DJing Discussion

Forum
 DJing Discussion
Rebuilding a Collection in Lossless
This area is for discussion about DJing in general. Please remember the community rules when posting and try to be polite and inclusive.

Rebuilding a Collection in Lossless

Taipanic 6:12 PM - 22 April, 2014
I'm considering rebuilding much of my mp3 collection from scratch in a Lossless format. Many of the tracks I ripped from vinyl and CDs years ago just don't cut it at 192 & 225kb and I don't know if I want to go through all the hassle of reripping them in MP3 format and then have to do it again down the road.
What are recommendations for Lossless type? Also, are there any pools providing these yet, especially for older tracks, 50s-Current.

Thanks
Col Mustard 6:23 PM - 22 April, 2014
I use FLAC and convert to ALAC. Get an invite to What.cd.
djvtyme85 7:07 PM - 22 April, 2014
i applaud anyone willing to put in that much work but my 192k & 320k mp3s sound just fine. lol maybe if i start playing stadiums and such
Papa Midnight 7:11 PM - 22 April, 2014
So while illegal activities are organised in the above...

I recommend FLAC. It has the highest compatibility across the widest range of players. However, if you find yourself using Apple products exclusively, then go ALAC.

Outside of that, I stand by my recommendation of FLAC.

I don't know of any DJ pools that carry Lossless audio, though. Mostly, I've had to get mine by way of CD Singles or individual albums.

If you're going to re-rip your collection, I recommend ripping in FLAC at Level 8. It's the highest compression ratio without any loss.

That way, you also don't have to worry about re-ripping down the line: you just get the audio as it is on the CD.
WarpNote 7:33 PM - 22 April, 2014
FLAC is widely open, but sadly not supported by ipods/ipads.
Also, if you depend on album artwork, serato software does oddly enough not support it for FLAC, but does for ALAC.

A few years ago, I spent about 2,5 years ripping a CD collections, glad I chose ALAC back then. I still down convert to 320k, but at least I can go back to my master backups if I change my mind.

Alt least for new club music, both beatport & juno delivers lossless. Not cheap though...
dj_soo 12:05 AM - 23 April, 2014
I like ALAC mainly cause I use iTunes for organization and iTunes doesn't support FLAC
DJ Remy USA 12:50 AM - 23 April, 2014
you need direct music service aka DMS no need in ripping it unless they dont have it. Only gripe with DMS is most of the content has intros which is sort of wack cause some tracks you need to drop from the top instead of blending but its great pool but on the expensive side.
DJ Remy USA 1:40 AM - 23 April, 2014
Honestly 320Kbs sound damn good, I do not know how big FLAC or ALAC files are honestly. But 320kbs AAC in itunes is what I use and it sounds just as good as my WAV and AIFF files but thats just my opinion.
REDSELECTER 2:46 AM - 23 April, 2014
just a thought - the only lossless format that works across major DJ platforms is AIFF:

Serato Scratch Live/DJ
Traktor
Rekordbox / Pioneer CDJs
iTunes

metadata is not going to be preserved by WAV files
ALAC and FLAC are not supported by Pioneer (so if you want to just carry USB drives or SD cards you are SOL)

I archive and tag in ALAC using iTunes, then convert to AIFF for the files in my current playlists.
Rebelguy 2:54 AM - 23 April, 2014
Quote:
But 320kbs AAC in itunes is what I use and it sounds just as good as my WAV and AIFF files but thats just my opinion.


This is somewhat dependent on what kind of systems you are mixing on. I can tell the difference between a 320kbs mp3 and a wav at some venues and oftentimes on my own system.
Papa Midnight 4:36 AM - 23 April, 2014
Quote:
I do not know how big FLAC or ALAC files are honestly.

Depends on the compression level, bit-rate, bit-depth, sampling rate, and some other factors.

I.E.: Muse sold "The 2nd Law" as what they termed to be an "HD Digital Album." It was distributed online in FLAC. As I did not encode it, I cannot speak to it's compression settings. Here's the output from MediaInfo though for the song "Madness":
Quote:

Format : FLAC
Format/Info : Free Lossless Audio Codec
Duration : 4mn 39s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 3 122 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Sampling rate : 96.0 KHz
Bit depth : 24 bits
Stream size : 104 MiB (99%)
Writing library : libFLAC 1.2.1 (UTC 2007-09-17)

This track peaks at over 4.6Mbit/s (rough equivalent of DVD Audio)

Now here's the same track from the CD. FLAC Compression Level 8:
Quote:

Format : FLAC
Format/Info : Free Lossless Audio Codec
Duration : 4mn 39s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 876 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Sampling rate : 44.1 KHz
Bit depth : 16 bits
Stream size : 29.2 MiB (96%)
Writing library : libFLAC 1.2.1 (UTC 2007-09-17)

This one peaks at over 1.4Mbit/s (CD Audio)

Now here it is after I just ran it through dbPowerAmp to transcode it to 320Kbps MP3:
Quote:

Format : MPEG Audio
Format version : Version 1
Format profile : Layer 3
Mode : Joint stereo
Duration : 4mn 39s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 320 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Sampling rate : 44.1 KHz
Compression mode : Lossy
Stream size : 10.7 MiB (89%)
Writing library : LAME3.98r


Of course, with lower bit-rates, and compression comes more artifacting as well; and then there's the discussion to be had about loudness wars and the absolutely abhorent abuse of compression.

As a visual comparison, here's a screenshot of the waveform of each of these files together as viewed in Audacity. Red indicates where the audio clips. No edits have been made to any of these files beyond their form as they are presented at the time of purchase. The "HD" file (top) is as it is provided from the online store (muse.warnerbrosrecords.com), the CD File (middle) is at is when ripped from the CD (and transcoded into another lossless format, and the MP3 file (last) is a 320Kbps transcode of the CD Audio: i.imgur.com

Given the option, I'll take the first one any day of the week.
DJ Val-BKNY11203 5:21 AM - 23 April, 2014
Quote:
I can tell the difference between a 320kbs mp3 and a wav at some venues and oftentimes on my own system.


I call BS. I bet you can hear the warmness in the the mixer too.
Rebelguy 5:02 PM - 23 April, 2014
Quote:
Quote:
I can tell the difference between a 320kbs mp3 and a wav at some venues and oftentimes on my own system.


I call BS. I bet you can hear the warmness in the the mixer too.


Call it what you want. No I don't hear the warmness in my mixer, buy into the monster cable hype, believe that Bose is amazing or any other audio BS.

If you get a chance to listen on a good sound system (Meyer, Funktion One, Fulcrum Acoustic, EAW) that is set up correctly then the difference is easy to tell.
REDSELECTER 5:05 PM - 23 April, 2014
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I can tell the difference between a 320kbs mp3 and a wav at some venues and oftentimes on my own system.


