trip_likeido
Good things come to those who wait.
(That's all I'm saying for now)
(That's all I'm saying for now)
geposted Mon 03 Feb 03 @ 6:14 pm
Yoda
Thats a very tantalising comment. Anymore details? Timescale maybe. If I had my way the timestretch function would be dumped in the next version. I never use it and I expect the majority of people never use it. Unless it has no impact on the normal pitch change routines.
geposted Mon 03 Feb 03 @ 6:57 pm
DJ Rick
NO WAY!! You absolutely MUST have a time stretch feature!
different strokes I guess.
different strokes I guess.
geposted Mon 03 Feb 03 @ 7:10 pm
trip_likeido
I NEVER use the time stretch feature either. If you listen closely, the music overlaps quarter beats by a little bit. Maybe the only time you might want to use it, is if you have a song playing at 133% and don't want the vocals sounding like chipmunks.
Soundforge and Acid Pro have amazing flawless time stretch algorithms.
Hey Rick, have you ever checked out www.gemm.com ?? I'm buying stuff from there like crazy. FINALLY A place where I can buy rare CD singles for CHEAP !!!! Ahhhhhh, Clean Sounding original 224 Kbps MP3's from the original club version. None of this 96 Kpbs MusicMatch crap downloaded off kazaa. Thats the best thing I can do improve the sound quality. Ripping MP3's properly makes the biggest difference.
Soundforge and Acid Pro have amazing flawless time stretch algorithms.
Hey Rick, have you ever checked out www.gemm.com ?? I'm buying stuff from there like crazy. FINALLY A place where I can buy rare CD singles for CHEAP !!!! Ahhhhhh, Clean Sounding original 224 Kbps MP3's from the original club version. None of this 96 Kpbs MusicMatch crap downloaded off kazaa. Thats the best thing I can do improve the sound quality. Ripping MP3's properly makes the biggest difference.
geposted Mon 03 Feb 03 @ 7:26 pm
Grimm
trip: I'll believe when I hear it.
I was told a long time ago by one of the teamers that they had dumped XAudio and are currently using the LAME codec in Atomix. That would explain the sound quality difference from 1.x to 2.x, as it did improve significantly. However, it appears to me that XAudio is still being used, not LAME.
The newer XAudio codec did inprove significantly from the pervious version that 1.x Atomix was using. So that could also explain the audio improvement in 2.x. However, XAudio still lags behind Fraunhofer and LAME, as I personally wouldn't encode anything with XAudio.
I for one hope that the Atomix team IS reading this thread, and that hopefully the next version (or update) will improve even more on the sound quality.
Grimm
I was told a long time ago by one of the teamers that they had dumped XAudio and are currently using the LAME codec in Atomix. That would explain the sound quality difference from 1.x to 2.x, as it did improve significantly. However, it appears to me that XAudio is still being used, not LAME.
The newer XAudio codec did inprove significantly from the pervious version that 1.x Atomix was using. So that could also explain the audio improvement in 2.x. However, XAudio still lags behind Fraunhofer and LAME, as I personally wouldn't encode anything with XAudio.
I for one hope that the Atomix team IS reading this thread, and that hopefully the next version (or update) will improve even more on the sound quality.
Grimm
geposted Tue 04 Feb 03 @ 12:06 am
trip_likeido
It has always been Xaudio. The sound quality has been the same since the 1.x days .... the only thing that has improved is the EQ from 2.0 to 2.1.
geposted Tue 04 Feb 03 @ 12:36 am
PeterB
If only Atomix could fix the sound quality. I'm still deciding whether to purchase Reaktor or AtomixMP3. I prefer Atomix for the user interface, I really dig the wave-form display.
For me personally, I also don't care about the time-stretch. In its current form it is not useable for mixing dance music (as mentioned before beats are dropped) and I would gladly drop that feature if it meant improved audio quality.
Regards,
Peter
For me personally, I also don't care about the time-stretch. In its current form it is not useable for mixing dance music (as mentioned before beats are dropped) and I would gladly drop that feature if it meant improved audio quality.
Regards,
Peter
geposted Tue 04 Feb 03 @ 1:38 pm
Dark Storm
Hi guys,
Try Swapping the Atomix MP3 playback engine File with the winamp MP3 playback file. I tryed it and it works a treat. Dont know if the quality is better because i have not done any suitable testing (Only trying to tell the difference with my ears) but with all these tests going on with winamp and atomix, i'd say that there is a good chance of the quality being better.
I dont know if it is due to the Atomix playback engine being the fault and giving out poor sound but this would be great if it was.
Maybe the users that ran all the tests between winamp and Atomix could run more tests with these particular files swapped round to see if there is any improvement.
Just an idea....
Dark Storm
Has anybody else tryed this b4?
Try Swapping the Atomix MP3 playback engine File with the winamp MP3 playback file. I tryed it and it works a treat. Dont know if the quality is better because i have not done any suitable testing (Only trying to tell the difference with my ears) but with all these tests going on with winamp and atomix, i'd say that there is a good chance of the quality being better.
I dont know if it is due to the Atomix playback engine being the fault and giving out poor sound but this would be great if it was.
