which is all what im saying...
technically speaking there'r tricks with dsp and normalization and whatever that trick your ear. but the trick is REAL. everything is a trick. there's was a trick all the way from .wav to .mp3; that trick was just called compression. this other trick is DSP.
partyman how can u say my ears have been tricked?! lol. how can u tell someone, "B sounds better than A but your ears have been tricked so just choose A". but B sounds better than A?
(wma files sound just as good as mp3 files ((even tho wma files can only be 64kbs)). the wma files have probably been spiced by effects. just like some foods could be badly cooked but made to taste better by adding spices.
but the bottom line is a 64 bit wma file CAN sound better than a 128 mp3 file. people just hate microsoft stuff and stay away from anything microsoft.)
thats the bottomline.
u can come up with other reasons that DSP this, lossy compression that, kiwi shine this and pour a quart gallon of that.. but people dont want to hear that. the technicalities behind all this is irrelevant.
the truth of the matter is if u play the 2 files to ANYONE who doesnt know what you'r trying to do they will say the 320 file sounds better than the other one. which is all what im saying...
technically speaking there'r tricks with dsp and normalization and whatever that trick your ear. but the trick is REAL. everything is a trick. there's was a trick all the way from .wav to .mp3; that trick was just called compression. this other trick is DSP.
partyman how can u say my ears have been tricked?! lol. how can u tell someone, "B sounds better than A but your ears have been tricked so just choose A". but B sounds better than A?
(wma files sound just as good as mp3 files ((even tho wma files can only be 64kbs)). the wma files have probably been spiced by effects. just like some foods could be badly cooked but made to taste better by adding spices.
but the bottom line is a 64 bit wma file CAN sound better than a 128 mp3 file. people just hate microsoft stuff and stay away from anything microsoft.)
Posted Thu 09 Mar 06 @ 10:24 pm
Bren F
Because of my rule this debate is irrelevant (for me):
"The general rule is, use the best original source (CD, Vinyl or Pure WAV) and encode it directly with a good encoder (Fraun or Lame) to 192kbps or Higher, that is the best you can get out of mp3, anything outside of this is for cowboys IMO."
It's very important to me that my files do sound perfect and are as technically perfect as possible, so I extract files in the best possible fashion, the action you have outlined creates a larger file but would never sound as good as if the mp3 was truly 320kbps, what's my point?, Simple: re-encoding will always be second best.
If you use an encoder that processes the music in a way that would enhance the original file/sound, you've got to ask yourself do you really want that?, at the expense of technical artefacts (perhaps unheard in general conditions), it's created another bottleneck, creating a much larger file (128 to a 320) and the new file size is not justified by minor (perceived) improvement in sound. It would be much smarter to never touch 128kbps MP3's with a barge poll.
I don't want to make this personal VPCDJ :), but you spend a lot of time on this forum and contribute to many threads, it would be nice to have you as a member, Have you been using VDJ all this time?, it must surely be an illegal version if you have?
"The general rule is, use the best original source (CD, Vinyl or Pure WAV) and encode it directly with a good encoder (Fraun or Lame) to 192kbps or Higher, that is the best you can get out of mp3, anything outside of this is for cowboys IMO."
It's very important to me that my files do sound perfect and are as technically perfect as possible, so I extract files in the best possible fashion, the action you have outlined creates a larger file but would never sound as good as if the mp3 was truly 320kbps, what's my point?, Simple: re-encoding will always be second best.
If you use an encoder that processes the music in a way that would enhance the original file/sound, you've got to ask yourself do you really want that?, at the expense of technical artefacts (perhaps unheard in general conditions), it's created another bottleneck, creating a much larger file (128 to a 320) and the new file size is not justified by minor (perceived) improvement in sound. It would be much smarter to never touch 128kbps MP3's with a barge poll.
I don't want to make this personal VPCDJ :), but you spend a lot of time on this forum and contribute to many threads, it would be nice to have you as a member, Have you been using VDJ all this time?, it must surely be an illegal version if you have?
Posted Thu 09 Mar 06 @ 10:38 pm
A Man and His Music
Sometimes, you have to let it go. We are not going to change his mind, no matter what. If it sounds better to you, that's ok. This post has science and opinions, so there's something for everyone.
Posted Thu 09 Mar 06 @ 10:47 pm
Partyman
"partyman how can u say my ears have been tricked?! lol. how can u tell someone, "B sounds better than A but your ears have been tricked so just choose A". but B sounds better than A?"