I call BS. I bet you can hear the warmness in the the mixer too.


Call it what you want. No I don't hear the warmness in my mixer, buy into the monster cable hype, believe that Bose is amazing or any other audio BS.

If you get a chance to listen on a good sound system (Meyer, Funktion One, Fulcrum Acoustic, EAW) that is set up correctly then the difference is easy to tell.


THIS

but to be fair, some mixers also definitely sound crappier than others (I'm looking at you DJM-600)
Papa Midnight 5:49 PM - 23 April, 2014
Quote:
Quote:
I can tell the difference between a 320kbs mp3 and a wav at some venues and oftentimes on my own system.


I call BS. I bet you can hear the warmness in the the mixer too.

Quote:
As a visual comparison, here's a screenshot of the waveform of each of these files together as viewed in Audacity. Red indicates where the audio clips. No edits have been made to any of these files beyond their form as they are presented at the time of purchase. The "HD" file (top) is as it is provided from the online store (muse.warnerbrosrecords.com), the CD File (middle) is at is when ripped from the CD (and transcoded into another lossless format, and the MP3 file (last) is a 320Kbps transcode of the CD Audio: i.imgur.com

You really telling me that you couldn't hear that much clipping?
DJ Val-BKNY11203 6:06 PM - 23 April, 2014
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I can tell the difference between a 320kbs mp3 and a wav at some venues and oftentimes on my own system.


I call BS. I bet you can hear the warmness in the the mixer too.


Call it what you want. No I don't hear the warmness in my mixer, buy into the monster cable hype, believe that Bose is amazing or any other audio BS.

If you get a chance to listen on a good sound system (Meyer, Funktion One, Fulcrum Acoustic, EAW) that is set up correctly then the difference is easy to tell.



How many people are playing on and listening to music on that level of equipment?

I well produced 320 will sound different then the same produced wave granted because there is no compression. And it will not be that easy to tell. That said if you are just playing music and not doing a side by side comparison "listening for a change in sound" you will not know the difference between the two.
Taipanic 6:22 PM - 23 April, 2014
Found this thread on another Forum with a bunch of Lossless music sites - all legal downloads. I have not checked out any of them yet

www.head-fi.org
djvtyme85 8:09 PM - 23 April, 2014
i gotta say for those that are passionate about sound they are going to always say all this stuff. the truth is you can do all that work but unless all your cables & power are the same quality as your gear...your really not getting all the benefit. either way 9 times out 10 we are playing for intoxicated party goers...as long as the music is loud they give two craps about files, gear, your blends or whatever. i mean more power to yall and i respect anyone who takes that much in their collection but yes this is all ocd lol
 6 10:41 PM - 23 April, 2014
Quote:
i gotta say for those that are passionate about sound they are going to always say all this stuff. the truth is you can do all that work but unless all your cables & power are the same quality as your gear...your really not getting all the benefit. either way 9 times out 10 we are playing for intoxicated party goers...as long as the music is loud they give two craps about files, gear, your blends or whatever. i mean more power to yall and i respect anyone who takes that much in their collection but yes this is all ocd lol


QFT
Rebelguy 11:19 PM - 23 April, 2014
What's the big deal? Hard drives are cheap and the source material is out there.
DJ Remy USA 11:42 PM - 23 April, 2014
Quote:
What's the big deal? Hard drives are cheap and the source material is out there.

We all can agree that cheap is relative to ones gross income. With that being said I do not use external drives so 320Kbs AAC or MP3 sound great maybe not pristine but great none the less.
Papa Midnight 11:43 PM - 23 April, 2014
Quote:
Quote:
What's the big deal? Hard drives are cheap and the source material is out there.

We all can agree that cheap is relative to ones gross income.

Agreed.
 6 11:45 PM - 23 April, 2014
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What's the big deal? Hard drives are cheap and the source material is out there.

We all can agree that cheap is relative to ones gross income.

Agreed.



Yup

nm
blackavenger 4:20 AM - 24 April, 2014
I have been playing Lossless exclusive for years now. I have loads of FLACs, ALACs, AIFFs, and WAVs. While I have heard some properly mastered tracks that sound fine on 320 CBR, nothing beats a Lossless file for clarity & warmth.......as much as one can get from a digital format, that is. The best warmth comes from cut vinyl.

Some stores I purchase from offer AIFF, some FLAC, some WAV. As long as it's Lossless I don't really care. I prefer FLAC though.......smaller file sizes. But like Warpnote said, Serato has issues displaying FLAC artwork, so I tend to convert to ALAC a lot. Though, sometimes I get lazy and just go without.

I'm just glad that Serato supports FLAC after all of these years. It's nice to have the option.
DJ Benny B NYC 6:02 PM - 24 April, 2014
Quote:
i gotta say for those that are passionate about sound they are going to always say all this stuff. the truth is you can do all that work but unless all your cables & power are the same quality as your gear...your really not getting all the benefit. either way 9 times out 10 we are playing for intoxicated party goers...as long as the music is loud they give two craps about files, gear, your blends or whatever. i mean more power to yall and i respect anyone who takes that much in their collection but yes this is all ocd lol


Yes, this is it.

I suggest before you spend a lot of time converting to FLAC, that you make sure the speakers you play on are good enough to tell the difference. I know most of the places I have played, the difference heard between 320 & FLAC would be negligible or non-existent.
Papa Midnight 7:00 PM - 24 April, 2014
Just be sure that you're not converting from MP3 to FLAC. That would be absolutely pointless.
DJ Val-BKNY11203 1:13 AM - 25 April, 2014
Quote:
Quote:
i gotta say for those that are passionate about sound they are going to always say all this stuff. the truth is you can do all that work but unless all your cables & power are the same quality as your gear...your really not getting all the benefit. either way 9 times out 10 we are playing for intoxicated party goers...as long as the music is loud they give two craps about files, gear, your blends or whatever. i mean more power to yall and i respect anyone who takes that much in their collection but yes this is all ocd lol


Yes, this is it.

I suggest before you spend a lot of time converting to FLAC, that you make sure the speakers you play on are good enough to tell the difference. I know most of the places I have played, the difference heard between 320 & FLAC would be negligible or non-existent.


If you are not an audiophile with all the proper clean power & equipment. Or playing on concert grade rigs switching between Lossless & MP3 within your set, you can not tell.
Papa Midnight 1:15 AM - 25 April, 2014
Not necessarily. Anyone with even a decent set of headphones should be able to tell the difference, granted if they know what to listen for.
DJ Val-BKNY11203 1:18 AM - 25 April, 2014
Quote:
Not necessarily. Anyone with even a decent set of headphones should be able to tell the difference, granted if they know what to listen for.


