Quality settings???

[Loz 0]

Hi, I'm ripping all my cds onto my PC ready for when I evolve into a PC DJ, many of my fellow DJs are already up and running and I don't want to get left behind. My question is, does it matter what setting my KBIT/S is on. I've been ripping at 128 like standard cds are but wondered if it needs to be more?? http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/533.gif

[Danno13 0]

I personally rip at 320K.. hard drives are dirt cheap these days so why not just go for the best quality you can (excluding Wav format of course... hard drives aren't THAT cheap yet!)

 

I'd definatley rip at over 128 though... 192 would be a bit better if you're trying to save disk space.

[BillyMoped 0]

Evening.........MP3 /192kbs.is considered to be Cd Quality no need to rip above that value......128 can sound a bit thin . I used to rip all my disc to 320 but found little or no difference in sound .

 

Regards Bill

http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/bigstar.gif

[Award Entertainment 0]

I use a variable bitrate, fluctuating from 64 to 320. A lot of older tracks were mastered at 128 or less, so there's no point recording it at 320. All you'd be doing is making the filesize bigger, with no audible improvement of sound. Much of the new music is a lot more complex, requiring more samples per second to capture every nuance. 192kb/s is where I usually try to sit if I'm not ripping on variable.

[Hugmaster 0]

Hi

 

I'm with richard on this one...

 

I use a variable bitrate lowest at 128 highest at erm...2 hundred and something :)

 

I recently went to a Wedding where the DJ was using two laptops, letting the software mix for him and using tracks that sounded flipping awful, obviously downloaded from a p to p site or ripped at far to low a bitrate, kept getting that awful mushy compressed sound associated with poor ripping.

 

Darren

[brianmole 0]

Don't do 128. It may sound OK on PC speakers, but it is terrible on a decent audio setup. Absolute minimum 192.

[Dukesy 0]

Whatever 'rate' you use, try to stick to it!

 

There is difference between different rates on playback, although slight.

If you can hear it, so can the audience!

 

http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/smile.gif

[Gary 0]

Its well worth while avoiding Variable Bit Rate (VBR) if at all possible, especially if you're burning MP3 CD's for pro CD-decks - it can cause problems with some of the more basic functions, and can make slight differences in the performance/handling of the track - much much safer to stick to Constant Bit Rate (CBR).

 

The few tests that I've tried definately show that 128kbps sounds mushy/saturated especially when the track reaches "busy" parts eg: loud cresendo's or powerful vocals. 192kbps is acceptable - but 320kbps, if your system copes with it, is better. With hard drive prices plummeting, good ol' WAV might even make a reappearence for those keen on uncompressed audio storage/playback.

 

[jackcu 0]

I rip at variable rate with the minimum set to 192kbps. Just bear in mind that whatever rate you rip at you are throwing away audio information. The uncompressed audio is at 1411kbps, so that's a big chunk of data. OK, some of it might be outwith the range that our ears can discern but the frequencies we can't hear have an effect on the ones we can hear. In other words, there is no such thing as a "CD Quality" MP3. Does that matter? IMHO as long as it's well ripped your average punter will never be able to hear the difference.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

[Award Entertainment 0]

Of course VBR is OK for PC based systems like OtsDJ. Also remember that we're not playing the music back through true studio-perfect monitors in a sound room. We're pumping out music to a noisy crowd in a less than perfect acoustic environment. It's possible to get too pedantic about this sort of thing IMHO.

[DJ Marky Marc 0]

QUOTE

Also remember that we're not playing the music back through true studio-perfect monitors in a sound room. We're pumping out music to a noisy crowd in a less than perfect acoustic environment. It's possible to get too pedantic about this sort of thing IMHO.

 

But with the amount of money your trying to spend on that BOSE setup dont you think you should do it justice buy feeding it with some quality recordings and not some low bit rate compressed junk....

 

 

[Award Entertainment 0]

My standard bitrate is variable (so as good as it needs to be depending on the track), but I normally use a minimum of 192 if I don't use variable. At that quality level, the Bose sounded superb.

[Loz 0]

ok guys thanks for your replies, I've changed my settings to 192 and just bought myself an external hard drive. So I'll rip all my tunes onto my PC and then transfer them on to my external drive, all I'll need then is a laptop of some description. http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/goodjob.gif

[Jambo 0]

Try PC world while the offers are on their are a lot of laptops entering cleareance menaing some really good deals, but AVOID Phillips as they have a 80% return rate.

[Loz 0]

Nice one, thanks for that. I'll have a look over the bank holiday if the wife doesn't find me some jobs in the garden first!!!! http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/whistling.gif

[jackcu 0]

Bank Holiday??????

