my test trax are a strange assortment .......
the main test trax to me are the intro to cantata no 29 by j.s.bach from the original S.O.B. (switched on bach ) circa '72 ??(Walter/Wendy Carlos)
next Air on a G string by Pablo Casals and the Marlboro Festival Orch
"Lost " by Blacklight Syndrome ......wild guitar shredding , crank the bass !
25 or 6 to 4 ....Chicago .......uhhh just cuz i like it ??
Superstrut ....Deodato ( and one of the most incredible group of studio guys ever assembled ) rotating speaker , way cool jamming .......again more demented guitar shredding .....
the main test trax to me are the intro to cantata no 29 by j.s.bach from the original S.O.B. (switched on bach ) circa '72 ??(Walter/Wendy Carlos)
next Air on a G string by Pablo Casals and the Marlboro Festival Orch
"Lost " by Blacklight Syndrome ......wild guitar shredding , crank the bass !
25 or 6 to 4 ....Chicago .......uhhh just cuz i like it ??
Superstrut ....Deodato ( and one of the most incredible group of studio guys ever assembled ) rotating speaker , way cool jamming .......again more demented guitar shredding .....
Posted Mon 07 Jan 08 @ 8:14 am
Handyman
Bill,
Try Easy CD-DA Extractor by poikosoft at poikosoft.com. Well worth the $40US, but there's a 30 day trial.
It does take a little getting used to, but it's a very nice program for ripping, converting, and burning. It even has a rudimentary tag editor.
Try Easy CD-DA Extractor by poikosoft at poikosoft.com. Well worth the $40US, but there's a 30 day trial.
It does take a little getting used to, but it's a very nice program for ripping, converting, and burning. It even has a rudimentary tag editor.
Posted Mon 07 Jan 08 @ 10:35 am
Paz75
Easy CD-DA Extractor is a great program and like VDJ it has never ending updates. I've had a licensed copy for 7 years and still getting updates every 6 months or so...
Posted Mon 07 Jan 08 @ 1:09 pm
bagpuss
Here are some answers to some questions/points raised, which I've answered in the order of how they appear above:
djlex
"what do you use to encode mp3?"
"then I did encode a cd using Lame @320 and twiking the quality to max with constant bit rate."
I use:
LAME version 1.30, Engine 3.92MMX (and a few previous versions on older tracks)
320kbps CBR
Max quality setting (5)
Stereo
SirWolfy
"it's pretty much a no-brainer for anyone except those who use a laptop."
Well my laptop has a 120gb HD, which will be adequate for quite a few months.
When this becomes full I shall then use my 250gb WD external.
Supacon
“The reason for this is that psychology plays a very noticeable role in doing a comparison of two things when you know exactly what you are listening to - i.e. Here's an MP3 and here's the source wav - what do you think sounds better? “
I agree, but it also depends on which way you look at it. When you are presented with all the facts you are in a better position to judge, with a “blind” test it would be harder to pick out the difference, that’s why it’s called a “blind test”.
adding to that point, agreeing that a WAV is better quality than any MP3 technically, knowing this and listening with intent of noticing audible differences enables you to determine what you are looking for. What I mean is this, you are told that track A is better than track B for technical reasons, but under focused listening, you fail to notice which is the “better” track, but you DO notice that both have some different characteristics. This still constitutes as “noticing a difference” but the terms are more reasonable in my view.
Chuck
“Ok , so i'm intrigued ..... what were the headphones ?
What are your favorite monitor speakers ? club speakers ??
What are your favorite test tracks for serious equipment tests ??
If I told you my test tracks you'd probably think I'm nuts .... well , if you don't already .... Lol”
The headphones were a pair of Pioneer DJ headphones (but are now discontinued - I got them in a clearance), I’d say they are somewhat average.
I don’t really have a great amount of experience with monitor speakers, I actually use 2x Acoustic solution, floor standing, HI-fi speakers (220watts). Again they are about average.
For testing I was using Jazzy House tracks, which can be complex but I didn’t choose them for their level of complexity, rather I chose these tracks because of familiarity, relevance, and because the beat structure is easier to pick apart than something more heavy/complex.