That's the thing. If you have to "know" what to listen for...then it is not that that big of a difference.
blackavenger 5:13 AM - 25 April, 2014
Bass is very noticeable! I don't care what system your on.
Rebelguy 6:45 AM - 25 April, 2014
Quote:
Bass is very noticeable! I don't care what system your on.


Yup.
DJ Val-BKNY11203 11:18 AM - 25 April, 2014
Quote:
Quote:
Bass is very noticeable! I don't care what system your on.


Yup.



Sigh....yeah ok.
Steve E Wunda 12:09 PM - 25 April, 2014
Quote:
Bass is very noticeable! I don't care what system your on.


Most of the time yes, because the very highs and very lows are the first frequencies to be clipped off by the compression. The very highs the average human ear is not going to hear as the speaker manufacturers make speakers that have a high range above what the average human can hear, and then that high range is the first to decline with age. So most people won't even notice those are gone because the can't hear them to start with. The lower frequencies are not the ones you can hear either but the ones you can feel, that is where you will tell the difference, the lows will be very thin and won't move you like they are supposed to.

Your ears can tell, even if you think you can't tell the difference. Your ears will fatigue very quickly (within 20 mins) when listening to something with that much clipping in it, even at moderate to low sound levels. The more clipping the faster your ears will need a rest.
Taipanic 2:30 PM - 25 April, 2014
Yeah, the biggest difference I notice with my older MP3 rips is a lack of bass. When tracks that are supposed to hit hard when the bass drops and they don't, it makes me very sad :-(
Papa Midnight 10:34 PM - 25 April, 2014
Quote:
Quote:
Bass is very noticeable! I don't care what system your on.


Most of the time yes, because the very highs and very lows are the first frequencies to be clipped off by the compression. The very highs the average human ear is not going to hear as the speaker manufacturers make speakers that have a high range above what the average human can hear, and then that high range is the first to decline with age. So most people won't even notice those are gone because the can't hear them to start with. The lower frequencies are not the ones you can hear either but the ones you can feel, that is where you will tell the difference, the lows will be very thin and won't move you like they are supposed to.

I've been lucky to retain my hearing range so far for the upper portion, but indeed - we feel the lower range more than we hear it.

Quote:
Your ears can tell, even if you think you can't tell the difference. Your ears will fatigue very quickly (within 20 mins) when listening to something with that much clipping in it, even at moderate to low sound levels. The more clipping the faster your ears will need a rest.

This!
DJ DisGrace 2:22 AM - 26 April, 2014
Quote:
Quote:
Your ears can tell, even if you think you can't tell the difference. Your ears will fatigue very quickly (within 20 mins) when listening to something with that much clipping in it, even at moderate to low sound levels. The more clipping the faster your ears will need a rest.

This!

+1

If your club has a legit clean sound system, it won't even seem loud.... until you try to talk to someone.
Papa Midnight 3:04 AM - 26 April, 2014
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your ears can tell, even if you think you can't tell the difference. Your ears will fatigue very quickly (within 20 mins) when listening to something with that much clipping in it, even at moderate to low sound levels. The more clipping the faster your ears will need a rest.

This!

+1

If your club has a legit clean sound system, it won't even seem loud.... until you try to talk to someone.

...and then there's the clubs that send everyone home with tinnitus at the end of the night.
Name already taken 8:07 PM - 28 February, 2015
Quote:
So while illegal activities are organised in the above...

I recommend FLAC. It has the highest compatibility across the widest range of players. However, if you find yourself using Apple products exclusively, then go ALAC.

Outside of that, I stand by my recommendation of FLAC.

I don't know of any DJ pools that carry Lossless audio, though. Mostly, I've had to get mine by way of CD Singles or individual albums.

If you're going to re-rip your collection, I recommend ripping in FLAC at Level 8. It's the highest compression ratio without any loss.

That way, you also don't have to worry about re-ripping down the line: you just get the audio as it is on the CD.


I use Flac. Unfortunately Serato does not read/write about 1/2 of the tag parameters in a Flac file. This includes the Key information - meaning that you will have to search though your library to see the key of each song and it will not show up in the deck view. So to mix in harmony to your next song you will have to find the song you already have loaded again in your library before finding the song to mix into. Not a very efficient system.... Also you will not know what label the track is from and any comments you add will only be saved in your library and do not exist in the actual file - so if you re-load those tracks the info does not exist.....

I just started a new discussion pertaining to this problem as Serato has been promising a fix to me for over a year now with no result in sight. Please add yo the discussion topic to get them on the ball ASAP.

serato.com

By the way Flac sounds much better than MP3's, I am ripping my vinyl 24bit 192khz (but must convert to 96khz for serato). It sounds very nice as I am using a good Pre-amp and needle for my turntable after cleaning my records with a VCM. CD quality is significantly better than MP3's....

Flac seems to be the industry standard and it is ridiculous to be expected to convert all files to Apples proprietary format.....
REDSELECTER 8:12 PM - 28 February, 2015
Quote:
I use Flac. Unfortunately Serato does not read/write about 1/2 of the tag parameters in a Flac file. This includes the Key information - meaning that you will have to search though your library to see the key of each song and it will not show up in the deck view. So to mix in harmony to your next song you will have to find the song you already have loaded again in your library before finding the song to mix into. Not a very efficient system.... Also you will not know what label the track is from and any comments you add will only be saved in your library and do not exist in the actual file - so if you re-load those tracks the info does not exist.....


ALAC is actually open source now - en.wikipedia.org
Name already taken 8:26 PM - 28 February, 2015
I could care less that apples proprietary format is now ALLOWED to be used by others without paying Apple. I am not converting my library and I do NOT use itunes....
REDSELECTER 8:29 PM - 28 February, 2015
Quote:
I could care less that apples proprietary format is now ALLOWED to be used by others without paying Apple. I am not converting my library and I do NOT use itunes....


have it your way but it is not a proprietary format anymore

Apple has put it in to the public domain under the Apache License, they no longer have any say in it other than being able to continue to contribute to the development if they want.
Name already taken 8:33 PM - 28 February, 2015
Ok, that is great I guess if you use it. I don't and therefore it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I use Flac and recommend it as the standard lossless format.
blackavenger 3:02 PM - 1 March, 2015
FLAC files are smaller than ALAC as well. I realize it's only by 3 to 8MBs, but still....
WarpNote 7:31 PM - 1 March, 2015
Quote:
Flac seems to be the industry standard

Industry standard?
Does Pioneer support FLAC now?
Did I miss something?
Flac, industry standard... LOL
Papa Midnight 7:44 PM - 1 March, 2015
Quote:
Quote:
Flac seems to be the industry standard

Industry standard?
Does Pioneer support FLAC now?
Did I miss something?
Flac, industry standard... LOL

Let me see if I understand your logic: If Pioneer doesn't support it, then it is not an "industry standard". Is that correct?