Because 9 out of 10 will pick the louder file because with volume comes depth.
Because 9 out of 10 will pick the louder file because with volume comes depth.
Posted Thu 09 Mar 06 @ 11:53 pm
l_rids
I don't think most of you could pick the bit rate of a song just by listening to it. IMO 128 bit rate is fine as a professional DJ and I would challenge anyone who says they can notice the difference.
I used to record my cd's in 192kps, but now I've ended up recording them at 128kps. The bit rate on my music ranges from 128-256 due to the collection I've download over the years and I can't honestly say I can notice the difference.
All I can say is that everyone will use different mp3 ripping software so of course it will produce different results in volume of the tracks NOT quality.
I used to record my cd's in 192kps, but now I've ended up recording them at 128kps. The bit rate on my music ranges from 128-256 due to the collection I've download over the years and I can't honestly say I can notice the difference.
All I can say is that everyone will use different mp3 ripping software so of course it will produce different results in volume of the tracks NOT quality.
Posted Fri 10 Mar 06 @ 3:28 am
djaditya
Ok, I think everyone here has just forgotten that the entire topic was about tracks with bitrates of 128kbps...
What i come to know through this post is...everyone is just encoding everything to 320kbps... and calling it good quality sound. So whats the role of 128kbps here anyway?
Someone here is taking a 128kbps file and re-encoding it to 320 kbps... And it sounds better than a 128kbps track...so why bother to keep 128kbps.????
Bottom line: If re-encoding 128 to 320 works for you... knock urself out!! Maybe even burn those 128bit songs on a cd and then encode them to 320 and it may sound even better! But don't expect everyone to do the same...
People just do whatever they believe and follow...dont try to change that...let there be difference in opinions.
End of Post.
Regards,
DJ Aditya
What i come to know through this post is...everyone is just encoding everything to 320kbps... and calling it good quality sound. So whats the role of 128kbps here anyway?
Someone here is taking a 128kbps file and re-encoding it to 320 kbps... And it sounds better than a 128kbps track...so why bother to keep 128kbps.????
Bottom line: If re-encoding 128 to 320 works for you... knock urself out!! Maybe even burn those 128bit songs on a cd and then encode them to 320 and it may sound even better! But don't expect everyone to do the same...
People just do whatever they believe and follow...dont try to change that...let there be difference in opinions.
End of Post.
Regards,
DJ Aditya
Posted Fri 10 Mar 06 @ 6:19 am
lopez453
I see that some people here are not deaf but just have to consider some other facts.
can you compare the old VHS tape (or betamax or what's used in US) to the HDTV ?
if you have new movie in super brilliant quality it's fine on HDTV and worse on the videotape.
You can see the difference.
But if you just use your superdooper HDTV-DVD recorder to record that movie from the VHS tape,
you see no difference. The HDTV is same poor quality as the VHS. Because VHS was the "master".
If you want to compare compression formats/methods you have to use ORIGINAL preferrably never-lossy-compressed files "freshly excracted from the audio cd" for example. And then try to compress it to different qualities. Then you can hear how much loss each compression makes.
can you compare the old VHS tape (or betamax or what's used in US) to the HDTV ?
if you have new movie in super brilliant quality it's fine on HDTV and worse on the videotape.
You can see the difference.
But if you just use your superdooper HDTV-DVD recorder to record that movie from the VHS tape,
you see no difference. The HDTV is same poor quality as the VHS. Because VHS was the "master".
If you want to compare compression formats/methods you have to use ORIGINAL preferrably never-lossy-compressed files "freshly excracted from the audio cd" for example. And then try to compress it to different qualities. Then you can hear how much loss each compression makes.
Posted Fri 10 Mar 06 @ 3:04 pm
kamakuakane
Here is my take. I started in 1980 with vinyl. Started the switch to CD's in 1987 for the improved sound quality and portability. Now I transfer my CD's and DVD's to wav and vob for even more improved portability. I understand the need for mp3's for the general public, but not for professionals. Over the decades the professional industry has been moving towards improving the quality of the music recording. mp3's are a reversal in this trend.
Posted Sat 11 Mar 06 @ 4:03 am
Bren F
Well it's generally understood by professionals that an mp3 can 'sound' the same as the CD original, depending on the encoder and bite rate, this is possible.
On a graph you'll see it's nowhere near as perfect as the WAV, but this is not relevant as it does NOT coincide with the human ears cut off point (frequency).
The mp3 is a scientific downgrade but potentially the equivalent to the human ear, with the convenience of it's file size. That is the beauty of MP3.