And yes I'm pretty sure you are nuts if that makes you feel better? :)
Anybody/everybody
Here is my basic take on the various bite rates:
128kbps = easily distinguishable from CD
192kbps= significantly better, but can be distinguished from CD.
320kbps = rich and ’virtually’ CD quality, but not exactly.
The difference between each persons hearing is obviously very little, we all agree about 320kbps, but some can’t go that bit further and distinguish it from WAV, and in all fairness for most people it’s hard work.
Although some people claim stark differences, I’ve heard of audiophiles/sound engineers/musicians claiming that MP3 Is the devil of music recording, saying it destroys the “beauty” in the music etc. Whether they hold that same view with 320kbps LAME, I don’t know
djlex
"what do you use to encode mp3?"
"then I did encode a cd using Lame @320 and twiking the quality to max with constant bit rate."
I use:
LAME version 1.30, Engine 3.92MMX (and a few previous versions on older tracks)
320kbps CBR
Max quality setting (5)
Stereo
SirWolfy
"it's pretty much a no-brainer for anyone except those who use a laptop."
Well my laptop has a 120gb HD, which will be adequate for quite a few months.
When this becomes full I shall then use my 250gb WD external.
Supacon
“The reason for this is that psychology plays a very noticeable role in doing a comparison of two things when you know exactly what you are listening to - i.e. Here's an MP3 and here's the source wav - what do you think sounds better? “
I agree, but it also depends on which way you look at it. When you are presented with all the facts you are in a better position to judge, with a “blind” test it would be harder to pick out the difference, that’s why it’s called a “blind test”.
adding to that point, agreeing that a WAV is better quality than any MP3 technically, knowing this and listening with intent of noticing audible differences enables you to determine what you are looking for. What I mean is this, you are told that track A is better than track B for technical reasons, but under focused listening, you fail to notice which is the “better” track, but you DO notice that both have some different characteristics. This still constitutes as “noticing a difference” but the terms are more reasonable in my view.
Chuck
“Ok , so i'm intrigued ..... what were the headphones ?
What are your favorite monitor speakers ? club speakers ??
What are your favorite test tracks for serious equipment tests ??
If I told you my test tracks you'd probably think I'm nuts .... well , if you don't already .... Lol”
The headphones were a pair of Pioneer DJ headphones (but are now discontinued - I got them in a clearance), I’d say they are somewhat average.
I don’t really have a great amount of experience with monitor speakers, I actually use 2x Acoustic solution, floor standing, HI-fi speakers (220watts). Again they are about average.
For testing I was using Jazzy House tracks, which can be complex but I didn’t choose them for their level of complexity, rather I chose these tracks because of familiarity, relevance, and because the beat structure is easier to pick apart than something more heavy/complex.
And yes I'm pretty sure you are nuts if that makes you feel better? :)
Anybody/everybody
Here is my basic take on the various bite rates:
128kbps = easily distinguishable from CD
192kbps= significantly better, but can be distinguished from CD.
320kbps = rich and ’virtually’ CD quality, but not exactly.
The difference between each persons hearing is obviously very little, we all agree about 320kbps, but some can’t go that bit further and distinguish it from WAV, and in all fairness for most people it’s hard work.
Although some people claim stark differences, I’ve heard of audiophiles/sound engineers/musicians claiming that MP3 Is the devil of music recording, saying it destroys the “beauty” in the music etc. Whether they hold that same view with 320kbps LAME, I don’t know
Posted Mon 07 Jan 08 @ 3:33 pm
Supacon
From my experience, it seems that most people who complain that "MP3 (or any lossy encoding) destroys music" simply don't know much, if anything at all about encoding. Most such people tend to have heard the awful crud that is shared in low-end peer to peer filesharing systems, and assume that that is what all encodes sound like - I'd say that properly done encodes could be virtually indistinguishable from source in their intended usage context (except for streaming audio which often sounds awful by design).
On that note, I guess there are still lots of holdouts out there who believe that anything with a transistor in it (especially computers) also destroys music, but... I shouldn't go there.
Obviously you don't want your samples you'll be using in composing in your studio to be lossily compressed... and as Paz suggested, when you are heavily manipulating music, sampling, cutting, stretching, whatever, it is beneficial to have the highest fidelity source material available - going way beyond the threshold of average human discernability.
