djzero
thats what i use and it sounds great
Posted Wed 14 Jul 04 @ 12:04 pm
macourteau
I use mp3's encoded in 192kbps all the time, and it sounds just great ;)
Concerning the MPEG I, II & II.5, that's the mpeg version of your mp3 file. I think the best is II, but I'm not sure. You should check it out (ie. encode the same file in the 3 formats and check which one sound the best, etc...)
Cheers, macourteau
Concerning the MPEG I, II & II.5, that's the mpeg version of your mp3 file. I think the best is II, but I'm not sure. You should check it out (ie. encode the same file in the 3 formats and check which one sound the best, etc...)
Cheers, macourteau
Posted Wed 14 Jul 04 @ 12:46 pm
ElofdeNeve
Ewout, you just gave me a heart attack... 8.000 MP's I have encoded from CD's, with the Musicmatch encoder. I thought that MusicMatch was such a good program :-(
You see how difficult it is for people to find good stuff/programs between all the rubbish that is out there? *rolls his eyes*
Perhaps (just assuming), the problem with the incorrect bpm (see other topic) is due to the bad encoder of MusicMatch?
You see how difficult it is for people to find good stuff/programs between all the rubbish that is out there? *rolls his eyes*
Perhaps (just assuming), the problem with the incorrect bpm (see other topic) is due to the bad encoder of MusicMatch?
Posted Wed 14 Jul 04 @ 12:50 pm
macourteau
@djelof: The encoder has nothing to do with the BPM. The BPM is calculated by VDJ, who counts what it sees as beats in the song; that way, even the worst encoder would be OK for the BPM. Problems with the BPM count has to do with the algorithm VirtualDJ uses to 'see' the beats :)
macourteau
P.S.: The best free mp3 encoder is LAME, you should check it out... It's very fast and it has an excellent quality. (LAME stands for (L)AME (A)in't an (M)p3 (E)ncoder, even though it's used for encoding mp3's ;))
macourteau
P.S.: The best free mp3 encoder is LAME, you should check it out... It's very fast and it has an excellent quality. (LAME stands for (L)AME (A)in't an (M)p3 (E)ncoder, even though it's used for encoding mp3's ;))
Posted Wed 14 Jul 04 @ 1:05 pm
Lodewijk
Is it true that with vdj 2.0 you can use vdj to rip your cd's? Or did I missunderstand that? And if so, does vdj use LAME to rip too?
Posted Wed 14 Jul 04 @ 4:36 pm
macourteau
I don't know if you can rip a song with VDJ, but you can record the song that's playing to mp3, using LAME... That way you can say it's ripping, but it can be long and painful.
There are many programs that use the LAME algorithm for ripping (such as CDex).
macourteau
There are many programs that use the LAME algorithm for ripping (such as CDex).
macourteau
Posted Wed 14 Jul 04 @ 4:49 pm
bagpuss
Hi, I've used many programs in total for my cd ripping..., two pro programs and one basic program that wasn't expensive....
I know one thing though..., and that's that som of my mp3's make me wounder if it's a poor mp3 (although most are 192) or my speakers or just modern music production...i don't know...
What i did do and i recommend every one to try this for the best test in cd versus your encoded mp3 is this.., play your mp3 on one deck of vdj and the same song on cd at the same point on the other deck..., listen to your mp3 for a while then swtch to cd..., do this back and forth until you've concluded if there is any problems with your encoder....,
mainly i've used mp3 mixstation plus..., and now i'm worrying as it's cheap software!, but it's simple and fast..., also i've used easy cd creator and nero express which a pro programs but i don't want to comment on the rusults as it's hard to tell.....
as i haven't tested yet..., regards bag
I know one thing though..., and that's that som of my mp3's make me wounder if it's a poor mp3 (although most are 192) or my speakers or just modern music production...i don't know...
What i did do and i recommend every one to try this for the best test in cd versus your encoded mp3 is this.., play your mp3 on one deck of vdj and the same song on cd at the same point on the other deck..., listen to your mp3 for a while then swtch to cd..., do this back and forth until you've concluded if there is any problems with your encoder....,
mainly i've used mp3 mixstation plus..., and now i'm worrying as it's cheap software!, but it's simple and fast..., also i've used easy cd creator and nero express which a pro programs but i don't want to comment on the rusults as it's hard to tell.....
as i haven't tested yet..., regards bag
Posted Wed 14 Jul 04 @ 6:44 pm
musicmatch
Regards to putting all your songs on to the harddrive,i think that is fantastic,lots of extracting ,saving ,but all in all worth it!! Having all your songs in the right cat"" makes life so much better,myself speaking from experience some times you put the cd in the player and takes forever to read it,and you have only got like 10 seconds left,,PANIC....Now thanks to virtual dj no more problems,for extracting i use Wavelab 4, must admit a lot of the mp3's i use are only in the 128 b'"""maybe i should put them at 192 Time????
