wow wasn't expecting my topic to be this big of a discussion, well i tried to use different sound configuration, I have both atomix 1.12 and 2 in my pc, and the earlier version doesn't have any problem in fact i like it more then 2.0 on the soundvise offcourse, yeah but the features and the functionality is better in 2.0, i don't know what's up with sound, i also have traktor in my system, and let me tell ya that it plays at the same quality as winamp, i am still trying to understand what i have to do with atomix 2.0, i am sure it can be solved, may be i am thinking if atomix team will post some sort of patch that will fix this sound shit, well lets hope for that
geposted Mon 21 Jan 02 @ 2:45 pm
DJ Rick
One of the annon users makes a possibly good point... he/she said the mp3 sounds as good as the CD "if you don't muck around with it too much" Could it be that those complaining about sound quality are stumbling upon a bad MP3 file? perhaps less that 128 bitrate, or one that was poorly encoded? I will admit that occassionally I do come across an MP# that I have to dig out the CD from my archives and re-encode it. It might have a skip, or a glitch, or sound a bit phased. Try to make note of which song is playing when it you are saying it sounds bad, and re-encode that song directly from your CD. You may find that some of your problems are from bad files.
Good Luck
Rick
Good Luck
Rick
geposted Mon 21 Jan 02 @ 3:17 pm
I would just like to say that I think this whole topic is getting pretty stupid and out of hand.
The initial topic is about " atomix sound quality" so lets not turn this into a screaming match and keep it to the topic.
please write your replies directly concerning
"atomix sound quality" and not making this sound like a political case.
If anyone would like to discuss anonymous messages then please could you make a NEW topic and not use this ONE.
And don't take this so seriously after all it's about atomix and atomix is about entertainment.
sorry for this boring and subjective letter but I feel it needs to be said.
Brendan
The initial topic is about " atomix sound quality" so lets not turn this into a screaming match and keep it to the topic.
please write your replies directly concerning
"atomix sound quality" and not making this sound like a political case.
If anyone would like to discuss anonymous messages then please could you make a NEW topic and not use this ONE.
And don't take this so seriously after all it's about atomix and atomix is about entertainment.
sorry for this boring and subjective letter but I feel it needs to be said.
Brendan
geposted Mon 21 Jan 02 @ 4:22 pm
Why can't mama explain the sound quality issue, because nobody knows why the sound quality is not as good as in winamp... Mama, please!!!???
geposted Mon 21 Jan 02 @ 7:22 pm
maybe we should ask papa, :-) j/k, well i don't think mama is the one who could give you a good answer, the only person who i would address this issue is Stephanie, since he is the creator of this software and the boss of all these moderators, so ithink he should know more about the issue,
Steph what do you think about my topic, how would you explain this issue..?
Steph what do you think about my topic, how would you explain this issue..?
geposted Mon 21 Jan 02 @ 9:26 pm
swift-au
Firstly, I apologise if I have started a 'flame war' about people posting anonymously. I never stated that I had a problem with people wishing to remain anonymous. If that's what you thought, then you obviously took what I wrote the wrong way.
Anyway, on the topic of the sound from Atomix not being as good as that of Winamp, I was initally convinced it was garbage, and am now completely sure. I ran the sound from both Atomix (in software mode, full volume, central gain, default eq settings etc) and Winamp (again, full volume, default eq settings etc) into a frequency analyser. The resulting graphs of frequencies as compared to db levels between ~2000Hz and 22,000kHz were identical in both cases. I am therefore throughly convinced that the sound quality of Atomix is the same as Winamp. If this isn't the case for you, then it might be helpful to post some information on the specs of your machine, it's configuration, exactly what tests you performed in determining the sound quality etc. Constant swearing and bad mouthing of Atomix and the people that AREN'T experiencing the same problem as you isn't likely to solve your problem any quicker.
Cheers...