If so, then that's utterly ridiculous.

Negating the fact that PioneerDJ does not provide support for neither FLAC nor ALAC -- FLAC has seen greater adoption by the music industry as a whole for the digital distribution of lossless media than any other format combined - even the ages old incumbent AIFF format. With that said, he's not wrong: it is the de facto "industry standard" (since people here seem to like to throw that word around even though it means absolutely nothing in this space).
WarpNote 8:02 PM - 1 March, 2015
My point beeing there is not really one true lossless file industry standard.

I referenced to Pioneer because the CDJ is
considered an industry stand, no other underlying message.

If any file format is to be considered DJ industry standard,
then that would either be mp3 320 and wav/aiff.
Even though we are serato users, you'll find a lot more
USB key jocks in the club than laptop users.
In mobile It's the other way around though,
but you know this anyway.

You find it ridiculous, and I do tend to agree with you.
I think both FLAC & ALAC should have wide support.

We might not like it, but thats actually the reality of it...

Quote:
FLAC has seen greater adoption by the music industry as a whole for the digital distribution of lossless media than any other format combined
Please show me some refernence for this?
I'd love if it was so, but have yet to see real evidence for it..
Papa Midnight 10:31 PM - 1 March, 2015
It's hard to show specific references so I'll cite a few storefronts and make note about what they sell (disregarding lossy formats):

HDtracks is one of the most popular sites and distributes most of it's library in all four of the most popular formats: FLAC, ALAC, AIFF, and WAV.

iTrax distributes FLAC, WMA Pro (eww...), DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD.

Bowers & Wilkins Society of Sound distributes mostly FLAC with some ALAC (for a while, ALAC lacked support for 192KHz/24bit)

Acoustic Sounds: FLAC and ALAC (see prior note about 192KHz and ALAC).

The Classical Shop: FLAC, AIFF, WAV

Pristine Classical: FLAC

ProStudioMasters: FLAC, AIFF, DSD

ProMates: FLAC, AIFF, DXD

HighResAudio: FLAC (as far as I know, they're only FLAC)

BeatPort: WAV, AIFF

BandCamp: FLAC, ALAC

Warner Music (very few actual options): FLAC

Ironically, iTunes doesn't sell ALAC files.
djvtyme85 3:11 AM - 2 March, 2015
considering the only people who actually appreciate and can discern the difference of lossless formats are DJs/Producers and Audiophiles....who really cares except the 7-8 people on this thread lol
DJMark 5:32 AM - 2 March, 2015
Quote:
considering the only people who actually appreciate and can discern the difference of lossless formats are DJs/Producers and Audiophiles....who really cares except the 7-8 people on this thread lol


Missing the point completely...
WarpNote 8:36 AM - 2 March, 2015
Well, thats kinda of my point. Even though we, as "striving highend" DJ's would prefer lossless. Lossy formats are still much the "industry standard", kinda sad, but true..

I have been doing blind A/B tests using lossless and mp320 in a club, before opening hours.
I have not been able to hear any difference. You might argue I got hearing loos/damage or whatever, but none of the sound techs were able to tell the difference either. The club was running a Funktion One setup. However, I did hear a difference when switching out the djm900nexus for a rane 68.

And, when adding the noise of the club audience into the equation...
blackavenger 9:08 AM - 2 March, 2015
Damn, you get to regularly play on a Funktion One setup?

::jealous::
WarpNote 9:29 AM - 2 March, 2015
They put up a Funktion One for a while to test it. Stayed in the club for a couple of months, but they have reverted back to their Turbosound setup since. And to be honest, I prefer the turbosound. There's a few other clubs in town running Funktion One as well. I did a closing set at one of these clubs late last year. I played mostly lossy 320k files, and a few lossless, using the xone92. Soundtech, resident promoters, light people all present, NONE could hear a difference... Just sayin....
blackavenger 1:03 PM - 2 March, 2015
Could you tell a difference?
WarpNote 1:35 PM - 2 March, 2015
On the club system, I could not tell the difference between a 320k and a lossles ALAC,
both sourced from a cd. Tried it in SSL, not SDJ, both with and without the keylock.
I did not try higher end 92k files. I've read people can hear the bass break up at lower pitch, but I did not hear a difference myself.

But I could tell the difference when using the 68 over the djm900nxs. Somewhat "smoother/warmer" sound to it. Very clear output on the 68, it's hard to describe.
Could maybe say that the 900 sounded somewhat more brutal?

That said, I did sell my 68 to get the 900srt, as most local clubs have 900 mixers installed,
I wanted to learn the ins and outs of the 900 as much as possible. Still missing a Rane mixer though (one of my recidencies have a 64 permanently installed), hoping to find a good deal on a used 62 once the 57mk2 drops....

To be honest, I think both brands (pio & rane) provide more than sufficient sound quality for most clubs using 320k files. That said, I will start future proofing my collection at one point, as I have all my back-catalog (old cd collection) ripped as ALAC files. I just prioritize file size over lossless at the moment.

I have since switched to SDJ, and as I'm no longer playing on a funktion one regularly, I'm out of options for more A/B testing on such a system for now. Actually I am playing on 3rd funktion 1 system in few weeks, but this one is smaller, and I've always run lossy files on that system in the past. I has been sounding very nice each time... (SDJ, djm900nxs, cdj2000 in HID or controll tone)
Papa Midnight 3:32 PM - 2 March, 2015
Quote:
Quote:
considering the only people who actually appreciate and can discern the difference of lossless formats are DJs/Producers and Audiophiles....who really cares except the 7-8 people on this thread lol


Missing the point completely...

Indeed.

Quote:
Well, thats kinda of my point. Even though we, as "striving highend" DJ's would prefer lossless. Lossy formats are still much the "industry standard", kinda sad, but true..

This is disappointingly true. Most of the major storefronts still provide music in a lossy format: Amazon, and Google Play both distribute MP3, and iTunes distributes AAC. None of them even provide an option for a lossless format.

Quote:
I have been doing blind A/B tests using lossless and mp320 in a club, before opening hours.
I have not been able to hear any difference.
[...]
However, I did hear a difference when switching out the djm900nexus for a rane 68.

My question here might be the source. In example: I can play a 96/24 file all I want, but it makes no difference if the DAC only supports up-to 48/16 (or 48/24 in the case of the Rane 68).

Quote:
Soundtech, resident promoters, light people all present, NONE could hear a difference... Just sayin....

To be honest, I wouldn't know what to tell you here. As with perception of sight, auditory perception differs from person to person.

