also... when is 1.9.2 coming out?

Thanks

DPR

again you have nothing constructive to add...pathetic

Serato?

I bet this is going to be one hell of a ride.....

brace yourself...

If you want high quality, you could consider using the ALAC ("Apple Lossless") format that is now supported in 1.9.1.

I use AIFF. Sounds great with no issues whatsoever.

alac looks interesting. looked it up on wikipedia, never heard of it before...
so no problems with the real-time decoding or whatever it has to do to expand as it plays?

i think i will go with the most popular format , .WAV

so wav's are taggable? why are they commonly not tagged? why can't itunes do it? i thought that i knew what was up with this sheeat... i'm learning something new everyday i tell ya

How about you try to think once by yourself?

Try the help section.

yes deezlee

i too thought they were not taggable,

BUT THAY ARE, Tag&Rename

and why itunes can't tag them?
itunes sucks in my opinion

i mean itunes can't even name a file while ripping the way YOU want it Artist - Track Name,
and i HATE those annoying folders it creates can't deactivate,

i mean i choose to rip to c:/my rips
why the hell do i have to go into so many subfolers??
some people want it, others don't
make that crap folder thing disappearable....

so to sum it up
itunes makes great hardware,
but software is another story...

Button pushed...

As I said before, iTunes was designed to do most everything from within the App, you can almost IGNORE the folders in your iTunes music library. If you want Jay-Z search within the App, drag and drop. Don't drill through dozens of Jay Z folders = Jay Z f. Beyonce, Jay Z f. Mary J, etc.

I guess that is a PC thing.

If you need to find the tune in folders Right Click>Show in Finder/Explorer - no drill

Folders take up less than 10k of disk space, for someone thinking of ripping in Wavs (HUGE FILES) - disk space shouldn't be a issue - LOL.

iTunes is a pretty powerful music organization App and it is FREE.

That's like saying Serato makes this annoying whine when I play the control record on Phono. Serato sucks!

</rant> sorry.

Oh the irony... :D

LOL, back to work Nik - where is my scratchtools GUI so I can sing the praises of that like I do iTunes.

: )

^^^ I am a button pusher, no code.

: )

lol....

Hey Art... I didn't mean you with the button pushing thing.

Can you now take back the question about ScratchTools's GUI?

;)

Thanks for praising it :)

Button pusher was funny after I caught the connection - no harm no foul

exes with a stupid question: why not .mp3?

nik39

man i cant waint for the gui. the minute u have it ready im dumping itunes!

itunes > preferences > advanced > uncheck "keep itunes folder organized"
= no seperate folders

@exes
mp3s take up less space, but on a big soundsystem the ysound thinner that full quality formats (wav, aiff)

Have you ever done any blind listening tests, on the same material WAV versus 320CBR MP3?

Hint: "power of suggestion" strongly affects auditory perceptions.

i've been djing and making beats for a minute. i got my mpc and 1200s in 1996., but i was a musician before that, my high school (class of 91) had a great audio program that had a good focus on engineering, so i've been listening to music critically for a while.

i use a lot of (actually most of my files are) 320kbps files and they sound fine, but i can definitely tell the difference on a big system.
the difference will probably become more obvious through serato when the soundcard gets better. or maybe not... maybe they'll focus enough on "warming up" the sound of mp3s on playback, but it might come at the expense of accurate reproduction of the original recording... whatever. in short, yup 320s work just fine, but full quality is better...

peace

p.s. if you ever plan on sampling from your digital files, then it'll really matter

p.p.s. i've also got 128kbps files that sound good, so i guess the frequencies/compression/mastering/or something on the original effects the mp3 quality as well...

I didn't ask for a resume, I simply asked whether or not you had done any blind listening tests.

That's the only way to actually be certain of what you're hearing.

so 320kbit is just fine i guess huh?

thanks for the info

yup, most of my stuff's at 320
you might want to look into a "lame" encoder if you're concerned (there's a "lame for itunes") some people say that it makes a difference.
i've never done blind tests of the default mp3 codec vs lame codec so i dunno.

well all my cds i imported through i tunes are 320 mp3...itunes automatically chooses wav for u but i changed it to mp3...