But, paz, as for your comment about using large files, I didn't realize you intended to mean higher sampling rate, not merely higher bitrate. You're totally correct in a studio or production context, but isn't it kind of a moot point with VDJ? I mean, even if VDJ actually supported playback at 96KHz 24-bit, where on earth would we get source material to play?
I suppose you could record your vinyl yourself - but that has problems of its own. I guess there are a handful of HDCD or Super Audio CDs out there, but can they actually be digitally ripped? (i.e. has the encryption been broken?) And of course, even if you could rip SACD, it uses 1-bit delta-sigma modulation process known as Direct Stream Digital at a sampling rate of 2.8224 MHz. Uh... a little different than the 16 bit 44.1 KHz PCM we're used to using for CD-Audio. In theory it's capable of much higher quality, but I don't know a lot about it and what you can actually use to play it back and convert it to analogue from a computer, etc.
Just a final note, I wouldn't say that I'm really a hardcore golden-eared audiophile - more just an interested techie... I wouldn't go out and spend $10,000 on a tube headphone preamp or anything like that, but as a professional DJ, I want things to sound as good as reasonably possible with a good balance of economy and convenience.
On that note, I guess there are still lots of holdouts out there who believe that anything with a transistor in it (especially computers) also destroys music, but... I shouldn't go there.
Obviously you don't want your samples you'll be using in composing in your studio to be lossily compressed... and as Paz suggested, when you are heavily manipulating music, sampling, cutting, stretching, whatever, it is beneficial to have the highest fidelity source material available - going way beyond the threshold of average human discernability.
But, paz, as for your comment about using large files, I didn't realize you intended to mean higher sampling rate, not merely higher bitrate. You're totally correct in a studio or production context, but isn't it kind of a moot point with VDJ? I mean, even if VDJ actually supported playback at 96KHz 24-bit, where on earth would we get source material to play?
I suppose you could record your vinyl yourself - but that has problems of its own. I guess there are a handful of HDCD or Super Audio CDs out there, but can they actually be digitally ripped? (i.e. has the encryption been broken?) And of course, even if you could rip SACD, it uses 1-bit delta-sigma modulation process known as Direct Stream Digital at a sampling rate of 2.8224 MHz. Uh... a little different than the 16 bit 44.1 KHz PCM we're used to using for CD-Audio. In theory it's capable of much higher quality, but I don't know a lot about it and what you can actually use to play it back and convert it to analogue from a computer, etc.
Just a final note, I wouldn't say that I'm really a hardcore golden-eared audiophile - more just an interested techie... I wouldn't go out and spend $10,000 on a tube headphone preamp or anything like that, but as a professional DJ, I want things to sound as good as reasonably possible with a good balance of economy and convenience.
Posted Tue 08 Jan 08 @ 8:17 pm
dj-e-lectric
some points to consider if you are not an Audiofile snob...(1) What sounds better is purely subjective to the person listening (2) what you can and can't here (if you really can tell the difference) depends heavily on the environment being listened in (3) what is and isn't "lost" REALLY depends on the type of music (4) I challenge ANYONE, I MEAN ANYONE to accuratley and consistantly tell the difference in a CLUB or BAR setting playing plain old top 40, hip hop, house or rock music between .wav file, direct cd or 192kb cbr MP3....anyone who says they can AND HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED IT IN A DOUBLE BLIND TEST IS LYING....PERIOD.
Just like the people who crank up the 20 & 22khz equalizer to "hear the highs" is bullshitting you as the human ear in PERFECT condition can barely hear to 20khz and the average person by age 18 can barely hear to 13khz (that's why mp3 chop off everything about 12khz) and most Dj's are partially deaf from listenign to music loud and/or in head phones can barely hear upto 10khz (don't believe me go to the doctor and get a hearing test).
Todays music is simply not that complex, produced that well in the first place and usually played on horrible speakers so in reallity it really truly does not matter anywhere but BETWEEN your ears, not in them!!!!!