Quote:
That said, I will start future proofing my collection at one point, as I have all my back-catalog (old cd collection) ripped as ALAC files.

Good move.

Quote:
I just prioritize file size over lossless at the moment.

I have to admit, the file sizes of some of these are brutal, and getting lossless files has made me need to evaluate my storage necessities.
 6 4:37 PM - 2 March, 2015
Worried about size over audio? Wait until you move to video.

nm
Rebelguy 5:29 PM - 2 March, 2015
Quote:
Worried about size over audio? Wait until you move to video.

nm


Yup
Papa Midnight 6:20 PM - 2 March, 2015
Quote:
Worried about size over audio? Wait until you move to video.

This is the truth right here. I'm primarily audio-only, but I've been picking up some videos as well.

Between the 720p and 1080p videos that I have (encoded with AVC and AAC audio), we're looking at an average of 150MB per file. The AAC audio is lossy, though.

Still, that's nothing in comparison to the size of some of these FLAC conversions that I have. It's all fun and games till you get a single 8.7mbps 96KHz 24-bit 8 minute file that weighs in at 492MB.
WarpNote 6:49 PM - 2 March, 2015
Quote:
Worried about size over audio? Wait until you move to video.

nm

I actually do visuals as well, I will probably never do "regular" video,
but as a motion graphics artist for over 15 years, I know all about file sizes.... ;-)
Even more reason to care about storage space...
And I dont really worry, I just work with the limitations at hand.

My stuff is encoded in DXV resolume codec for live work.
I keep my master renders in either prores or animation codec...

Btw here's a visuals job I did thursday, with a live act. -> Watchwww.youtube.com
And here are my 2014 & 2011 showreels: notevarp.com

I do agree that we should strive for the best possible quality both when it comes to sound and image. Been working with the RED cameras lately, and those 4k / 5k videofiles does take a lot of "infrastructure"....

However, what I know, is that I trust my hearing and vision, so I will have make practical compromises if I don't find them to be perceptible for the end product. Ie using compression on a PA that won't reveal it. That being said, I do work on my library on a day to day basis, in order to trim down, to make room for lossless eventually.

To be honest, the compression happening in video,
is actually far worse than what is used in most audio.
 6 7:48 PM - 2 March, 2015
"However, what I know, is that I trust my hearing and vision, so I will have make practical compromises if I don't find them to be perceptible for the end product."

That right there is what everyone should concentrate on. I see so 320 files that sound worse than a 128K one ... and I'm not talking about transcoding either.

nm
Papa Midnight 7:55 PM - 2 March, 2015
Quote:
That right there is what everyone should concentrate on. I see so 320 files that sound worse than a 128K one ... and I'm not talking about transcoding either.

Crappy mastering is crappy mastering.
d:raf 10:08 PM - 2 March, 2015
Interesting related article: www.askaudiomag.com

Quote:
Here's What You Don’t Hear When Music is Compressed
Rounik Sethi on Feb 21, 2015

One way to end the MP3 vs uncompressed audio format, 'does it sound better' debate would be to hear the elements from a song which are lost during compression... and here's a video showing just that.

The emergence of “high-quality” media players in recent months, like the PonoPlayer, has sparked a debate about whether we notice the difference between compressed formats like mp3 vs uncompressed ones like WAV. While MP3 and other compressed audio files formats have made it possible to more easily download, share and store and take more music with us on our portable devices, there are elements and often frequency bands that are lost during the compression process.

While the quality of compressed vs uncompressed music could be viewed as a subjective part of our listening experience, Ryan Maguire, a Ph.D. student in Composition and Computer Technologies at the University of Virginia Center for Computer Music, was interested in investigating exactly what parts of a song get excluded during the compression process. And he’s found a way to allow us to hear what we’re not hearing!

In this fascinating video from his website, Ryan has created an audio file of all the sounds that were discarded once the song “Tom’s Diner” by Suzanne Vega was digitally compressed:

[video imbedded in article]

In an interview with difuser.fm, Ryan explains more about these “lost” sounds: “What are these lost sounds? Are they sounds which human ears can not hear in their original context due to universal perceptual limitations or are they simply encoding detritus,” he asks. “It is commonly accepted that MP3s create audible artifacts such as pre-echo, but what does the music which this codec deletes sound like? In the work presented here, techniques are considered and developed to recover these lost sounds, the ghosts in the MP3, and reformulate these sounds as art.”

As many professional producers and musicians will probably agree, it’s as interesting to hear what is left out than what is actually transmitted through a song. But, questions remain on how seriously compressed formats have affected/ruined our listening experience, and whether being able to listen to a song as the producer meant it to be heard is applicable when the audio file format is just one element that affects sound quality… yes, iPod/iPhone headphones I’m staring straight at you…

Source: diffuser.fm
DJMark 2:19 AM - 3 March, 2015
Quote:
Ryan Maguire, a Ph.D. student in Composition and Computer Technologies at the University of Virginia Center for Computer Music, was interested in investigating exactly what parts of a song get excluded during the compression process. And he’s found a way to allow us to hear what we’re not hearing!


Kind of funny because I did exactly that same thing...in 1996.
blackavenger 2:29 AM - 3 March, 2015
Here's a fun game a friend sent me to test your ears for whether they can recognize Lossless tracks or not....

test.tidalhifi.com
d:raf 2:31 AM - 3 March, 2015
Quote:
Quote:
Ryan Maguire, a Ph.D. student in Composition and Computer Technologies at the University of Virginia Center for Computer Music, was interested in investigating exactly what parts of a song get excluded during the compression process. And he’s found a way to allow us to hear what we’re not hearing!


Kind of funny because I did exactly that same thing...in 1996.


...but you didn't put it on Vimeo :).
 6 2:33 AM - 3 March, 2015
Quote:
Quote:
Ryan Maguire, a Ph.D. student in Composition and Computer Technologies at the University of Virginia Center for Computer Music, was interested in investigating exactly what parts of a song get excluded during the compression process. And he’s found a way to allow us to hear what we’re not hearing!


Kind of funny because I did exactly that same thing...in 1996.


Isn't it obvious what parts of a song get compressed?

nm
blackavenger 2:37 AM - 3 March, 2015
What sold me on FLAC files waaay back was listening to the actual hard copy CD of Fiona Apple's - "Tidal" album versus a lossy 320CBR version of it. The clarity and punch that is lost on the compressed version is undeniable.
d:raf 6:16 AM - 3 March, 2015
Quote:

Kind of funny because I did exactly that same thing...in 1996.


