[quote="junger"]i plugged the tts into the phone and the cdj into line... it sounds better now... what stays is that the cdj output is still much louder than the tt...., can it be that thats just given?
[quote]
why don't you adjust the gain/trim knob so they are the same level?
about cdj 800 , how much it sucks and some noob questions!
i really have to get used to it... the vinyl i can influence directly in an analog and real way... i have to learn the reaction and so on of the jogwheel... but actually i started getting friends with it yesterday night.. dont have alot of time atm because of exams but itll be ok soon i guess...roland wrote:the cdj800 is imo the best cdplayer for homeuse.. plays just like its bigger brother but doesn't have all those useless features..
actually if you get used to it you'll see that it's one of the easiest things on earth to mix in a track with that player.. which can be comfortable.. exactly how you want it to be when you are mixing your digital tracks
check out flac... if its not the money reason and only the space reason....trak660 wrote:If the CD channel is louder, you'll just have to turn the vinyl channels up to match.
If I bought the wav every time, I'd need so many hard drives!Unless it's really special, I'm going 320.
there is a freeware called freac - free audio converter. with this u can easily put your bought cds or wav files into flac format, which is alot smaller and lossless!!!
i really think of getting the music important to me again in wav format over the next months..
to be honest... i figured out that underneath each of the Phono/line ins , there is also a switch which you have to put on either phono or line...tone-def wrote:tone-def wrote:why don't you adjust the gain/trim knob so they are the same level?junger wrote:i plugged the tts into the phone and the cdj into line... it sounds better now... what stays is that the cdj output is still much louder than the tt...., can it be that thats just given?
i didnt...... so now i did
it works now , everything is working perfectly.... 
pafufta.... i think you're confused... and you're mixing up all your points... you've just jumped straight in and gone... MP3 bad...everything has to be wav blah blah blah....
first lets tackle the original question of burning an mp3 to audio CD....
I repeat... there is nothing wrong with this... you don't lose any quality that you had before... your mp3 doesn't lose any data that it had before.. so therefore there is no loss.... why because you're putting a compressed file into an uncompressed format...
like i said before... its like putting something small into a big box... it fits nicely.. and you pad out the space with some filler... its not like the other way round (CD converting to MP3)... thats having something big and trying to put it in a small box.. you have to shave things off to make it fit... so you lose some stuff...
i can give you a technical explanation if you want? its pretty boring though.
to the other stuff pafufta brought up...
MP3 does more than just chop down the full data by a third... there's loads of processing that goes into an mp3 encoding that makes sure sensible stuff is taken out from the data... when you look at an uncompressed data file, every sample it holds data across the whole frequency range... a lot of the time there's stuff that's not happening on freq ranges, stuff that you wouldn't normally hear or there's stuff that's the same from the sample before (ie a long tone that stretches out... why hold the same info over and over again?)... Despite this, an uncompressed format will store data about everything on each sample because it has too... technically we don't have to if we can infer that information... and that's what mp3 does... it tries to remove data for areas where it can reconstruct through inference.
Try to understand how it works first before tarnishing something...
I'm not saying they're a perfect format... just giving it a bit of credit for what it does... and trying to help calm down the hysteria
first lets tackle the original question of burning an mp3 to audio CD....
I repeat... there is nothing wrong with this... you don't lose any quality that you had before... your mp3 doesn't lose any data that it had before.. so therefore there is no loss.... why because you're putting a compressed file into an uncompressed format...
like i said before... its like putting something small into a big box... it fits nicely.. and you pad out the space with some filler... its not like the other way round (CD converting to MP3)... thats having something big and trying to put it in a small box.. you have to shave things off to make it fit... so you lose some stuff...
i can give you a technical explanation if you want? its pretty boring though.
to the other stuff pafufta brought up...
This is an incorrect statement... or a very simplistic view....pafufta816 wrote:this is a BIG nono. on a decent club PA it is completely noticable. 320kbps is 1/3 cd quality. never ever ever reencode compressed files to a different format.
MP3 does more than just chop down the full data by a third... there's loads of processing that goes into an mp3 encoding that makes sure sensible stuff is taken out from the data... when you look at an uncompressed data file, every sample it holds data across the whole frequency range... a lot of the time there's stuff that's not happening on freq ranges, stuff that you wouldn't normally hear or there's stuff that's the same from the sample before (ie a long tone that stretches out... why hold the same info over and over again?)... Despite this, an uncompressed format will store data about everything on each sample because it has too... technically we don't have to if we can infer that information... and that's what mp3 does... it tries to remove data for areas where it can reconstruct through inference.
Try to understand how it works first before tarnishing something...
true you could do that... or you just take an exact copy of the mp3... which is what everyone is doing.... its rare these days to transfer mp3s by the process you mention... The OP was just talking about burning mp3s to audio CD so that he can play them on his CD player...pafufta816 wrote:re-encoding mp3's just isn't desirable, despite the average listeners inability to discern, you experience massive generational degradation. imagine this; you record mp3's to an audio CD, you give it to someone else, they rip it to mp3.
our loss i guess... but really.. mp3 if its encoded well can sound decent... i'm sure there have been loads of times when you've been in clubs and someone's played an mp3 and you hadn't even notcied... your ears didn't pour with blood and eyes didn't melt out their sockets...pafufta816 wrote:it's just not legit in my opinion and shows a lack of professionalism. you can just continue using sub par mp3's to dj and sound like crap to anyone who takes audio mildly serious, i won't listen tho sorry boys!
I'm not saying they're a perfect format... just giving it a bit of credit for what it does... and trying to help calm down the hysteria