Just like the people who crank up the 20 & 22khz equalizer to "hear the highs" is bullshitting you as the human ear in PERFECT condition can barely hear to 20khz and the average person by age 18 can barely hear to 13khz (that's why mp3 chop off everything about 12khz) and most Dj's are partially deaf from listenign to music loud and/or in head phones can barely hear upto 10khz (don't believe me go to the doctor and get a hearing test).
Todays music is simply not that complex, produced that well in the first place and usually played on horrible speakers so in reallity it really truly does not matter anywhere but BETWEEN your ears, not in them!!!!!
Posted Wed 09 Jan 08 @ 2:11 am
bagpuss
192kbps versus WAV, I think I could tell the difference, there is defo a difference between 192 and 320 for me, I'm not going around making bold statements trying to prove something to the world, it's simply something I know from experience, that's for my own benefit.
It's not just cut-off you're looking for, but artefacts. Listen to what you 'can' hear, there are differences.
It's not just cut-off you're looking for, but artefacts. Listen to what you 'can' hear, there are differences.
Posted Wed 09 Jan 08 @ 3:28 am
Handyman
Quote :
But, paz, as for your comment about using large files, I didn't realize you intended to mean higher sampling rate, not merely higher bitrate. You're totally correct in a studio or production context, but isn't it kind of a moot point with VDJ? I mean, even if VDJ actually supported playback at 96KHz 24-bit, where on earth would we get source material to play?
I suppose you could record your vinyl yourself - but that has problems of its own.
But, paz, as for your comment about using large files, I didn't realize you intended to mean higher sampling rate, not merely higher bitrate. You're totally correct in a studio or production context, but isn't it kind of a moot point with VDJ? I mean, even if VDJ actually supported playback at 96KHz 24-bit, where on earth would we get source material to play?
I suppose you could record your vinyl yourself - but that has problems of its own.
There are, in fact, 2 readily available sources: 1. DVD Video that is encoded with either PCM audio @ 96 or 48kHz @ 16, 20 or 24 bit (note 44.1 is not an option for DVD PCM) and DVD Audio.
As you pointed out, there is a 3rd option, and that is recording your vinyl yourself. 48, 96, or even 192kHz PCM recordings are possible with a decent (or Studio-grade) sound card.
In any of these cases, there would only be a discernable quality increase if the original source was recorded at a higher quality and nothing along the chain from original recording to DVD was not of the same or higher quality than the final product. One example could be that the vinyl was pressed from a CD or DAT master, which are limited to 44.1 and 48kHz, respectively.
Quote :
Just like the people who crank up the 20 & 22khz equalizer to "hear the highs" is bullshitting you as the human ear in PERFECT condition can barely hear to 20khz and the average person by age 18 can barely hear to 13khz (that's why mp3 chop off everything about 12khz) and most Dj's are partially deaf from listenign to music loud and/or in head phones can barely hear upto 10khz (don't believe me go to the doctor and get a hearing test).
Just like the people who crank up the 20 & 22khz equalizer to "hear the highs" is bullshitting you as the human ear in PERFECT condition can barely hear to 20khz and the average person by age 18 can barely hear to 13khz (that's why mp3 chop off everything about 12khz) and most Dj's are partially deaf from listenign to music loud and/or in head phones can barely hear upto 10khz (don't believe me go to the doctor and get a hearing test).
There are people who can hear those frequencies. I was one of them who could hear 22kHz in my right ear until I was 35. Can't hear it now, probably thanks to years of ear bombardment. Most of the time, non-musical sounds at those frequencies are just annoyances (alarm systems and dog whistles).
That aside, MP3 do sacrifice high frequencies, but they will also sacrifice any frequencies that are not used. Depending on the encoding software, you can make adjustments to which frequencies are passed, too. One thing you will notice is that IF you tell the encoders NOT to sacrifice high frequencies, then the result is a much more warbly-sounding mp3 with more artifacts creeping in. Bottom line: SOME information has to be lost in order to squeeze down the file size beyond that of lossless compression. It will depend on the complexity of the specific piece you are encoding as to how good it sounds after being converted to mp3, and the compressor's settings (options) will make a noticeable difference in the mp3.
One piece of advice that has been offered to DJ's using MP3's is for them to crank up the high end on their EQ's even more than they would to recover some of the brightness lost by the conversion to MP3. In spite of this notion, it is my duty to point out that, once something is removed, it cannot be replaced by an EQ if it's not there anymore.