Isn't it obvious what parts of a song get compressed?

nm

Honestly, until I listened to that clip I thought it was mostly just sub-bass and highs with a little aliasing. They used the original "acapella" version of "Tom's Diner" and there was plenty to hear... you can even make out some of the words.
WarpNote 6:58 AM - 3 March, 2015
SDJ 1.7.4 beta supposedly fixes artwork on FLAC files :-)
WarpNote 7:00 AM - 3 March, 2015
Hm forum bug... I only posted once..
DJMark 7:08 AM - 3 March, 2015
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ryan Maguire, a Ph.D. student in Composition and Computer Technologies at the University of Virginia Center for Computer Music, was interested in investigating exactly what parts of a song get excluded during the compression process. And he’s found a way to allow us to hear what we’re not hearing!


Kind of funny because I did exactly that same thing...in 1996.


Isn't it obvious what parts of a song get compressed?

nm


In the mid 90's when lossy audio codec technology was still pretty new, no it wasn't.

It's also (unfortunately) true that "Tom's Diner" (the original acapella version) was used in a lot of lossy-codec tecting back in those days. I say "unfortunately" because it was completely un-revealing of many codec limitations, such as transient smearing/pre-echo, loss of bass definition, artifacting on complex harmonics...

Fortunately AAC was subjected to much more rigorous testing before it was released.
DJMark 7:08 AM - 3 March, 2015
Something phunky with the phorum this evening...
WarpNote 7:17 AM - 3 March, 2015
Quote:
Something phunky with the phorum this evening...

It's probably pressure due to the beta club kit.....
Gio Alex 4:31 PM - 3 March, 2015
Btw one of the new beta bug fixes: Album Art In FLAC files is not displayed

Not sure if anyone mentioned this or not.
Papa Midnight 4:45 PM - 3 March, 2015
Glitch in the Matrix!
Gio Alex 4:48 PM - 3 March, 2015
Quote:
Glitch in the Matrix!


Haha yup
Detroitbootybass 5:14 PM - 3 March, 2015
Quote:
Here's a fun game a friend sent me to test your ears for whether they can recognize Lossless tracks or not....

test.tidalhifi.com



I got them all correct and never let the audio go beyond 6-8 seconds: tinypic.com

Frankly, I was shocked that I did as well as I did. I didn't think the lossless/lossy divide would be as noticeable (and I didn't even hook my sound system up - I just used the stand-alone stock computer speakers/sub combination).

I'd like to perform this kind of A/B testing on my own as there is a financial incentive for that site to maximize the differences between the two. But having said that, one should always strive for the best quality possible... within reason, obviously. A really crappy sound system likely won't make a 24 bit/48 kHz file noticeable. By that same token, a really good system will show the deficiencies of a poorly encoded lossy file.
Detroitbootybass 5:18 PM - 3 March, 2015
ECHO... Echo... echo...
 6 7:39 PM - 3 March, 2015
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ryan Maguire, a Ph.D. student in Composition and Computer Technologies at the University of Virginia Center for Computer Music, was interested in investigating exactly what parts of a song get excluded during the compression process. And he’s found a way to allow us to hear what we’re not hearing!


Kind of funny because I did exactly that same thing...in 1996.


Isn't it obvious what parts of a song get compressed?

nm


In the mid 90's when lossy audio codec technology was still pretty new, no it wasn't.

It's also (unfortunately) true that "Tom's Diner" (the original acapella version) was used in a lot of lossy-codec tecting back in those days. I say "unfortunately" because it was completely un-revealing of many codec limitations, such as transient smearing/pre-echo, loss of bass definition, artifacting on complex harmonics...

Fortunately AAC was subjected to much more rigorous testing before it was released.


I thought the article was from this decade, not the 90's. Unless I'm wrong. :P

nm
DJMark 9:41 PM - 3 March, 2015
Quote:
I thought the article was from this decade, not the 90's


Yes the article was apparently new. My point was that I (and others) did the "inverse-phase summing to reveal lossy codec artifacts" mentioned in the article nearly 20 years ago, it's nothing new.
d:raf 10:18 PM - 3 March, 2015
I guess the question I have is are the Mp3 codecs we're using today the same as (or similar to) the ones we used in the 90's?
WarpNote 10:22 PM - 3 March, 2015
LAME has been developed during the years,
how much though, I have no idea...

I don't really think most were even using 320k back then?
More like 192k and below right?
 6 10:34 PM - 3 March, 2015
Quote:
Quote:
I thought the article was from this decade, not the 90's


Yes the article was apparently new. My point was that I (and others) did the "inverse-phase summing to reveal lossy codec artifacts" mentioned in the article nearly 20 years ago, it's nothing new.


Oh okay. lol Got me confused for a second. :)

nm
 6 10:35 PM - 3 March, 2015
I read an article about HDMI cables today and they said that they've supported 4K technology since the 90's. So, I don't see why MP3's or other technology wouldn't have thought ahead of time.

nm
WarpNote 10:40 PM - 3 March, 2015
Six, you got a link for the HDMI article?
 6 10:46 PM - 3 March, 2015
Quote:
Six, you got a link for the HDMI article?



Here you go.

www.yahoo.com

"“People don’t realize, but we actually supported 4K at up to 30fps back in 2009,” says Park."

nm
 6 10:47 PM - 3 March, 2015
oops! 09 not 90's... I'm dyslexic. :P

nm
Mr. Goodkat 10:58 PM - 3 March, 2015
it does sound better, but if you play files or redrum/edits from one of these record pools (any pool, most of all of those files are awful), it makes them sound really bad.

i think thats the easiest comparison. you can find quality mp3 files out there but the record pool files are the ones that really make the clear files.

use a lossless file vs a redrum/reedit/transition track and the difference becomes pretty obvious. plus older files are not as hot as newer ones so if you tweak in logic you can start with a better file to work with if you have a cd or wav/aiff in a workstation than something that has already been converted to lossless.
Mr. Goodkat 10:58 PM - 3 March, 2015
already been converted to lossy. (edit)
WarpNote 10:58 PM - 3 March, 2015
Yep even 1080p was unheard of back then. That was preserved for 2k cinema. Anamorphic NTSC/PAL 10 bit was considered highend then.
Mr. Goodkat 11:01 PM - 3 March, 2015
Quote:
but the record pool files are the ones that really make the clear difference between files.(lossy and lossless)
DJMark 11:16 PM - 3 March, 2015
Quote:
I guess the question I have is are the Mp3 codecs we're using today the same as (or similar to) the ones we used in the 90's?


The codecs are unquestionable better now. LAME was a substantial improvement over the Franhaufer and Xing encoders (Xing was pretty terrible, its main reason for existing was faster encoding speed on the much-slower hardware of the day).

