TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Let me get this straight...
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Mmanu lossless compression does not exist.

FLAC?

quote:

Originally posted by Mmanu If you compress sound, you lose sound. Every time. No compromises. If you transform an mp3 back to wave, you've already lost all frequencies above 18 KHz at best. lossless compression does not exist.

Lossless compression exists in many forms both inside and outside of sound files. A simple search on google should change your mind...

http://www.google.com/search?q=lossless+audio

http://www.google.com/search?q=lossless+compression




Plus, mp3 compression is designed to take out frequencies that are beyond what typical humans can hear, provided that the correct bit rate is chosen. Losing all frequencies above 18KHz? Well, when you can only hear to about 20KHz, that's not really that big of a difference.

Two things,

I think the mp3 -> wav what he meant by not losing quality is that the wav file will have the same frequencys as the original mp3, but yes if you were to go from wav -> mp3 -> wav then the final wav file would very likely lose some frequencys, provided it origionally had them.

And couldent you just put the cd in you computer and find out if you burnt the files as mp3 or if nero correctly converted them to wav by looking at the contents...?

quote:

Plus, mp3 compression is designed to take out frequencies that are beyond what typical humans can hear, provided that the correct bit rate is chosen. Losing all frequencies above 18KHz? Well, when you can only hear to about 20KHz, that's not really that big of a difference.

I feel like supertreble and subbass, while not "heard" is still sensed by the body in a nightclub on a deeper level. "ghost in the machine" etc

Since most speakers and audio equipment will fuck with the signal anyways, however, you won't be affected as much by this unheard sound unless you're in the paradise garage or david mancuso's loft, ie somewhere with a great hi-fi system

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec I feel like supertreble and subbass, while not "heard" is still sensed by the body in a nightclub on a deeper level. "ghost in the machine" etc Since most speakers and audio equipment will fuck with the signal anyways, however, you won't be affected as much by this unheard sound unless you're in the paradise garage or david mancuso's loft, ie somewhere with a great hi-fi system

As long as everything flows and it sounds good, imo, who cares what format is used.

quote:

Originally posted by Mmanu Uh. yeah. burn audio CDs then ?

Lol, right?! The most bizarre (and stupid) thread I've ever seen.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec I feel like supertreble and subbass, while not "heard" is still sensed by the body in a nightclub on a deeper level. "ghost in the machine" etc Since most speakers and audio equipment will fuck with the signal anyways, however, you won't be affected as much by this unheard sound unless you're in the paradise garage or david mancuso's loft, ie somewhere with a great hi-fi system

Or Stereo, Montreal... A system modelled after the Garage

quote:

Originally posted by Mmanu If you compress sound, you lose sound. Every time. No compromises. lossless compression does not exist.

Not true, maybe you are thinking of digitising and analogue recording of sound? The digitizing process takes a finite number of discrete samples of the continuous analogue wave (which essentially contains an infinte number of samples) so yes you will always lose sound. However it is possible to compress this digital representation of the sound without losing any information. Think about it, lossless compression must exist otherwise winzip, winrar etc wouldnt work.

quote:

False. Whether it is wav or Mp3, it is compressed. the frequency range stops at 18 KHz,for a 320 mp3 ; a 128 drops at 12 KHz.

OK, where did you get the idea that a 128 stops at 12KHz and a 320 18? The mp3 codec does not work like that. The mp3 codec compresses the audio by coding those parts of the sound that have the least amount of relevance to the way we hear it with fewer bits than the more significant parts. This basically means that the entire frequency spectrum still exists in the sound, its just that its coded in such a way that you cant hear it.

Sorry if thats a bit confusing, I'm not sure I've explained it that well. I wrote a whole research paper on this subject during my masters year at uni so I know a bit about it (if anyones foolish enough to want to read it drop me a pm!!)