Cheers for now dj graham[musicmatch]
Cheers for now dj graham[musicmatch]
Posted Thu 25 Aug 05 @ 11:45 pm
acw_dj
Musicmatch try 2 things... one rip a song in 192 Kbps CBR (Constant Bit Rate) and then rip it again in after that rip it again in 192Kbps VBR (Variable Bit Rate). In some songs you hear a great difference. Now hear your song in 128Kbps... you will never want to have it again...
;-)
;-)
Posted Fri 26 Aug 05 @ 12:22 am
bagpuss
Hi musicmatch: I would reccomend you read my blog, I wrote a guide on mp3, I think you'll find it useful.
128kbps is too low for sure.., please read.
128kbps is too low for sure.., please read.
Posted Fri 26 Aug 05 @ 12:50 am
Raw-Bear
Bagpuss, I can't read your blog but I do have this to say. Encoding at 128 bps is just fine as most normal human beings can not hear above that. 128 is CD quality from what I understand. 96 -112 is a stereo signal that you get off the F.M. dial. Anything below 96 is an A.M. kbps rate.
To prove my point rip a song from a CD that you know very well. Encode it at 192 and 128. Have a pal mix the two versions back and forth so that you can not see which is the 192 or 128. If you can hear a difference then its your encoder.
128 also takes up less room than 192.
The encoder I use is the dbpoweramp encoder and its free. As far as I am concerned its pretty awesome, and I have used most of the other ones mentioned here. CDex is pretty good too.
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/
Also after I have ripped my CD into an mp3, I run it through a program called mp3 gain.
http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/
This brings all my mp3s to an average level so that I don't get a blast of sound when using the cross-fader. You can set your "average volume level" to what ever you want, but the default of 89.5 is pretty good. It also gets rid of the clipping that may have happened while ripping or recording.
Some encoders do not work proper at 128 and thats why the mp3s encoded by them sound so bad.
Use a stand alone E.Q. to bring out the punch of the mp3s.
I have a 200 gig external HD with 104 gigs dedicated to music. I have 26,946 Tunes in that space. Would I go back to CDs? Not on your life. Thats over 1,347 CDs. Atomix mp3 player and VDJ both have excellent search engines and I could have a tune requested, searched for and queued up before anyone could find it by going through the CDs.
Anyways, this is all just my humble opinion.
To prove my point rip a song from a CD that you know very well. Encode it at 192 and 128. Have a pal mix the two versions back and forth so that you can not see which is the 192 or 128. If you can hear a difference then its your encoder.
128 also takes up less room than 192.
The encoder I use is the dbpoweramp encoder and its free. As far as I am concerned its pretty awesome, and I have used most of the other ones mentioned here. CDex is pretty good too.
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/
Also after I have ripped my CD into an mp3, I run it through a program called mp3 gain.
http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/
This brings all my mp3s to an average level so that I don't get a blast of sound when using the cross-fader. You can set your "average volume level" to what ever you want, but the default of 89.5 is pretty good. It also gets rid of the clipping that may have happened while ripping or recording.
Some encoders do not work proper at 128 and thats why the mp3s encoded by them sound so bad.
Use a stand alone E.Q. to bring out the punch of the mp3s.
I have a 200 gig external HD with 104 gigs dedicated to music. I have 26,946 Tunes in that space. Would I go back to CDs? Not on your life. Thats over 1,347 CDs. Atomix mp3 player and VDJ both have excellent search engines and I could have a tune requested, searched for and queued up before anyone could find it by going through the CDs.
Anyways, this is all just my humble opinion.
Posted Fri 26 Aug 05 @ 10:00 am
lopez453
raw bear, you can notice the lower dynamic range, and there will be any EQ out of use.
You need compressor/expander/limiter on the output to have it sound the same.
At best if it's multiband (5)so it can process bass, mid, treble separately.
If you just pump up the bass some songs MUMMLE but have not enought kick/punch power.
You need compressor/expander/limiter on the output to have it sound the same.
At best if it's multiband (5)so it can process bass, mid, treble separately.
If you just pump up the bass some songs MUMMLE but have not enought kick/punch power.
Posted Fri 26 Aug 05 @ 11:49 am
bagpuss
Rawbear: Your user level allows you to read my blog, so you should be able to see it...
I have to disagree with you on the bite rate, it is really quite ideological to think such a MASSIVE compression can be compared with it's Pure WAV counterpart.
It is actually true, that the human ear should detect a difference in quality, possibly even after 200kbps, and I personally can notice a difference at least all the way up to 192kbps, 128 is ok, 160 is better, but 192 is a good balance between quality and file size, most listerners detect no difference at this bite rate.