There are so many people protesting the MP3 trend because they believe it only ever provides average quality sound at best, I think this (ironically speaking in this thread) was due to the fact it was initially believed that a 128kbps mp3 was the best bite rate to achieve CD quality, and this was the most commonly used, whilst now it's generally believed that 192kbps is CD quality.
There are also many many encoders out there, and only a select few are worth using (for professionals).
When you consider that most CD players are now featuring MP3 (Pioneer CDJ1000mk3 etc) and that many famous names are using them, in the biggest venues and with the most expensive audio gear, it could not be so that an mp3 is a noticeable loss in any outcome.
It's not as if the evidence is not there! many tests have been undertaken where MP3 files have been compared to the original CD, The "Blind test" where a number of Audiophiles had the chance to compare the sound quality of MP3 verse CD without the knowledge of which they were listening too, these tests have been undertaken by perhaps some of the best ears in the business, and yet the tests are non conclusive, and ironically MP3 had been perceived as the CD it's self on many occasions.
On a graph you'll see it's nowhere near as perfect as the WAV, but this is not relevant as it does NOT coincide with the human ears cut off point (frequency).
The mp3 is a scientific downgrade but potentially the equivalent to the human ear, with the convenience of it's file size. That is the beauty of MP3.
There are so many people protesting the MP3 trend because they believe it only ever provides average quality sound at best, I think this (ironically speaking in this thread) was due to the fact it was initially believed that a 128kbps mp3 was the best bite rate to achieve CD quality, and this was the most commonly used, whilst now it's generally believed that 192kbps is CD quality.
There are also many many encoders out there, and only a select few are worth using (for professionals).
When you consider that most CD players are now featuring MP3 (Pioneer CDJ1000mk3 etc) and that many famous names are using them, in the biggest venues and with the most expensive audio gear, it could not be so that an mp3 is a noticeable loss in any outcome.
It's not as if the evidence is not there! many tests have been undertaken where MP3 files have been compared to the original CD, The "Blind test" where a number of Audiophiles had the chance to compare the sound quality of MP3 verse CD without the knowledge of which they were listening too, these tests have been undertaken by perhaps some of the best ears in the business, and yet the tests are non conclusive, and ironically MP3 had been perceived as the CD it's self on many occasions.
Posted Sat 11 Mar 06 @ 4:29 pm
kamakuakane
As you know and it has been stated that mp3's use destructive compression. I do not want someone determining what I should be hearing. The composer of the music decided that and that is what I want to hear. I want the dynamic range and the maximum frequency response possible. You can't hear all of the frequencies of the music being played, some of it is felt. Just like a CD can never fully recreate a song played on a piano, it comes close but not completely. By the way, I grew up playing music in band, DCI (drum corp), and orchestra.
Posted Mon 13 Mar 06 @ 6:13 am
djzare
Now you've all stranded away. Most of us don't have their own studios, monitors & hi-fi speakers that cost 1000 euro a piece and much more.
The best way to go is a 192 kb or VBR160- 256, this second one is the most common in all new promo music.
And ofcourse a lot, if not the biggest deal is in sound cards, audio engines in programs & so on...
To be short, in professional use 128 doesnt really cut it. But hey! if you got some tracks with 128 you will survive, coz to a normal ear its heard to find a diference and a DRUNK ear just wants to find a TOILET !! )
The best way to go is a 192 kb or VBR160- 256, this second one is the most common in all new promo music.
And ofcourse a lot, if not the biggest deal is in sound cards, audio engines in programs & so on...
To be short, in professional use 128 doesnt really cut it. But hey! if you got some tracks with 128 you will survive, coz to a normal ear its heard to find a diference and a DRUNK ear just wants to find a TOILET !! )
Posted Mon 13 Mar 06 @ 4:36 pm
vpcdj
Peachstonedj, the thread starter, asked a simple question.. “Does anyone here really think that playing 128 bit mp3s FROM NAPSTER is professional?”
The answer to that question is ‘most likely YES’.
The bit rate, sound card and mp3 player determine how good a sound is.
1. Bit rate of the file. Depends on the source of the file. Being napster I can imagine they rip their music from cds. But if ppl rip files by themselves and share them, and other mp3 bit rates are converted to 128 then u just never know what ur getting.
