Grimm
And once again I'll kindly ask you to have your hearing checked. I'm not saying this to be mean, but you do work in a environment that will lead to early hearing loss if no protection is used. I have 1 brother in his late 40's that has been playing live in a group since his early 20's. He's now almost completely deaf in one ear, and hard of hearing in the other, yet still refuses to use hearing protection (although at this point, it would hinder his ability to hear anything clearly). I have another brother who was a DJ for over a decade, playing at all kind of clubs. He too now has some hearing loss in both ears and can't hear the differences mentioned in this thread between Atomix and Winamp.
And to end the confusion (cause I'm sick of hearing the arguments) I've posted some frequency analysis pics at my site. I'll will make a complete post in a new thread as to what and how I did it.
Grimm
And to end the confusion (cause I'm sick of hearing the arguments) I've posted some frequency analysis pics at my site. I'll will make a complete post in a new thread as to what and how I did it.
Grimm
geposted Sun 05 Jan 03 @ 1:57 am
trip_likeido
I don't blame Rick (impressions) for not noticing a difference. When you've been DJing for a decade or so, You're ears DO become deteriorated and resist certain frequencies.
When you have sensitive hearing like mine, you can tell the smallest differences in sound quality.
When you have sensitive hearing like mine, you can tell the smallest differences in sound quality.
geposted Sun 05 Jan 03 @ 8:04 am
DJ Rick
Bull sh*t!
geposted Sun 05 Jan 03 @ 8:12 am
DJ Rick
oops, I thought better of the above post and typed out a lenthy change to it, but didn't get it done in the time allotted.
However, perhaps "bullshit" does in fact summarize how I feel about the comments with regard to my hearing.
I'll say this. I've been using this product for about 2 years now. I used CD's for 4-5 years before that, and turntables for 7-8 years before that. Right now I am currently making my full time living as an entertainment professional. I work 4-6 times every week in 4-5 different locations. I can't remember the last time there were less than 50 people in the room, I'd say on the average there are usually 100+ people out every time I'm working. so, that's perhaps 500 people a week. You do the math. In 2 years now tens of thousands of people have been in the room with me while I've been playing with Atomix. Not Once.... NOT 1 TIME has anyone ever even hinted that there was even the smallest of sound quality problems.
This product is MORE than good enough for it's intended purpose. To be used by DJ's in public venues to entertain the masses.
You guys come in here and whine and whine and whine, and whimper and complain and whine some more that the sound quality output isn't good enough for your sensitive ears. Then as soon as anyone steps up to the plate and says, Hey fellas, I don't have any problems with the sound quality coming out of my system, you want to start suggesting that this guy must have bad hearing. I'll tell you I think that's pretty fucking childish.
I don't go to any great lengths to process the audio from my laptop. Standard DJ stuff.... a mixer, an EQ, an AMP, and a set of speakers. That's it. The signal provided by Atomix to my equipment is FINE!!! It sounds better than good... It sounds GREAT. If you think your hearing is so super sensitive thet you can pick up quality issues better than the general dancing, clubbing public that's good for you. However, I'm saying that Atomix does everything it has ever been intended to do. If it's not good enough for you to use a product that is in use around the world by actual working DJ's, then fine... use something else.
Face it people, 2.2 has been out for a week. If the powers that be thought there was a valid issue with the output quality, it would have been adressed. The fact is, that the output of this product being used with an off the shelf middle of the road computer system does everything that an entertainment professional needs it to do. If that's not good enough for you, then no amount of pissing and moaning within this forum, or insulting professional mobile DJ's that they have poor hearing is going to improve it for you. I'd like to suggest that you hit you local high end audio outlet, with a fat pocket full of money, and buy yourself some real home audio equipment. The sound that you are apparently questing is not going to be found coming out of your computer no matter what software you decide to use.
Now quit pissing on and on about the sound quality, and try to think up actual cool features that would make my life in the bars and clubs more fun.
However, perhaps "bullshit" does in fact summarize how I feel about the comments with regard to my hearing.
