Pioneer CDJ200 and VBR MP3s - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Pioneer CDJ200 and VBR MP3s

Posted by Magnus on Sep-26-2005 16:29:

Pioneer CDJ200 and VBR MP3s

Well I just bought the Pioneer CDJ200. I burned an MP3 disc only to find that when I put it in, any MP3s that are variable bit rate can only be played, nothing else. You cannot fast forward, rewind, loop, nothing. I'd say more than half of my MP3s are VBR. So my question is, rather than going back by hand and re-encoding all my VBR MP3s to a non VBR format, is there any software out there that can do this kind of operation in a batch or something? Thanks for any help!

Posted by djshtr on Sep-26-2005 17:03:

Yes

Check out CDEx (google it).
Its free and uses a lame encoder. You can drag a directory of tracks onto the window and it will convert your VBR to a CBR rate of your choice... Thats what i had to do for my CDJ 200 as well...

Posted by Palladium on Sep-26-2005 20:47:

mp3 sucks for djing...

most of them sounds poor

i have my cdj200s but i know they have mp3 playback but never use it...all my mp3s are converted to wav...to 24 bit 44100 khz and 1400 kbps...

Posted by Dave Nadz on Sep-27-2005 03:01:

quote:
Originally posted by Palladium

Palladium, which program did you use to convert (ex: mp3 at 320 Kbps to wav. ) ??

mp3 sucks for djing...

most of them sounds poor

i have my cdj200s but i know they have mp3 playback but never use it...all my mp3s are converted to wav...to 24 bit 44100 khz and 1400 kbps...

Posted by djshtr on Sep-27-2005 03:41:

quote:
Originally posted by Palladium
mp3 sucks for djing...

most of them sounds poor

i have my cdj200s but i know they have mp3 playback but never use it...all my mp3s are converted to wav...to 24 bit 44100 khz and 1400 kbps...

I would have to differ with that. I've never tried converting my mp3s to wav.. Think about it.. if there is signal loss in the mp3 (Which there invariably is due to the compression), then converting it to WAV is not going to make it magically regain the lost digital bits of data?

So a 128k horribly sounding mp3 should sound the exact same if converted to WAV... assuming that the Pioneer CDJ mp3 decoder is as good as your software in your computer software..

I play 320k mp3s on my CDJ from beatport and they sound as crisp and clean as any store-bought CD. 192kbps from audiojelly is a different story, however...

Posted by Doctor-No on Sep-27-2005 05:55:

quote:
Originally posted by djshtr
I would have to differ with that. I've never tried converting my mp3s to wav.. Think about it.. if there is signal loss in the mp3 (Which there invariably is due to the compression), then converting it to WAV is not going to make it magically regain the lost digital bits of data?

So a 128k horribly sounding mp3 should sound the exact same if converted to WAV... assuming that the Pioneer CDJ mp3 decoder is as good as your software in your computer software..

I play 320k mp3s on my CDJ from beatport and they sound as crisp and clean as any store-bought CD. 192kbps from audiojelly is a different story, however...

Yeah i can't understand why anyone would want to convert mp3 back
to wav, just a waste of storage and time. It's not a zip file, once
you have compressed it, you can only compress it more.

Posted by T-Soma on Sep-27-2005 05:57:

The only possible way this would make a difference if it was some cd player with a dodgy mp3 decoder but i doubt the cdj has the problem and like everyone has said you cant add to a song by converting it back to mp3, once you loose the quality through conversion its gone!

Posted by Briden on Sep-27-2005 07:28:

quote:
Originally posted by djshtr
I play 320k mp3s on my CDJ from beatport and they sound as crisp and clean as any store-bought CD. 192kbps from audiojelly is a different story, however...

i have no problem with the 192 from audio jelly, haven't got any from beatport yet actually, i looked around and didn't see much psytrance, so i left. to tell the truth, i can't tell the difference between 192 and 320 from AJ, but then again, my ears are fookin blown!

i'm gonna go get one right now and take it on a big rig and compare. i have heard complaints of the treble being a little harsh and once asked to take it down a notch, it sounded fine to me, but i was outta the main speakers and only had one pretty quiet monitor.

that's the thing with digital, "crisp and clean" is exactly what it is, but it can be harsh.

so yeah, sorta hijacked that, but yeah, converting back up to wav is dumb (unless you are doing it so that you can burn a regular audio CD, and want to run it through a better converter than the one built into your CDburning program, which is probably what the above guy meant)

Posted by Magnus on Sep-28-2005 03:53:

Thanks for all the input and help guys. I appreciate it!