Just because a file is 320, 256 or 192 bit rate doesn’t mean it sounds as good as its bit rate can allow. It IS more likely to sound good but if it’s been re-converted it wont sound too good. Ie. Ripping a file from cd to, say, 256 will sound better than converting an mp3 file (any bit rate) to 256 file. (to some it might not)
With me when I get a hold of a cd I rip it myself to 192. that file is most likely to sound better than or equal to any file gotten from a p2p network.
I could rip it to 128 too if space was an issue. But (harddrive) space is not an issue for me. (if I had a really good equalizer 128 would be fine with me. 192 would sound even better).
192 files just have more punch than 128. a 128 file just sounds muffled compared to a 192 file to me. The 192 highs are more crisp. (im a hip-hop head and most (90%) of my files are 192. But for rock music I want only 256 or higher. Coz of the instruments. Rock music can be listenable to me at 256+ but below that its mostly just noise.)
l_rids, yes u can tell the difference if u COMPARE a 128 and 192 file. (well maybe not u). 128 files sound just fine. But if u play the same 192 file u can tell the difference. Especially if they’r ripped from a wav file.
When I walk into a club I can tell they are playing mp3s, especially djs who play 128 and lower files. The sound sounds cheap and it bothers me. I wonder how the djs play those cheap files especially of popular songs. Coz its so easy to get good quality files of popular songs. But I just keep quiet and get my drank on and chase the cat. Coz whatever I say that doesn’t praise him he’ll twist it to me hating.
(its almost like a VDJ Pro user making a no-no statement but a non-registered user not making it his responsibility to expose him ((coz u just know the come back is going to be)))
2. mp3 player, sound card and sound enhancers:
back in the days of pcdj red and atomix, atomix sounded better than Red.(a 128 file played on atomix sounded better than a 192 file played on pcdj red). People like me just chose to go with Red because of other advantages other than sound quality.
Just like some people today chose VDJ over those german’s software over other things than sound quality (master tempo bug, eq bug).
“WE are not going to change his mind, no matter what”.
I know so long as im a non-registered user its me against the world lol. And that’s fine. But as far as this thread is concerned u guys have to settle with an L. Its been a 3 or 4 day debate since this thread started but no ones seems to want to do the test by THEMSELVES. They’r just going by what they READ.
Its been mentioned in this thread other than myself that changing a 128 file to 320 does make it sound better.
kamakuakane, when someone goes from vinyl to mp3 they know theyr sacrificing quality for size, portability, cost, immediate availability and other advantages mp3 gives over vinyl.
The answer to that question is ‘most likely YES’.
The bit rate, sound card and mp3 player determine how good a sound is.
1. Bit rate of the file. Depends on the source of the file. Being napster I can imagine they rip their music from cds. But if ppl rip files by themselves and share them, and other mp3 bit rates are converted to 128 then u just never know what ur getting.
Just because a file is 320, 256 or 192 bit rate doesn’t mean it sounds as good as its bit rate can allow. It IS more likely to sound good but if it’s been re-converted it wont sound too good. Ie. Ripping a file from cd to, say, 256 will sound better than converting an mp3 file (any bit rate) to 256 file. (to some it might not)
With me when I get a hold of a cd I rip it myself to 192. that file is most likely to sound better than or equal to any file gotten from a p2p network.
I could rip it to 128 too if space was an issue. But (harddrive) space is not an issue for me. (if I had a really good equalizer 128 would be fine with me. 192 would sound even better).
192 files just have more punch than 128. a 128 file just sounds muffled compared to a 192 file to me. The 192 highs are more crisp. (im a hip-hop head and most (90%) of my files are 192. But for rock music I want only 256 or higher. Coz of the instruments. Rock music can be listenable to me at 256+ but below that its mostly just noise.)
l_rids, yes u can tell the difference if u COMPARE a 128 and 192 file. (well maybe not u). 128 files sound just fine. But if u play the same 192 file u can tell the difference. Especially if they’r ripped from a wav file.
When I walk into a club I can tell they are playing mp3s, especially djs who play 128 and lower files. The sound sounds cheap and it bothers me. I wonder how the djs play those cheap files especially of popular songs. Coz its so easy to get good quality files of popular songs. But I just keep quiet and get my drank on and chase the cat. Coz whatever I say that doesn’t praise him he’ll twist it to me hating.
(its almost like a VDJ Pro user making a no-no statement but a non-registered user not making it his responsibility to expose him ((coz u just know the come back is going to be)))
2. mp3 player, sound card and sound enhancers:
back in the days of pcdj red and atomix, atomix sounded better than Red.(a 128 file played on atomix sounded better than a 192 file played on pcdj red). People like me just chose to go with Red because of other advantages other than sound quality.