I'll say this. I've been using this product for about 2 years now. I used CD's for 4-5 years before that, and turntables for 7-8 years before that. Right now I am currently making my full time living as an entertainment professional. I work 4-6 times every week in 4-5 different locations. I can't remember the last time there were less than 50 people in the room, I'd say on the average there are usually 100+ people out every time I'm working. so, that's perhaps 500 people a week. You do the math. In 2 years now tens of thousands of people have been in the room with me while I've been playing with Atomix. Not Once.... NOT 1 TIME has anyone ever even hinted that there was even the smallest of sound quality problems.
This product is MORE than good enough for it's intended purpose. To be used by DJ's in public venues to entertain the masses.
You guys come in here and whine and whine and whine, and whimper and complain and whine some more that the sound quality output isn't good enough for your sensitive ears. Then as soon as anyone steps up to the plate and says, Hey fellas, I don't have any problems with the sound quality coming out of my system, you want to start suggesting that this guy must have bad hearing. I'll tell you I think that's pretty fucking childish.
I don't go to any great lengths to process the audio from my laptop. Standard DJ stuff.... a mixer, an EQ, an AMP, and a set of speakers. That's it. The signal provided by Atomix to my equipment is FINE!!! It sounds better than good... It sounds GREAT. If you think your hearing is so super sensitive thet you can pick up quality issues better than the general dancing, clubbing public that's good for you. However, I'm saying that Atomix does everything it has ever been intended to do. If it's not good enough for you to use a product that is in use around the world by actual working DJ's, then fine... use something else.
Face it people, 2.2 has been out for a week. If the powers that be thought there was a valid issue with the output quality, it would have been adressed. The fact is, that the output of this product being used with an off the shelf middle of the road computer system does everything that an entertainment professional needs it to do. If that's not good enough for you, then no amount of pissing and moaning within this forum, or insulting professional mobile DJ's that they have poor hearing is going to improve it for you. I'd like to suggest that you hit you local high end audio outlet, with a fat pocket full of money, and buy yourself some real home audio equipment. The sound that you are apparently questing is not going to be found coming out of your computer no matter what software you decide to use.
Now quit pissing on and on about the sound quality, and try to think up actual cool features that would make my life in the bars and clubs more fun.
geposted Sun 05 Jan 03 @ 9:05 am
trip_likeido
OMG !! I did not mean for you to take offence to that !! I am not doubting your professionalism or anything with regards to that. You seem to be the only one who is OK with everything -> Thats cool !!!!!!!! If the people in the room you've entertained for years don't complain ... thats cooler !!! Maybe they don't care about sound quality, and it's just "fine" enough for them !!
I myself don't want to whine and complain about the sound quality because I love the program itself, have respect for the team and I don't mind sacrificing sound quality for features and ease of use. However It is necessary to acknowledge it. I'm disappointed when unnecessary features that arise in updates, such as WMA support, cue points, etc. takes priority over other such features (But I don't want to get into that). As i mentioned before, the sound quality IS not the greatest when you change the pitch, there's NO denying that NONE WHATSOEVER ... I don't want to post up those samples I had earlier to demonstrate the "gargling" quality, again.
Cheers.
I myself don't want to whine and complain about the sound quality because I love the program itself, have respect for the team and I don't mind sacrificing sound quality for features and ease of use. However It is necessary to acknowledge it. I'm disappointed when unnecessary features that arise in updates, such as WMA support, cue points, etc. takes priority over other such features (But I don't want to get into that). As i mentioned before, the sound quality IS not the greatest when you change the pitch, there's NO denying that NONE WHATSOEVER ... I don't want to post up those samples I had earlier to demonstrate the "gargling" quality, again.
Cheers.
geposted Sun 05 Jan 03 @ 9:36 am
CHarman
Just thought I would throw my two cents worth in. I have been using Atomix to do a radio show on a FM station in the states. The only time I notice anything wrong with the sound of Atomix is when I drop in a MP3 that is of a low bit rate (that I forgot to delete). or I mess up with the gain control. I have been getting over 150 calls a night for requests etc... and only one person said anything about the sound, and he works at the station, and I had the monitor down and did not notice I had frigged up the gain. All in all I could go spend 5 or 7 thousand dollars for another DJ program (that does include a computer) or around $800.00 for the software it's self..... But WHY I found the gem of my life with Atomix and will praise it from now on. P.S. The other program might do a few other things .... but then again so does atomix. If playing live shows and doing a radio show does not bring people forward to complain about the sound quality then I think the general public really does not put that HIGH a marker on just what freq. they can hear.