But... I'll just lift a quote from the Wikipedia article about MP3 because it sums things up pretty well:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"There are several limitations inherent to the MP3 format that cannot be overcome by any MP3 encoder. Newer audio compression formats such as AAC, WMA Pro and Vorbis are generally free of a number of these limitations. In technical terms, some limitations include:

Time resolution can be too low for highly transient signals and may cause smearing of percussive sounds.
Due to the tree structure of the filter bank, pre-echo problems are made worse, as the combined impulse response of the two filter banks does not, and cannot, provide an optimum solution in time/frequency resolution.
The combining of the two filter banks' outputs creates aliasing problems that must be handled partially by the "aliasing compensation" stage; however, that creates excess energy to be coded in the frequency domain, thereby decreasing coding efficiency.[citation needed]
Frequency resolution is limited by the small long block window size, which decreases coding efficiency.
There is no scale factor band for frequencies above 15.5/15.8 kHz.
Joint stereo is done only on a frame-to-frame basis.
Internal handling of the bit reservoir increases encoding delay.
Encoder/decoder overall delay is not defined, which means there is no official provision for gapless playback. However, some encoders such as LAME can attach additional metadata that will allow players that can handle it to deliver seamless playback.
The data stream can contain an optional checksum, but the checksum only protects the header data, not the audio data."
Name already taken 7:16 PM - 4 March, 2015
If you scratch then the sample is vastly slowed or sped up. This will make a difference when the resolution is higher. Just like if you were to look at a picture with a magnifying glass, a lower resolution image will look grainy when magnified. I do not understand why people argue that mp3's sound as good. It is as if they think the sound goes directly from the speaker to your ear. Sound reverberates and different parts of the wave are bounced off of different objects in different directions hitting your ear in different ways. Higher resolution sounds better. So take any experiments you have that prove that mp3's sound as good (as they were likely done in a controlled environment using headphones or a small soundproof room) and compress those experiments to say 320kbps and shove them up yer ass..........
Mr. Goodkat 8:26 PM - 4 March, 2015
Quote:
o take any experiments you have that prove that mp3's sound as good (as they were likely done in a controlled environment using headphones or a small soundproof room) and compress those experiments to say 320kbps and shove them up yer ass..........



:P
WarpNote 2:01 PM - 6 March, 2015
Quote:
So take any experiments you have that prove that mp3's sound as good (as they were likely done in a controlled environment using headphones or a small soundproof room) and compress those experiments to say 320kbps and shove them up yer ass..........

I'm not debating that part, but what I AM saying is:
Quote:
I have been doing blind A/B tests using lossless and mp320 in a club,
before opening hours. I have not been able to hear any difference.

And:
Quote:
They put up a Funktion One for a while to test it. Stayed in the club for a couple of months, but they have reverted back to their Turbosound setup since. And to be honest, I prefer the turbosound. There's a few other clubs in town running Funktion One as well. I did a closing set at one of these clubs late last year. I played mostly lossy 320k files, and a few lossless, using the xone92. Soundtech, resident promoters, light people all present, NONE could hear a difference...

Playing clubs and setting up hifi rooms are 2 different things. Maybe at some point the gap will close. I do keep my master backup archive lossless, and I am working on making room for a loossless gig library. But not just yet ;-)
Mr. Goodkat 8:09 PM - 6 March, 2015
we can all agree that lossless files are inherently a better quality file than a mp3. so regardless of if you can hear it or not, lossless are better.

im sure someone will take this as personal attack but its the bottom line truth.
 6 9:10 PM - 6 March, 2015
Quote:
we can all agree that lossless files are inherently a better quality file than a mp3. so regardless of if you can hear it or not, lossless are better.

im sure someone will take this as personal attack but its the bottom line truth.


I disagree. It really depends on the quality of the source.

Ann
SeriousCyrus 10:38 PM - 6 March, 2015
I personally avoid any compression on my home music library. Whenever possible, i purchase music in wav format and covert straight to aiff so i can use meta data. Disk space is less of an issue nowadays, and i'm the sort of selfish dj who will only play stuff i like.

I stick with uncompressed even though i can't really tell the difference between a well encoded file from the uncompressed as ultimately your computer will be doing more work uncompressing files as you dj. I'm already pushing it to the limit with visual stuff, i'm bot sure how much that is worth.

I also worry than with any compression that takes information away, no matter if it's stuff you can't hear, i always wonder what it might be.

Oth, it's amazing what people don't hear, i'm sure most people here could tell the audio difference between a track on spotify or a youtube video and a high quality version, it's the bass that always gets me. but joe bloggs is oblivious as they've never heard it from a decent sound source, happy with shitty stock earbus and cheap stereos placed in a corner for background music. Even when given a decent stereo to play, it's just to crank it up rather than hear it better.

Btw, did you know itunes has an opttion while synching to automatically encode higher quality files into aac to save space on your iphone/ipad, you can set the compression too.
Mr. Goodkat 11:54 PM - 6 March, 2015
Quote:
Quote:
we can all agree that lossless files are inherently a better quality file than a mp3. so regardless of if you can hear it or not, lossless are better.

im sure someone will take this as personal attack but its the bottom line truth.


I disagree. It really depends on the quality of the source.

Ann


thats why i love 6. he'll at least troll by saying something so ridiculous, you know he's trolling.
 6 4:59 AM - 7 March, 2015
I didn't say that. Ann did. :-P

nm
d:raf 8:16 PM - 1 April, 2015
So, was reading one of a few random articles about how useless it is for Jay Z & company to try to get people to pay for "Tidal" subscriptions when I stumbled across the fact that they use FLAC and that the tracks are downloadable, which might just make them the best "record pool" ever. Anybody here checked 'em out yet?
Mr. Goodkat 8:29 PM - 1 April, 2015
i would think you would have to play them through the tidal app. flac and wireless in alac.
DJ Remy USA 5:02 PM - 2 April, 2015
Quote:
i would think you would have to play them through the tidal app. flac and wireless in alac.


You can get around this remember DRM with itunes I got around that very easily by using a program called switch Im sure they are seriously thinking about locking the files to their software. Its not Whitelabel.net
DJ Remy USA 5:02 PM - 2 April, 2015
Quote:
So, was reading one of a few random articles about how useless it is for Jay Z & company to try to get people to pay for "Tidal" subscriptions when I stumbled across the fact that they use FLAC and that the tracks are downloadable, which might just make them the best "record pool" ever. Anybody here checked 'em out yet?


If this happens it will be great for back catalouge stuff I will have a field day
d:raf 6:22 PM - 2 April, 2015
It looks like so far "offline mode" is only supported by the Tidal app on mobile devices, but they're working on it for PC & Mac OS. tidalsupport.zendesk.com
Mr. Goodkat 6:29 PM - 2 April, 2015
theyre not giving away millions of lossless files for 20 a month. cmon guys, think about it.
Papa Midnight 12:05 AM - 3 April, 2015
Quote:
Quote:
i would think you would have to play them through the tidal app. flac and wireless in alac.