Just like some people today chose VDJ over those german’s software over other things than sound quality (master tempo bug, eq bug).
“WE are not going to change his mind, no matter what”.
I know so long as im a non-registered user its me against the world lol. And that’s fine. But as far as this thread is concerned u guys have to settle with an L. Its been a 3 or 4 day debate since this thread started but no ones seems to want to do the test by THEMSELVES. They’r just going by what they READ.
Its been mentioned in this thread other than myself that changing a 128 file to 320 does make it sound better.
kamakuakane, when someone goes from vinyl to mp3 they know theyr sacrificing quality for size, portability, cost, immediate availability and other advantages mp3 gives over vinyl.
Posted Mon 13 Mar 06 @ 5:06 pm
Bren F
I agree with most that you've said VPCDJ, not everything but most :).
You being a non licenced user doesn't take away from your valuable contributions to these forums, you are very active on the "New features" forum so I have to ask you what particular update would inspire you to buy a licence?, it's always nice to see people become licenced.
A few people said it earlier, we can't all agree on everything on this thread, for me I've read posts from both sides of the extreme, people that say "128kbps is CD quality" and people that wont use anything less than WAV it's self because "MP3 doesn't sound good enough", I disagree with both statements and will contribute my view so the readers of this thread can decide, based on facts and opinions, but it's quite clear these subjects are very popular and have been on-going since MP3 ever came about, sometimes we can't convince people and that needs to be respected.
I'll be the first to confess, I'm always seeking knowledge and many of my views are ever changing, it's important to learn hardcore facts, but some things can only be learnt by experience.
I've used some real crappy encoders and the results when compared to CD (even at 192kbps) were terrible, I mean totally unusable, but I learnt by my mistake after that and toke to reading and trying new things, I've found that not only is the LAME encoder very good (for me) but it can (for me) sound as good as it's source when encoded at a high bite rate, which I've tested under various settings.
There is a certain level of knowledge where we can all agree and learn from each other, but when we are comparing our experiences we have to ultimately trust ourselves.
You being a non licenced user doesn't take away from your valuable contributions to these forums, you are very active on the "New features" forum so I have to ask you what particular update would inspire you to buy a licence?, it's always nice to see people become licenced.
A few people said it earlier, we can't all agree on everything on this thread, for me I've read posts from both sides of the extreme, people that say "128kbps is CD quality" and people that wont use anything less than WAV it's self because "MP3 doesn't sound good enough", I disagree with both statements and will contribute my view so the readers of this thread can decide, based on facts and opinions, but it's quite clear these subjects are very popular and have been on-going since MP3 ever came about, sometimes we can't convince people and that needs to be respected.
I'll be the first to confess, I'm always seeking knowledge and many of my views are ever changing, it's important to learn hardcore facts, but some things can only be learnt by experience.
I've used some real crappy encoders and the results when compared to CD (even at 192kbps) were terrible, I mean totally unusable, but I learnt by my mistake after that and toke to reading and trying new things, I've found that not only is the LAME encoder very good (for me) but it can (for me) sound as good as it's source when encoded at a high bite rate, which I've tested under various settings.
There is a certain level of knowledge where we can all agree and learn from each other, but when we are comparing our experiences we have to ultimately trust ourselves.
Posted Mon 13 Mar 06 @ 5:37 pm
Dev staff
Just a quick reaction to vpcdj's assumption that recompressing a 128bits mp3 into 320bit makes it sound better:
When virtualdj plays a 128bit mp3, it first decompress it into a 44khz wav, then plays it.
When your converter convert the 128bit mp3, it decompress it into a 44Khz wav (the same that vdj would have played), then recompress it to 320bit. When you then play the 320bit mp3 in vdj, vdj decompress it to 44khz wav (that will at best be as good as the first wav), and play it.
So there is no way it could sound better.
Even if you converted all your 128bit mp3 into uncompressed WAV files, they would sound exactly the same.
Of course, that's making the assumption that the algorithm used to decompress the mp3 in both virutaldj and the converter have the same quality. But mp3 decompression is pretty standard now, and everyone is using the same routines (which is not true for the compression).
Another way to explain it is that:
If what you said was true, then in virtualdj, instead of playing the 128bit mp3 directly, we would recompress it into 320bit mp3 on the fly, and then play the better-sounding 320bit?
When virtualdj plays a 128bit mp3, it first decompress it into a 44khz wav, then plays it.