Maybe the users that ran all the tests between winamp and Atomix could run more tests with these particular files swapped round to see if there is any improvement.
Just an idea....
Dark Storm
Has anybody else tryed this b4?
geposted Thu 06 Feb 03 @ 7:14 pm
Yoda
I'm trying it now. First impression is that it works. The jury is still out on the sound quality. I'll keep you posted. Anybody else who wants to try this. Copy lame.dll from winamp directory and rename it Xaudio.dll in the atomix directory. Make a copy of lame.dll first, just in case you need to change it back again. Can't believe the answers to all our problems just may be this simple.!! lol
geposted Thu 06 Feb 03 @ 7:25 pm
Yoda
Interesting experiment but sadly I have to report that I can't detect a noticiable improvement in the sound. Maybe someone else will have a different opinion. I'm still amazed that it works at all.
geposted Thu 06 Feb 03 @ 7:55 pm
Dark Storm
Hmmm thats wierd Yoda.... Either u must have a different version of winamp or your using the wrong file?? Im using winamp 2.81. Maybe ure talking about winamp 3?? I dont use that.
The actual Mp3 decoder file for winamp 2.81 Full is in_mp3.dll. If u go into winamp and click on preferences then plugins. Then click on input and it will show you the in_mp3.dll as the Nullsoft MPEG Audio Decoder. This is the file that u need.
Sadly i dont know if this does actually affect anything to do with atomix because i ran a little test on atomix. I tried deleting (After making a backup) the XAudio MP3 Decoding engine, and then ran atomix. To my suprise atomix ran as normal, as though nothing had happened.
So either atomix does not use this file, which would lead to the question as to why the file is there in the first place or Atomix has a backup file installed internally elsewhere??
Anywayz if other users can give this a try?? And see if they report anything different. If u do try this i would recommend backing up Xaudio.dll b4 attempting.
Dark Storm
The actual Mp3 decoder file for winamp 2.81 Full is in_mp3.dll. If u go into winamp and click on preferences then plugins. Then click on input and it will show you the in_mp3.dll as the Nullsoft MPEG Audio Decoder. This is the file that u need.
Sadly i dont know if this does actually affect anything to do with atomix because i ran a little test on atomix. I tried deleting (After making a backup) the XAudio MP3 Decoding engine, and then ran atomix. To my suprise atomix ran as normal, as though nothing had happened.
So either atomix does not use this file, which would lead to the question as to why the file is there in the first place or Atomix has a backup file installed internally elsewhere??
Anywayz if other users can give this a try?? And see if they report anything different. If u do try this i would recommend backing up Xaudio.dll b4 attempting.
Dark Storm
geposted Thu 06 Feb 03 @ 10:20 pm
Dark Storm
Okay i have a bit more information regarding Xaudio.
If you right click the actual Xaudio file and look at properties, you will find that the file is actually dated from 1996 to 1998. So i had a look on the net and managed to find two other updates for this same file although 1 of them i dont think is an MPEG layer 3 (MP3) Decoder.
Anywayz ive got an upgraded version of the Xaudio.dll file. My version is 3.2.5.0
The version that you actually get with atomix is 3.0.7.0
I think the Atomix team could do a little more updating b4 they release newer versions of Atomix.
Dark Storm
If you right click the actual Xaudio file and look at properties, you will find that the file is actually dated from 1996 to 1998. So i had a look on the net and managed to find two other updates for this same file although 1 of them i dont think is an MPEG layer 3 (MP3) Decoder.
Anywayz ive got an upgraded version of the Xaudio.dll file. My version is 3.2.5.0
The version that you actually get with atomix is 3.0.7.0
I think the Atomix team could do a little more updating b4 they release newer versions of Atomix.
Dark Storm
geposted Thu 06 Feb 03 @ 11:17 pm
Grimm
I dont believe it will work as I explained in the other post. As it is, I think the XAudio engine is "built into" Atomix. So removing the .dll file wont have any effect to Atomix's ability to playback files. The api calls between each dll is completly different as well, so it would not be a simple swap of files and all is well.
Grimm
Grimm
geposted Fri 07 Feb 03 @ 12:42 am
trip_likeido
If it were only THAT easy !!! LOL !!!!
geposted Fri 07 Feb 03 @ 1:16 am
Dark Storm
Yea i think i agree with you about it being built in Grimm.
You said that you tryed to upgrade ure Xaudio file but it didn't work? But how would the upgrade not work if atomix has a built in Xaudio?? I upgraded my Xaudio file too and Atomix still works proberbly due to the built in file, however, there is still no way of knowing that the upgrade didn't work because atomix acts in the same way with or without the file being there anyway. The real only way of knowing if the file did change anything i guess is to run sound tests like u did with winamp.
Also whats with the Xaudio file actually being in the atomix directory in the first place? If its built in then why have the same file thats been built in, in the atomix directory? Seems a bit wierd to me.
I believe it is built in due to the little test that i mentioned b4.
Oh well i guess it was worth a try. I still think the Atomix team should really be thinking about improving the sound quality and also why not try a different MP3 decoder? Like the winamp decoder for example?