Also note that a good soundcard and headphones are compulsory when listening for such differences (when listeing direct through your computer)
I have to disagree with you on the bite rate, it is really quite ideological to think such a MASSIVE compression can be compared with it's Pure WAV counterpart.
It is actually true, that the human ear should detect a difference in quality, possibly even after 200kbps, and I personally can notice a difference at least all the way up to 192kbps, 128 is ok, 160 is better, but 192 is a good balance between quality and file size, most listerners detect no difference at this bite rate.
Also note that a good soundcard and headphones are compulsory when listening for such differences (when listeing direct through your computer)
Posted Fri 26 Aug 05 @ 12:20 pm
DJRogerBorges
Yeah, I totally disagree on using 128... USE 192 ALWAYS! AND ALWAYS CBR !!
Don't forget that later you will amplify the signal through the speakers, so have that in mind... (well I supposed you DJ for at least 100 people. If its' a house party with 10 people then go on with 128).
But hey guys, the name of this forum section was "do u prefer cd or mp3?" , wasn't it?
best regards,
dj ROGER BORGES
PS:
my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/members/rogeriogrilo
Don't forget that later you will amplify the signal through the speakers, so have that in mind... (well I supposed you DJ for at least 100 people. If its' a house party with 10 people then go on with 128).
But hey guys, the name of this forum section was "do u prefer cd or mp3?" , wasn't it?
best regards,
dj ROGER BORGES
PS:
my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/members/rogeriogrilo
Posted Fri 26 Aug 05 @ 12:47 pm
musicmatch
Ok guys thanks for the advice ,will take the pain staking road of converting into 192,as i am playing to quite a large crowd ,and there is nothing worse than it sounding crap,or up to standard,as a professional ,i want it to be the best!!!what ever you guys are up to for the weekend have a rip,if u spinning kick ass?? o '' and by the way thanks for your choice in music..
Cheers dj graham[musicmatch]
Cheers dj graham[musicmatch]
Posted Fri 26 Aug 05 @ 5:04 pm
anewsome
I do a blind test of 128 against 192 encoding any day and always choose the 192. All day long.
Posted Fri 26 Aug 05 @ 5:09 pm
acw_dj
I do the same with CBR and VBR and I go for VBR. It takes what it needs to sound perfect.
I test over a WAV and 192Kbps in VBR and I don't notice ANY difference. If I do it in CBR I notice the difference. If the song has only a few sounds (or instruments) you need less Kbps rate. In CBR the silence is coded also, in VBR take less space for a silence or with few sounds in it, but if after a silence take all the sounds together, VBR raises to 320Kbps (if it's needed) as long as it is needed for the best sound.
If you rip and old song (like the beattles) you could do it in 96Kbps and it sounds the same. But if you do it with another with wide dynamic range... is another play.
Test this with Adagio for strings (or another like this), WAV, 192Kbps CBR, 320Kbps CBR and 192Kbps VBR. If don't hear the difference, use what you feel enough. For me was 192 Kbps in VBR.
Posted Fri 26 Aug 05 @ 6:34 pm
vpcdj
i learned my lesson in my first public gig. a sorority party. at home 128 bit sound perfect. no difference to 160 or 192. but hook that ish up to big sound and u'll want to ish in ur pants.
192 is standard. 160 if u must play the rare song. 128 never. 320 for rock songs. a 16 bit sound card minimum. (sometimes when sound cards heat the bass doesnt come out clean)
--------
i dont play video but what is the standard video format. i dont even know what to ask since i dont even know the source of video files. most of them look bad coz they'r ripped from tv/vhs etc...
so where can one download high quality video files....
and like 5.5--5.6MB is the average size of a 192 bit file, what is the size of a good quality video file?
vp aka anon
192 is standard. 160 if u must play the rare song. 128 never. 320 for rock songs. a 16 bit sound card minimum. (sometimes when sound cards heat the bass doesnt come out clean)
--------
i dont play video but what is the standard video format. i dont even know what to ask since i dont even know the source of video files. most of them look bad coz they'r ripped from tv/vhs etc...
so where can one download high quality video files....
and like 5.5--5.6MB is the average size of a 192 bit file, what is the size of a good quality video file?
vp aka anon
Posted Fri 26 Aug 05 @ 10:08 pm
bagpuss
I think it depends on what size screen you intend to play the video on, but I find 50-60megs a good standard for an average song length, but this is only on my 15inch screen, I think it may need to be an even bigger file if you play on a significantely bigger screen (which is likey at clubs).
Posted Fri 26 Aug 05 @ 10:27 pm
vpcdj
bag i thought the whole idea of playing videos is having a video output going to a tv screen and not local on the computer... or so i thought.
Posted Fri 26 Aug 05 @ 11:51 pm