Carman
Carman
geposted Mon 06 Jan 03 @ 6:36 am
The Goner
Wow..tihngs got out of hand here it looks like! Anyways: my two cents: Impressions, I too am a working DJ. I do DJ and/or Karaoke shows 5 nights a week with an occasional wedding or private party. I used a Denon Dual CD Player until about a year and a half ago when I found Atomix. My initial response to it in the clubs/bars I play was positive, except that I DID notice some loss in sound quality. Perhaps it is because I use high-end audio equipment (Rane Mixing Boards, Rane X-Overs, Sonic Maximizers, Signal Conditioners, Crest Audio Performance Series Speakers, etc...) but over time I find myself relying more and more on my Denon for live gigs, and Atomix for mix CD's that I make for friends. I do however still use Atomix quite a bit when I get to the "meat" of the night. Not that I don't know how to beat match by ear, but as anyone who works clubs will know, when shit gets crazy, any spare minute you have can mean a huge difference. Point being: with Ikke's latest post, no one can really deny (whether you can "hear" it or not) anymore that Atomix's output is lower quality than the original. Sucks big time, but it is something that we, the forum-goers, have been asking the staff to correct for some time now. Maybe now they'll hear us....
The gOner
The gOner
geposted Mon 06 Jan 03 @ 8:27 am
trip_likeido
It all depends on how you use it. OF COURSE Atomix is appropriate for Radio show ... as the analog broadcast would alter the sound quality regardless of the source its coming from. It figures someone in the studio would notice the difference.
I gave up using Atomix for making Mix CD's, as when I play them in my car, I notice the difference.
I gave up using Atomix for making Mix CD's, as when I play them in my car, I notice the difference.
geposted Mon 06 Jan 03 @ 8:28 am
djmare
Maybe WMA sounds better?
havent tried it yet.
Other mixing programs dont have that static sound, so neither should Atomix.
havent tried it yet.
Other mixing programs dont have that static sound, so neither should Atomix.
geposted Mon 06 Jan 03 @ 1:32 pm
Na i like atomix's sound quality. Just play it trough a good couple of boxes. And then, for Trip, what frequencies do you miss when you listen to dancemusic?
geposted Mon 20 Jan 03 @ 3:39 pm
trip_likeido
The frequencies stay intact. There is just that additional 'Hiss' when you increase the pitch. If you don't understand what I am talking about ... I will post a link to a sound clip which demonstrates that.
geposted Mon 20 Jan 03 @ 3:44 pm
abnorm
Play around with Traktor 2.0 with ASIO support on good speakers and then you will see how big the difference is. Come on guys, it's bad enough it's almost impossible to find good quality MP3s unless you rip them yourself on a pro recording card, especially if it's a vinyl rip. The difference in sound quality between playing a downloaded vinyl rip and actual vinyl at a club is HUGE! Where are all the audiophyles? :)
geposted Tue 21 Jan 03 @ 12:23 am
jackcu
I haven't compared the sound quality of an MP3 played by Atomixmp3 against another program such as Winamp so I can't comment. However, on the general point of the sound quality of MP3 vs CD, of course the CD sounds better. Try ripping a track from a CD - keep the .wav file and create an MP3 from it while keeping the original. Then set-up AtomixMP3 to have the .wav on one deck and the MP3 on the other. Sync them up and play.
Now get a friend / colleague / spouse to help out. Sit in a good listening position with your eyes closed, and while the 2 tracks are playing, get your assistant to crossfade from one to the other. Not only will you be able to tell WHEN they are fading one out, you will be able to tell WHICH one is the MP3 and which is the .wav. The .wav simply sounds wider / deeper / broader / bigger - sorry about the crap description, but you'll hear it if you try the exercise. :)
MP3's are smaller than .wavs because large portions of the signal have been removed. For example, MP3's have a brick wall at 14Khz, so all frequencies above that are lost. This isn't an argument about what sounds good, etc. - it's just a matter of physics.