Swift
Anyway, on the topic of the sound from Atomix not being as good as that of Winamp, I was initally convinced it was garbage, and am now completely sure. I ran the sound from both Atomix (in software mode, full volume, central gain, default eq settings etc) and Winamp (again, full volume, default eq settings etc) into a frequency analyser. The resulting graphs of frequencies as compared to db levels between ~2000Hz and 22,000kHz were identical in both cases. I am therefore throughly convinced that the sound quality of Atomix is the same as Winamp. If this isn't the case for you, then it might be helpful to post some information on the specs of your machine, it's configuration, exactly what tests you performed in determining the sound quality etc. Constant swearing and bad mouthing of Atomix and the people that AREN'T experiencing the same problem as you isn't likely to solve your problem any quicker.
Cheers...
Swift
geposted Tue 22 Jan 02 @ 3:40 am
well i tried again today, and i put the sound configuration to a regular sound card with speakers only which gave the best sound, and i pu the same song in both winamp and atomixmp3
( i tried like 6 songs) well the quality is nothing compared to winamp, atoimix is not giving me as loud sound as winamp is doing, why is that? this is killing me, i want to make my own cd's but with this quality, no way, it's gonna be waste of time and cd.....anybody else is having this problem, i am thinking i am having these problems because i have tower speakers, and i can easily know the subtle difference, but here it's pretty obvious that the winamp is louder for some f***** reson......answers please????
( i tried like 6 songs) well the quality is nothing compared to winamp, atoimix is not giving me as loud sound as winamp is doing, why is that? this is killing me, i want to make my own cd's but with this quality, no way, it's gonna be waste of time and cd.....anybody else is having this problem, i am thinking i am having these problems because i have tower speakers, and i can easily know the subtle difference, but here it's pretty obvious that the winamp is louder for some f***** reson......answers please????
geposted Tue 22 Jan 02 @ 5:05 am
Well OK the quality of Winamp IS better but saying CD's on which mixes done by Atomix are burned are crap that's not true.
geposted Tue 22 Jan 02 @ 2:07 pm
It is true because the audio burnt to the CD is not CD quality.
geposted Tue 22 Jan 02 @ 5:33 pm
ikke
Wrong. If you use 128 bit MP3 encoding, that's almost the same, or even better: wave at 16 bit/44000 Hz. That's exactly the same as CD qualtity (well, if your original files are stored in that format, and your recorded file too).
Greetz, ikke
Greetz, ikke
geposted Tue 22 Jan 02 @ 5:40 pm
Damocles
The fact that the sample rate is the same doesn't imply the same quality... There is less info in an mp3 than in a CD, so the sound is poorer. But at 128k a normal ear wouldn't hear any difference.
geposted Tue 22 Jan 02 @ 7:14 pm
The bitrate of the music in the mix could be 320, yet the quality would NOT be CD quality simply because Atomix does not deliver high quality audio. The bitrate is only important if the program used to play the music is able to give out high quality sound.
Another point: Anyone who thinks 128 is CD quality should compare the two closely, then play a 320 bitrate tune. The difference is staggering. The higher the bitrate, the more higher frequencies that stay encoded in the mp3. A 128 file lacks the higher frequency end of the audio spectrum, hence the rather dull sound when compared to a 320 file. CD's do not lack the higher frequencies, as the music on them is not compressed so there is no need for any losses, therefore, logically, the sound quality is higher on a CD than a 128 mp3. Younger people will notice the lack of treble on a 128 encoded tune more than older people, as the ability to hear higher frequencies deteriorates with age. Also, many DJ's by way of their job suffer from impaired and substandard hearing, so they can find it more difficult to hear differences in sound.
If hard drive space permits, I would recommend that everyone encode their music into 320 bitrate files to give their music the edge. Using 128 files coupled with the bad sound quality and lack of high and mid range sound of Atomix 2.0 is disastrous and painful to listen to. Anyone still doubting that the compressed (i.e. missing parts/frequencies) 128 mp3 files are not inferior to the full frequency wav files on CD should use logical deduction to realise why their thinking is flawed.