You can get around this remember DRM with itunes I got around that very easily by using a program called switch Im sure they are seriously thinking about locking the files to their software. Its not Whitelabel.net

Whitelabel.net's DRM is not a game, haha.
DJ Remy USA 5:35 PM - 3 April, 2015
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
i would think you would have to play them through the tidal app. flac and wireless in alac.


You can get around this remember DRM with itunes I got around that very easily by using a program called switch Im sure they are seriously thinking about locking the files to their software. Its not Whitelabel.net

Whitelabel.net's DRM is not a game, haha.


Whitelabels security is pretty damn tight, its hackable but why hack whats given freely so no one has even put in the effort plus its a DJ pool consumers dont visit DJ pools and they certianly dont want (Intro/Clean/Dirty/Extended) on all of their songs either.
Name already taken 5:16 AM - 4 April, 2015
I think the main problem here is that Jay Z's rhymes ain't that fresh and Jay Z's flow ain't that tight....
d:raf 5:57 AM - 4 April, 2015
Marketing fiasco? www.digitalmusicnews.com
Name already taken 6:01 AM - 4 April, 2015
I like this Drip.fm though. That is the right direction!
u0fptmk 6:14 AM - 2 May, 2015
Everyone can hear the difference between original CD and MP3 on a Hi-Fi system.
Original CD sounds rich and full bodied.
MP3 sounds thin and compressed.
Playing MP3's in a club would be like playing a 1CD AVI's in IMAX, people that are paying to be in a club expect to hear quality music, mmmkay?
blackavenger 6:40 AM - 2 May, 2015
Actually, only us audiophiles give a damn about sound quality. The typical club goer could care less. I've seen kats react just as favorably to DJs playing 192vbr tracks, as those playing 24bit Lossless.

That said, I refuse to play anything below 320CBR, and primarily play Lossless (WAV, FLAC, AIFF, ALAC) files, regardless of whether the crowd cares or not. I care! That's all that matters.
SeriousCyrus 1:46 PM - 2 May, 2015
Sometimes they can tell the difference, saw a dj round here once play at a DnB night with tracks of shockingly low quality, there was literally no bass, hell knows how he thought he could get away with it, everyone stopped dancing. He lasted about twent minutes before getting chucked off and he looked pissed, didn't even understand why.
blackavenger 7:29 PM - 2 May, 2015
Hahaha. ...yeah, lossy sucks out tthe bass for sure!! I primarily play Dance Music that has an emphasis on Bass. That's why I'm so passionate about Lossless.
benny b 2:41 PM - 11 May, 2015
Is it possible to transfer the metadata from old lower quality files to the new replacement lossless files?

I want to upgrade from some low bitrate files to lossless (or at least 256/320 kbps) but I'm concerned that doing so will mean I lose all my cue points and the like.

Anyone know a workaround?
Papa Midnight 3:24 AM - 12 May, 2015
Quote:
Is it possible to transfer the metadata from old lower quality files to the new replacement lossless files?

I want to upgrade from some low bitrate files to lossless (or at least 256/320 kbps) but I'm concerned that doing so will mean I lose all my cue points and the like.

Anyone know a workaround?

You can try using the Copy Tag function of Mp3tag to attempt to do so, but it's really an honest toss-up. I know it will carry over all of the tag information (up-to-and-including album art), but I cannot tell you if it will copy any of the custom tags that Serato's programs set.

Good luck.
benny b 4:37 AM - 12 May, 2015
Thanks for the reply. I'll give that a go and report back.
benny b 1:22 PM - 12 May, 2015
Quote:
You can try using the Copy Tag function of Mp3tag to attempt to do so, but it's really an honest toss-up. I know it will carry over all of the tag information (up-to-and-including album art), but I cannot tell you if it will copy any of the custom tags that Serato's programs set.

Good luck.


Unfortunately this didn't copy the Serato metadata. I tried my usual trick re-linking the file in iTunes, which also failed. Thanks anyway.
Papa Midnight 1:50 PM - 12 May, 2015
Sorry, dude. I really wish Serato would make this easier. I have multiple copies of several songs (Clean, Dirty, Instrumental, Super Clean, etc.) and would really like to be able to just copy loops and cues without needing to set them per track.
benny b 1:54 PM - 12 May, 2015
Oh yeah that'd be handy indeed. Thanks again. I'll keep looking for a workaround.
DJMark 10:11 PM - 13 May, 2015
Quote:
Sorry, dude. I really wish Serato would make this easier. I have multiple copies of several songs (Clean, Dirty, Instrumental, Super Clean, etc.) and would really like to be able to just copy loops and cues without needing to set them per track.


The idea is nice, but it wouldn't work unless the timing of all versions was exactly the same.

My experience with files ripped from CD singles has generally been that the various versions do NOT start audio at the exact same instant (relative to the beginning of the track) and of course an a capella would likely be way different (starting at some length into the actual song).
Papa Midnight 11:06 PM - 13 May, 2015
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, dude. I really wish Serato would make this easier. I have multiple copies of several songs (Clean, Dirty, Instrumental, Super Clean, etc.) and would really like to be able to just copy loops and cues without needing to set them per track.


The idea is nice, but it wouldn't work unless the timing of all versions was exactly the same.

My experience with files ripped from CD singles has generally been that the various versions do NOT start audio at the exact same instant (relative to the beginning of the track) and of course an a capella would likely be way different (starting at some length into the actual song).

It varies. I've had some that start on time, and some that don't.
Papa Midnight 11:07 PM - 13 May, 2015
That said, I'm also considering some of the files in my collection as I've been bringing in Lossless Audio (mostly in FLAC) to supplement MP3s and it would be so convenient to just copy their tags...
dj_soo 11:18 AM - 16 May, 2015
Quote:
Sorry, dude. I really wish Serato would make this easier. I have multiple copies of several songs (Clean, Dirty, Instrumental, Super Clean, etc.) and would really like to be able to just copy loops and cues without needing to set them per track.


this is one of the reasons I really like Flip. I can save multiple versions of a tune to a single file without have doubles, triples, or quadruples. Obviously, you still need a separate instrumental version, but it you don't mind the censor effect for clean versions, it works like a charm.
Name already taken 6:57 PM - 15 November, 2018
Hi, I have started a thread related to issues with Flac files. Please check it out. You should beware of these issues when using Flac with Serato (Definitely something to think about for your lossless collection). Any constructive input you can give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

(hopefully someday serato Flac will work properly, but until then maybe we can combine our knowledge to best work around these issues)

Link to thread - serato.com