FWIW, I DJ using AtomixMP3 more and more these days, so I have absolutely NOTHING against the MP3 format. Once the tracks are played in a big room through a PA, with people talking, drinking, dancing, the loss of quality isn't noticeable. Plus, the listeners have nothing to compare it with. However, it doesn't take away from the fact that there IS a loss of quality. This doesn't bother me when I'm gigging, as it allows me to cram thousands of songs on to my laptop. On the other hand, I wouldn't choose to sit at home and listen to MP3's.
Just my .02
Jack.
Now get a friend / colleague / spouse to help out. Sit in a good listening position with your eyes closed, and while the 2 tracks are playing, get your assistant to crossfade from one to the other. Not only will you be able to tell WHEN they are fading one out, you will be able to tell WHICH one is the MP3 and which is the .wav. The .wav simply sounds wider / deeper / broader / bigger - sorry about the crap description, but you'll hear it if you try the exercise. :)
MP3's are smaller than .wavs because large portions of the signal have been removed. For example, MP3's have a brick wall at 14Khz, so all frequencies above that are lost. This isn't an argument about what sounds good, etc. - it's just a matter of physics.
FWIW, I DJ using AtomixMP3 more and more these days, so I have absolutely NOTHING against the MP3 format. Once the tracks are played in a big room through a PA, with people talking, drinking, dancing, the loss of quality isn't noticeable. Plus, the listeners have nothing to compare it with. However, it doesn't take away from the fact that there IS a loss of quality. This doesn't bother me when I'm gigging, as it allows me to cram thousands of songs on to my laptop. On the other hand, I wouldn't choose to sit at home and listen to MP3's.
Just my .02
Jack.
geposted Tue 21 Jan 03 @ 4:39 pm
trip_likeido
Well not if you encode them properly.
I rip and encode my MP3's using EAC at LEAST at 192 KBPS using VBR ... I did exactly what you did .... xfade between the two (except I set the xfader to CUT instead, so I can notice the transition more).
No difference between the original WAV and MP3. What we're trying to get at here is the sound quality when the pitch is +/- 100%
I rip and encode my MP3's using EAC at LEAST at 192 KBPS using VBR ... I did exactly what you did .... xfade between the two (except I set the xfader to CUT instead, so I can notice the transition more).
No difference between the original WAV and MP3. What we're trying to get at here is the sound quality when the pitch is +/- 100%
geposted Tue 21 Jan 03 @ 6:35 pm
abnorm
Yes, I agree. If you rip 'em properly the quality loss would be almost unoticable. The problem is that most likely not all of your MP3s have been ripped by yourself. They have been downloaded... It wouldn't be so bad, but most of the new and older releases and rare mixes are only available on vinyl (I would say they make up at least 80% of my playlist). Vinyl is much harder to rip then CDs, it requires a PRO recording equipment. Unfortunatly that's not what's being used to rip the tracks that are available for download... (most likely someone's old SB card) The outcome sounds pretty horrible. You can hear all the little skips from the record and to top it off uneven volume/bass/treble levels.
geposted Tue 21 Jan 03 @ 11:41 pm
trip_likeido
I agree ... most D/L'ed MP3's are garbage I would NEVER think of playing in the clubs.
I think the problem lies in the turntables/carts themselves. Ppl use cheap quality ones along with older ungrounded tt's. It does take lots of work and knowledge to properly rip vinyl.
That's why I like sticking to CD's. No BS there.
I think the problem lies in the turntables/carts themselves. Ppl use cheap quality ones along with older ungrounded tt's. It does take lots of work and knowledge to properly rip vinyl.