The_Lord
Another point: Anyone who thinks 128 is CD quality should compare the two closely, then play a 320 bitrate tune. The difference is staggering. The higher the bitrate, the more higher frequencies that stay encoded in the mp3. A 128 file lacks the higher frequency end of the audio spectrum, hence the rather dull sound when compared to a 320 file. CD's do not lack the higher frequencies, as the music on them is not compressed so there is no need for any losses, therefore, logically, the sound quality is higher on a CD than a 128 mp3. Younger people will notice the lack of treble on a 128 encoded tune more than older people, as the ability to hear higher frequencies deteriorates with age. Also, many DJ's by way of their job suffer from impaired and substandard hearing, so they can find it more difficult to hear differences in sound.
If hard drive space permits, I would recommend that everyone encode their music into 320 bitrate files to give their music the edge. Using 128 files coupled with the bad sound quality and lack of high and mid range sound of Atomix 2.0 is disastrous and painful to listen to. Anyone still doubting that the compressed (i.e. missing parts/frequencies) 128 mp3 files are not inferior to the full frequency wav files on CD should use logical deduction to realise why their thinking is flawed.
The_Lord
geposted Wed 23 Jan 02 @ 1:51 pm
swift-au
Very true, a 320kbps stream IS going to sound superior to that of one encoded at 128kbps. But, is it really necessary to go to that length? Personally I think 160-192 is more than adequate for the situation they are to be used in. If you are talking about a home situation with an ultra low-noise amp and $20,000 hi-fi speakers, then maybe you'd want something better. But for a gig at a club, chances are not a single sole in the building will notice the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps. Furthermore, if you are so determined to get the best possible sound quality, then why are you even considering MP3s (or even CDs for that matter) in the first place? Both of them are merely digital bit streams, and therefore both have 'information' missing. If you were serious about your sound quality, you wouldn't use anything other than vinyl!
Cheers...
Swift
Cheers...
Swift
geposted Tue 29 Jan 02 @ 11:36 pm
CDs are indeed digital, the music is digitally encoded into 1's and 0's but that does not mean anything is missing, you are confusing digital encoding with digital COMPRESSION. When a digital signal is compressed it usually means removing parts of the code and allowing a processor to compute what should be in the missing part. If an analogue signal is converted to digital without the use of a compression algorithm there is no loss. All the original analogue signal is present it is merely represented by on/off logic states rather than an infinitely variable state.
There are people, however, who believe that analogue is still better quality than digital. They may be right, they may be wrong, it is a personal choice.
There are people, however, who believe that analogue is still better quality than digital. They may be right, they may be wrong, it is a personal choice.
geposted Thu 31 Jan 02 @ 2:37 pm
Raw-Bear
first off ....nothing is wrong with atomix....
2nd if using an external mixer set your gain at 75 percent max
3rd your atomix gain at 25 percent max
4th make sure you have a stereo mixer of some reasonable quality
5th is your sound card stereo?
in closing i would like to say i have not had a problem with atomix yet and don`t think i will. i have been in the music world for 30 years and for the price and what it does atomix is tha best...a lot of radio stations are starting to use this and that in its self speaks volumes
( thanks for reading my rant)
Raw-Bear (5) high (5)
2nd if using an external mixer set your gain at 75 percent max
3rd your atomix gain at 25 percent max
4th make sure you have a stereo mixer of some reasonable quality
5th is your sound card stereo?
in closing i would like to say i have not had a problem with atomix yet and don`t think i will. i have been in the music world for 30 years and for the price and what it does atomix is tha best...a lot of radio stations are starting to use this and that in its self speaks volumes
( thanks for reading my rant)
Raw-Bear (5) high (5)
geposted Thu 12 Jun 03 @ 12:39 pm
DJ Hebel
I have a question: Does anonymous own Atomixmp3 or not?
.
.
.
I don't think he does otherwise I would've known
.
.
.
I don't think he does otherwise I would've known
geposted Fri 13 Jun 03 @ 9:23 am