IMHO 320 mp3's are the sweet spot in size vs. sound quality. A 5 minute song as a 320 mp3 is about 11 or 12 MB compared to around 50MB for a 5 min wav file...

from Wiki pedia



As DJMark said above, in a blind listening test it is difficult for MOST people to tell the difference.

but why mp3 when 1TB is less than $99?

that's over 25,000 songs
why compromise sound quality?

i guess some people don't care or unfortunately don't notice the difference
each his own....

Well...actually in this thread all I did was ask if someone had done any blind listen-tests....but of course your statement is correct.

In blind listen tests (the only valid method for such comparisons), even the most golden-eared individual on a very high-end sound system in a controlled listening environment will be hard pressed to hear differences between a LAME-encoded 320CBR MP3 and the linear-PCM source it was encoded from.

Out in the reality of the bar/club world, even in the relatively small percentage of those venues that have high-quality sound systems, you are *very* far from being in a "controlled listening environment".

Also speaking to "reality": the largest laptop-size drives as of this writing are 500gb. For many reasons, a lot of DJ's (myself included) prefer to not connect external drives.

In conclusion: informed by many years of personal experience in the audio industry (including participation in numerous blind listening tests that were used in the development/refinement of the Dolby Digital and AAC codecs back in the late 90's), and having spent many hours carefully listen-testing between linear-PCM (AIFF/WAV) sources against various methods of lossy encoding....and also given the realities of practical storage space and the listening environments the music will be played in...and perhaps most importantly, having no personal axe to grind or a need to posture about the matter...I find 320CBR MP3's quite satisfactory for the purpose.

The most important things SSL-using DJ's can do to maximize sound quality are:

1) leave Key Lock off;

2) leave the master gain in SSL at 12:00 and don't set individual deck gains to a point where internal clipping is happening;

3) if it (a particular file) sounds like crap, don't play it.

lol liking ur 3rd point

Well written... did you have a suit on when you typed this? :-P

DJMark,

they now have 1TB 2.5 " laptop hard drives

www.engadget.com


so even more reason to rip to .wav or .aiff

i think 25,000 songs is enough to have on my laptop without an external drive

yeah that is an impressive resume'

Before anyone gets too excited by the 750 gb and 1TB 2.5-inch Western Digital drives, note that they're both the larger 12.5 mm height that won't fit into most laptop hard drive bays.

The largest-capacity 2.5-inch 9.5mm height drives are still 500gb.

You mean those at 12.5cm which do not fit into normal Macbooks?

Dang, beaten by a few seconds.

12,5mm of course... haha :)

anyone ever do a 320 vs. v0 vs lossless comparison with keylock ON? i'd bet that the lossless survives the processing better than the CBR and VBR mp3s

i havent done a comparison but WAV still sounds bad with keylock..Its the keylock algorithm mainly thats the problem. cd players have way better keylock, you can use mp3s burned to a cd and they still sound better than WAV with Serato's keylock.

and that whole "keylock is disabled while scratching" feature does not work very good lol.

there is about a million compressed vs lossless threads on here already. this is about wav or aiff.

I switched from wav to aiff when I realised the tagging information on aiff is much better with SSL. I have a main library and a DJ library and I found that when I moved songs around, the aiff files kept a lot more of the tag information, wheras wav's wouldn't show artist, genre, bit rate etc in SSL until I rescanned ID3 tags.

as far as mp3 vs un-compressed - A DJ who wants an HDMI plug on your home TV but doesn't want the best sounding audio equipment. That shit makes no sense. None.
The mp3 game is awash with shit sounding files encoded & labelled by retards.

So much shade in here. We are all DJs trying to perfect our craft. No need to be a piece of shit to the people on this forum.

This thread is 7 years old bro......

I think most have moved on and made they're choices already, lol!

YoU can't make this shit up. LOL

LOL