That's why I like sticking to CD's. No BS there.
geposted Wed 22 Jan 03 @ 12:52 am
jackcu
Guys,
I agree with your points about downloaded MP3's - the quality is usually terrible due, no doubt, to the points you have mentioned. However, as I play at parties rather than clubs, the music I use is easily available on CD, and I do indeed rip the tracks myself. Much as I love the new dance and rare tracks, if I played them at the gigs I do, everyone would stop and stare LOL. Shame, but that's the way it is. I do my best to drop the occasional track in there, but my customers want to hear chart music or "oldies", so that's what I give them, I'm afraid.
Where my view differs from yours slightly is on the quality issue. I take your point that if you rip the track yourself at a decent rate on good equipment, then the resultant MP3 is not that different. However, it is STILL noticeable when played on good equipment. It HAS to be different by its very nature, as encoding throws away large portions of the audio information.
For example - I've just encoded a file ripped from a CD. Even at VBR with a minimum of 192Kbps, encoding has compressed the file 7:1. That means I have lost 83% of the original data. That HAS to make a difference to the sound.
The main point, however, is that playing the file at a gig with the PA up loud and everyone jumping around, the customers can't hear the difference. In the end, therefore, it's a moot point.
Cheers,
Jack.
I agree with your points about downloaded MP3's - the quality is usually terrible due, no doubt, to the points you have mentioned. However, as I play at parties rather than clubs, the music I use is easily available on CD, and I do indeed rip the tracks myself. Much as I love the new dance and rare tracks, if I played them at the gigs I do, everyone would stop and stare LOL. Shame, but that's the way it is. I do my best to drop the occasional track in there, but my customers want to hear chart music or "oldies", so that's what I give them, I'm afraid.
Where my view differs from yours slightly is on the quality issue. I take your point that if you rip the track yourself at a decent rate on good equipment, then the resultant MP3 is not that different. However, it is STILL noticeable when played on good equipment. It HAS to be different by its very nature, as encoding throws away large portions of the audio information.
For example - I've just encoded a file ripped from a CD. Even at VBR with a minimum of 192Kbps, encoding has compressed the file 7:1. That means I have lost 83% of the original data. That HAS to make a difference to the sound.
The main point, however, is that playing the file at a gig with the PA up loud and everyone jumping around, the customers can't hear the difference. In the end, therefore, it's a moot point.
Cheers,
Jack.
geposted Wed 22 Jan 03 @ 12:35 pm
jackcu
Oops,
My maths isn't that great today LOL.
7:1 compression means that 87% has been thrown away.
Like abnorm said "If you rip 'em properly the quality loss would be almost unoticable".
What I am saying is pretty much the same - to the people on the floor it is unnoticeable. In fact, as I said in my original post, "Once the tracks are played in a big room through a PA, with people talking, drinking, dancing, the loss of quality isn't noticeable".
However, from a purely technical point of view, "almost" unnoticable isn't quite the same thing as "No difference between the original WAV and MP3".
Cheers,
Jack (from Pedants' corner :)
My maths isn't that great today LOL.
7:1 compression means that 87% has been thrown away.
Like abnorm said "If you rip 'em properly the quality loss would be almost unoticable".
What I am saying is pretty much the same - to the people on the floor it is unnoticeable. In fact, as I said in my original post, "Once the tracks are played in a big room through a PA, with people talking, drinking, dancing, the loss of quality isn't noticeable".
However, from a purely technical point of view, "almost" unnoticable isn't quite the same thing as "No difference between the original WAV and MP3".
Cheers,
Jack (from Pedants' corner :)
geposted Wed 22 Jan 03 @ 1:40 pm
trip_likeido
Well ... my ears can only detect so much change in quality, nor can my headphones. It's so close ... only under lab conditions can tell the difference.
But you're right ... you're bound to loose quality when you compress a file like that.
But you're right ... you're bound to loose quality when you compress a file like that.
geposted Wed 22 Jan 03 @ 5:44 pm
abnorm
I, myself wouldn't mind at all purchasing all the latest singles releases on CDs and ripping them to WAVs. That's unfortunatly impossible since they are only available on vinyl or poorly ripped MP3s off of them. Maybe I am wrong and someone knows of a place where we can get all the new singles on CDs?
geposted Wed 22 Jan 03 @ 5:54 pm