Also, wav files are NOT compressed, they are simply a digital representation of the audio. Something that crossed my mind whilst reading this thread is that surely WAVs are a more accurate representation of what the producer heard in the studio (in fact, probably the exact file they redered from their sequencer) so, do we all cling top the idea that analogue is better simply because we are used to the sound coming from a peice of vinyl? Is it possible that in the near future we'll have a bunch of kids who never heard vinyl played in a club and are think that the sound quality is much worse because they havent grown up with all of their music being run through the analogue compression process of pressing to vinyl?

Actually thinking about it, its a moot point, give it 5 years and sombody will have created a "Make it sound like vinyl" VST plugin, nobody will be using mp3s and all our audio will be at 96KHz/24bit and itll all sound the same as before

EDIT: Dont get me wrong, I do still love my vinyl!!

quote:

Originally posted by Sandeep C. Lol, right?! The most bizarre (and stupid) thread I've ever seen.

Yet you decided to come join in.

Why would you buy CDJs with such limited knowledge of how to even burn a freakin CD?

Yikes at all the people adding insult to injury

quote:

Or Stereo, Montreal... A system modelled after the Garage

Nice, I definitely need to come up to Stereo at some point.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Why would you buy CDJs with such limited knowledge of how to even burn a freakin CD?

Lol

You have a point.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Nice, I definitely need to come up to Stereo at some point.

Come up anytime, you are guaranteed a good time in Montreal... just be prepared to not sleep

quote:

Originally posted by Ministerio Lol...i did 5 songs per cd before and that was too much..and rather than making two copies... I find it easier to make one per cd.. incase i want to mix two songs on the same cd.

Wait, So you're saying that you burn 5 songs per cd..and then you make a copy of the exact one (in case you want to mix another song on that same cd,you have the duplicate that you can mix with.)? Then you said you find it easier to do 1 cd per song just in case you want to mix 2 songs on the same cd? That really doesnt make sense.

What I do is burn as many as I can onto 1 cd..and then burn that exact same copy in case there's a song on that same cd I want to mix with.

The only way to do it is 1 track (plus remixes) per CD.

I bet you any money thats what EVERY pro DJ does.

And MP3s are a big no go. For one they don't behave like a WAV (that is to say an audio) CD would. Try doing a spinback with an MP3.

Jarv

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister The only way to do it is 1 track (plus remixes) per CD. I bet you any money thats what EVERY pro DJ does.

You are wrong. Please give me money.

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister The only way to do it is 1 track (plus remixes) per CD. I bet you any money thats what EVERY pro DJ does. And MP3s are a big no go. For one they don't behave like a WAV (that is to say an audio) CD would. Try doing a spinback with an MP3. Jarv

I guess I'm not a pro dj..hehe

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister The only way to do it is 1 track (plus remixes) per CD. I bet you any money thats what EVERY pro DJ does. And MP3s are a big no go. For one they don't behave like a WAV (that is to say an audio) CD would. Try doing a spinback with an MP3. Jarv

Uh, I know for a fact that's wrong.

And I don't have any problems with spinbacks with mp3s.

quote:

Originally posted by minhvp Wait, So you're saying that you burn 5 songs per cd..and then you make a copy of the exact one (in case you want to mix another song on that same cd,you have the duplicate that you can mix with.)? Then you said you find it easier to do 1 cd per song just in case you want to mix 2 songs on the same cd? That really doesnt make sense. What I do is burn as many as I can onto 1 cd..and then burn that exact same copy in case there's a song on that same cd I want to mix with.

No, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO BURN 2 copies of the same cd (if they were five track cd's), I burn 1/cd.

Plus, my mind keeps track of them better.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations You are wrong. Please give me money.

Yeah pay me aswell. Danny Howells and Digweed both burn several tracks per CD.

Can I have my money too please? I got a cart full of tracks on Beatport I need to purchase. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister The only way to do it is 1 track (plus remixes) per CD. I bet you any money thats what EVERY pro DJ does. And MP3s are a big no go. For one they don't behave like a WAV (that is to say an audio) CD would. Try doing a spinback with an MP3. Jarv

John Digweed:




James Holden:


Markus Schulz (Bottom Right):


James Zabiela:



Shit, you must be rolling in the dough, dude!

God damn Diggers really has some messy cd's

Idorowned!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.