Also to grimm... The website address u gave me was good but the encoders u used are out of date. There is a new Fraunhofer ACM codec out now and also LAME 3.93.1.
The version of LAME u used was 3.92.
I have been doing a little research on encoders and results have shown that the fraunhofer wins slightly over LAME. Results also show that for all those people who like to encode at 128kbps (Only god knows why these people do this cause the quality is no where near as good as 192kbps and if u cant offord the drive space to encode at 192kbps then i suggest u buy a new hard drive!!) Fraunhofer is the codec to use.
Dark Storm
You said that you tryed to upgrade ure Xaudio file but it didn't work? But how would the upgrade not work if atomix has a built in Xaudio?? I upgraded my Xaudio file too and Atomix still works proberbly due to the built in file, however, there is still no way of knowing that the upgrade didn't work because atomix acts in the same way with or without the file being there anyway. The real only way of knowing if the file did change anything i guess is to run sound tests like u did with winamp.
Also whats with the Xaudio file actually being in the atomix directory in the first place? If its built in then why have the same file thats been built in, in the atomix directory? Seems a bit wierd to me.
I believe it is built in due to the little test that i mentioned b4.
Oh well i guess it was worth a try. I still think the Atomix team should really be thinking about improving the sound quality and also why not try a different MP3 decoder? Like the winamp decoder for example?
Also to grimm... The website address u gave me was good but the encoders u used are out of date. There is a new Fraunhofer ACM codec out now and also LAME 3.93.1.
The version of LAME u used was 3.92.
I have been doing a little research on encoders and results have shown that the fraunhofer wins slightly over LAME. Results also show that for all those people who like to encode at 128kbps (Only god knows why these people do this cause the quality is no where near as good as 192kbps and if u cant offord the drive space to encode at 192kbps then i suggest u buy a new hard drive!!) Fraunhofer is the codec to use.
Dark Storm
geposted Fri 07 Feb 03 @ 1:29 am
Grimm
The older 1.x Atomix used the external XAudio.dll file. If it was removed or changed, Atomix would refuse to work. I was hopeing that the newer version of the XAudio.dll would use the same calls and/or was being used by Atomix from the already compiled .dll. Apparently, either the calls were different from the newer XAudio, or the Atomix team compiled thier own XAudio.dll from the source code using thier own unique calls.
The newer 2.x version still come with XAudio.dll. Why? I dunno. It's no longer needed by the program. Maybe someone forgot to take it out when the new version was released.
As far as the codecs, its what I have on hand. The Fraunhofer codec is the version built into the decoder supplied with the last release of WinAmp2.x. Dont hold your breath on Atomix using the Fraunhofer codec though, since they charge for its use.
And for 128kbps, Fraunhofer or Lame sould be good. At that bit rate, too much information is tossed out. Although you can tweak the settings with Lame much more then you can with the Fraunhofer, and try to retain some more information. But since I dont use 128kbps, I dont bother with it.
Grimm
The newer 2.x version still come with XAudio.dll. Why? I dunno. It's no longer needed by the program. Maybe someone forgot to take it out when the new version was released.
As far as the codecs, its what I have on hand. The Fraunhofer codec is the version built into the decoder supplied with the last release of WinAmp2.x. Dont hold your breath on Atomix using the Fraunhofer codec though, since they charge for its use.
And for 128kbps, Fraunhofer or Lame sould be good. At that bit rate, too much information is tossed out. Although you can tweak the settings with Lame much more then you can with the Fraunhofer, and try to retain some more information. But since I dont use 128kbps, I dont bother with it.
Grimm
geposted Fri 07 Feb 03 @ 3:47 am
trip_likeido
I've concluded that the biggest difference in bitrates occurs between 128 and 192 Kbps ... Thanks to Grimm for opening up my eyes on this topic ... I know rip ALL my ORIGINAL CD singles at 192 kpbs VBR using EAC, Lame 3.9.3x at the slowest speed possible. Not only do I save disk space as opposed to rippping straight out at 256 kbps ... My MP3's retain 99.63% quality of the original WAV.
It's amazing how better a song sounds when it's pretty much exact to the original ... none of this 128 bullshit.
It's amazing how better a song sounds when it's pretty much exact to the original ... none of this 128 bullshit.
geposted Fri 07 Feb 03 @ 5:31 pm
jukesy
Please dont drop the time stretch, its one of the main points that seperates atomix from decks. I understand if you mix house music or dance it is not needed. However, there are many of us mp3 dj's who like to mix things up, ie dropping all sorts of tunes into a mix. Anyway, like what has been mentioned before when playing through a club or bar's PA system no one can tell the difference when thery are dancing anyway.
geposted Sun 09 Feb 03 @ 6:13 pm
jukesy
Please dont drop the time stretch, its one of the main points that seperates atomix from decks. I understand if you mix house music or dance it is not needed. However, there are many of us mp3 dj's who like to mix things up, ie dropping all sorts of tunes into a mix. Anyway, like what has been mentioned before when playing through a club or bar's PA system no one can tell the difference when thery are dancing anyway.
geposted Sun 09 Feb 03 @ 6:13 pm