When your converter convert the 128bit mp3, it decompress it into a 44Khz wav (the same that vdj would have played), then recompress it to 320bit. When you then play the 320bit mp3 in vdj, vdj decompress it to 44khz wav (that will at best be as good as the first wav), and play it.
So there is no way it could sound better.
Even if you converted all your 128bit mp3 into uncompressed WAV files, they would sound exactly the same.
Of course, that's making the assumption that the algorithm used to decompress the mp3 in both virutaldj and the converter have the same quality. But mp3 decompression is pretty standard now, and everyone is using the same routines (which is not true for the compression).
Another way to explain it is that:
If what you said was true, then in virtualdj, instead of playing the 128bit mp3 directly, we would recompress it into 320bit mp3 on the fly, and then play the better-sounding 320bit?
Posted Mon 13 Mar 06 @ 8:01 pm
Bren F
You see people, even Dev staff adheres to my rule hehe.
Posted Mon 13 Mar 06 @ 8:53 pm
Dj Xeo
at the end of the day its personal preferance, if some muppet thinks that his knakared beatles LP sounds better than the digitaly remastereed one, or if someone thinks AM has better sound than FM leave them to it. just dont expect anyone intelegent to aggree.
Posted Tue 14 Mar 06 @ 2:50 pm
vpcdj
What rule? lol
Im getting a little bit scared that an all mighty Dev Team dude is coming down on me but that’s fine. Lol
Its still been 5 days since this thread started but no ones seems to want to do the test by THEMSELVES. Why? Lol
Goliath, I appreciate ur fancy footwork about how VDJ works but just do the 128 vs. 128-to-320 (w/ blind tests) test yourself first. U cant accuse me of ASSUMING something that ive done myself.
At the end u juggled my brain so I lost u. All I want u is to compare the 128 vs. 128-to-320 files and do the tests in the Dev Team Holy labs. But I can already figure what the vdj people will say. They’ll probably say that the 320 is only louder. Then again louder can mean better. :)
We all know what it takes to end this debate.
--------------------------
Bugpuss I have to give that ‘blank check’ a long thought. VDJ doesn’t lack anything for me to get it. Its not the program its other personal things holding me back.
Im getting a little bit scared that an all mighty Dev Team dude is coming down on me but that’s fine. Lol
Its still been 5 days since this thread started but no ones seems to want to do the test by THEMSELVES. Why? Lol
Goliath, I appreciate ur fancy footwork about how VDJ works but just do the 128 vs. 128-to-320 (w/ blind tests) test yourself first. U cant accuse me of ASSUMING something that ive done myself.
At the end u juggled my brain so I lost u. All I want u is to compare the 128 vs. 128-to-320 files and do the tests in the Dev Team Holy labs. But I can already figure what the vdj people will say. They’ll probably say that the 320 is only louder. Then again louder can mean better. :)
We all know what it takes to end this debate.
--------------------------
Bugpuss I have to give that ‘blank check’ a long thought. VDJ doesn’t lack anything for me to get it. Its not the program its other personal things holding me back.
Posted Tue 14 Mar 06 @ 10:05 pm
peachstonedj
Seems like the DEV team doesnt want to remove NAPTSTER from the software...obviously they must have sold us out. (they must be getting a kickback) It doesnt seem right...they offered lifetime upgrades. I dont consider this even an attempt at an upgrade. IF napster offered higher bitrates..Maybe.
Even i can hear the difference between 128 and 192bps. Especially on my system.
I have several systems..my favorite being
6 JBL VRX900 Line Arrays .(I hang from my truss) .Bi Amped powered by QSC PLX Series amps
6 JBL 728S Dual 18 Subs Each Powered by a PLX 3402 in Bridge...
And the real key...All signal is run thru a DRIVERACK 260 with the proper tunings..
Anyway...i found another site to get tracks in many formats. allofmp3.com seems pretty good.. I DL with FLAC Compression (Lossless).
Even i can hear the difference between 128 and 192bps. Especially on my system.
I have several systems..my favorite being
6 JBL VRX900 Line Arrays .(I hang from my truss) .Bi Amped powered by QSC PLX Series amps
6 JBL 728S Dual 18 Subs Each Powered by a PLX 3402 in Bridge...
And the real key...All signal is run thru a DRIVERACK 260 with the proper tunings..
Anyway...i found another site to get tracks in many formats. allofmp3.com seems pretty good.. I DL with FLAC Compression (Lossless).
Posted Wed 15 Mar 06 @ 5:45 pm