According to the LAME MP3 encoder community, the "INSANE" preset when using LAME to covert music to MP3 will produce the most accurate copy of the original uncompressed file. Using this setting, it has been my experience that sacrificed audio frequencies are above 17kHz.
Posted Wed 09 Jan 08 @ 11:21 am
Supacon
I have a large collection of DVDs that I use to DJ, so I was aware that they use 48KHz LPCM - and that was initially a big quality problem because old versions of VDJ's downsampling sounded absolutely awful. So yeah, you can get higher quality audio from DVD Video (especially when it's LPCM, which is not compressed at all). I guess I forgot that one... I don't know that 48Khz is really any substantial improvement, nor do I know if it's not merely just upsampled 44.1KHz audio...
Anyways, as for this stuff about MP3 losing all the high frequencies, I often hear that and would like to clarify the details a bit. It is true that high frequencies are much more difficult to compress accurately than lower frequencies, and hence the need for Spectral Band Replication in newer codecs that are optimized for low bitrates.
MP3 doesn't typically cut off everything below 12Khz - that would be very easily audible - it'd sound like a phone conversation or something. I presume that most people here are with the 2000's now and are using a relatively modern version of LAME for their encoding that supports the high quality VBR presets. In each those presets, this chart details what the lowpass filters are:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME#Technical_information
To sum up - the very lowest quality setting -V9 (~65 kb/s) Uses a 10KHz Lowpass.
Second lowest -V8 (~85Kb/s) uses 13Khz lowpass
jumping up a bit to where most of us probably are
Standard quality -V2 (~190 Khz) uses around 19Khz for the lowpass filter,
and the highest quality - V0 (~240 Kb/s) uses 20Khz. At that point, you usually aren't going to lose anything audibly integral to your enjoyment of the music, unless you have ears of a dog or something. Losing this high frequency data allows higher quality compression of stuff that actually is audible while maintaining reasonable bitrates. A hearing test I conducted on myself, years ago when I was about 20, I think, allowed me to hear up to 21Khz or something, but it had to be super loud - like so loud that normal music would have been rather unpleasant to listen to. After having DJed for many years, I'm probably not in such good shape now (i.e. squealing from cathode ray tubes from TVs doesn't bother me so much anymore) but... you can imagine that your average nightclub patrons won't likely have better hearing than that :) 20KHz lowpass isn't going to have an audible effect, really.
Anyways, as for this stuff about MP3 losing all the high frequencies, I often hear that and would like to clarify the details a bit. It is true that high frequencies are much more difficult to compress accurately than lower frequencies, and hence the need for Spectral Band Replication in newer codecs that are optimized for low bitrates.
MP3 doesn't typically cut off everything below 12Khz - that would be very easily audible - it'd sound like a phone conversation or something. I presume that most people here are with the 2000's now and are using a relatively modern version of LAME for their encoding that supports the high quality VBR presets. In each those presets, this chart details what the lowpass filters are:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME#Technical_information
To sum up - the very lowest quality setting -V9 (~65 kb/s) Uses a 10KHz Lowpass.
Second lowest -V8 (~85Kb/s) uses 13Khz lowpass
jumping up a bit to where most of us probably are
Standard quality -V2 (~190 Khz) uses around 19Khz for the lowpass filter,
and the highest quality - V0 (~240 Kb/s) uses 20Khz. At that point, you usually aren't going to lose anything audibly integral to your enjoyment of the music, unless you have ears of a dog or something. Losing this high frequency data allows higher quality compression of stuff that actually is audible while maintaining reasonable bitrates. A hearing test I conducted on myself, years ago when I was about 20, I think, allowed me to hear up to 21Khz or something, but it had to be super loud - like so loud that normal music would have been rather unpleasant to listen to. After having DJed for many years, I'm probably not in such good shape now (i.e. squealing from cathode ray tubes from TVs doesn't bother me so much anymore) but... you can imagine that your average nightclub patrons won't likely have better hearing than that :) 20KHz lowpass isn't going to have an audible effect, really.
Posted Fri 11 Jan 08 @ 2:37 pm