 

It's pouring non-stop up here (while I listen on the radio to how Southern England is basking in a heatwave), and I'm working on Monday http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/sad.gif

 

I'd recommend trying to get a laptop with a big enough hard drive rather than use an external one if at all possible. I tried this a few years ago with an older laptop and it couldn't keep up from time to time. However, with faster gear and USB 2 you should be OK even if you go down the external route. Mind you, it's one less thing to plug in.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

[Gary 0]

Just a quick explanation about Variable Bit Rate, and why its fine for home recordings but a potential future hazard for professional DJ use.

 

Variable Bit Rate encoding/ripping of tracks doesnt take a peek at the tracks contents and decide, right at the beginning which bit rate it needs to use...no. VBR encoding ups and downs its bit rate process throughout the recording/encoding process - using higher bit rates during busy, dynamic parts passages of music, and lower bit rates during quieter, less demanding (in audio reporduction terms).

 

So, for an easy example...during say, B52's Love Shack...theres that bit 90% of the way through the track where the music drops away to silience, and the female lead says "Tin roof" (silence) "Rusted" (silence)....then the music starts up again.

 

Digitally, silence (or near silence) can be represented by a simply ZERO, and indeed VBR will summize "Why encode thousands of tiny zeros, when a few dozen big basic zeros will do?" Logical enough.

 

Now, on the subjext of logic...imagine a road that is absolutely straight and is exactly 60 miles long, and has no other traffic on it. If you were to drive down that road at 60 miles per hour, you'd be able to tell me easily how long it would take you... yes. 1 hour.

 

Now, if I were to tell you to drive down that 60 mile long road, but to vary your speed at random, you'd never be able to say how long your journey would take.

 

Any Software/firmware features which rely on accurate timing, such as frame by frame cueing, looping (especially auto-loop attempts), pitch/speed adjustment for mixing, and especially Key adjust/master tempo functions, or even accurate timing of "Track Time Remaining" take their calculations from bit-counting. These calculations can be "thrown" by VBR.

 

This is why, for the sake of a few saved kilobytes per album here'n'there, I'd advise that anyone looking at moving tracks onto PC or CD-R, use Constant Bit Rate encoding options - since you'll never know what features you might want to use in the future, and wont want to re-record all your VBR tunes.

[Award Entertainment 0]

I've never had any issues using VBR with OtsDJ and I know that many of the very technically minded and experienced Ots users (whose opinions I trust and value) have VBR as their standard encoding option. Perhaps Ots is a safe platform for VBR, but others aren't so stable with it?

[jackcu 0]

I've had no problems with Atomix and VBR although what Gary says about the bit rate and variability makes sense.

 

Confusing thing, technology :)

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

[MadGutts 0]

When i first got Ots way back in 20.... and something http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif i used the VBR as i didn't know better... Now the minimum is 192, and the max is 320.. file size and quality reasons.

 

As for a laptop with a big internal drive... 2.5" drives at the moment are still only 80GB which isn't really big enough PLUS the 2.5" drive are slower running at 5400 rpm though there are a few 6600 and 7200 but these are much more expensive.

 

An external drive through a USB2 or firewire is faster and obviously larger. but you do need an external PSU for the drives.

 

I personally still prefer a nice chunky desktop with more airflow than a Chinook helicoptor! and a more secure storage medium.... RAID

 

p.s. if your not sure wat RAID is i made a post about it some time ago...

[RobbieD 0]

I'm not a pc DJ, so my opinion may not count, but...

 

Seeing that larger discs are being introduced all the time, space should no longer be an issue. So I would say go for the highest quality - 320Kb.

 

In fact, with 250GB discs now available, it may even be worth considering .wav files. (Am I right in thinking that you should get around 6000-8000 .wav tracks on a 250GB disc?)

 

[jackcu 0]

Yep - you'd get around 6250, 4 minute .wavs on a 250Gb hard drive. It's bound to be the way of the future - huge hard drives storing CD quality sound :)

 

Bring it on!

 

Mind you - the thought of re-ripping all of those CDs fills me with dread http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/sad.gif

 

Jack.

[Danno13 0]

You can get 400GB hard drives now.. mabye even more.

 

No excuse for just ripping at 128/192...

[jackcu 0]

You can buy external drives at 1 terabyte already for £550:

 

http://uk.shopping.com/xPC-LaCie_1TB_Bigge...nkin_id-3067760

 

 

That would be around 25,000 songs uncompressed.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

[RobbieD 0]

QUOTE (jackcu @ Jun 2 2005, 04:54 PM)

You can buy external drives at 1 terabyte already for £550: http://uk.shopping.com/xPC-LaCie_1TB_Bigge...nkin_id-3067760 That would be around 25,000 songs uncompressed.

Hmmm?

 

One day I would like to go digital, but several things have put me off. This is one barrier down - it looks like it is completely possible to store everything uncompressed now!

 

The only other thing I would like to see would be a controller along the lines of a Denon DN-S5000, rather than using the mouse or one of those 'toy like' controllers to mix and cut.