about cdj 800 , how much it sucks and some noob questions!

Themis · Post by **Themis** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:07 pm

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.

what are you talking man, a 1 TB Harddisk costs about 60 €

the average file size of a WAV is 80-100 MB

so thats a minimum of 10.000 files per 60 € harddisk .. how many hard drives do you need for your collection?

patrick bateman · Post by **patrick bateman** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:51 pm

Themis wrote:
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.
what are you talking man, a 1 TB Harddisk costs about 60 €

the average file size of a WAV is 80-100 MB

so thats a minimum of 10.000 files per 60 € harddisk .. how many hard drives do you need for your collection?

Even though I couldn't find a 1tb portable drive, then I agree with you. 500-640GB portable harddrives are available all over for a very fair price, and this gives you 5-7.000 wav files, at least.

lowpassfellow · Post by **lowpassfellow** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:16 pm

ChrisCV wrote:so that's the technical stuff...

the other thing... relationships with vinyl....

you're completely right... having a relationship with a vinyl record is completely different to one with a CD

when i rub my willy on vinyl i can feel every groove and bump in the record... plus i can look at the vinyl sleeve whilst i'm doing it... something easy on the eyes to see you home innit...

whilst doing it with CDs... they're just blank shiny generic discs. there's no feel..its so clinical.. and whilst you can have a taste of everything like some gigolo, at the end of the day you just feel like a used empty prostitute.

you talk about moving to serato... but to be fair that's no different to CDs... it looks like vinyl... feels like vinyl... except... its the same bit of vinyl that you use over and over again... before long you get bored of rubbing you wily on the same bit of plastic... and eventually you go blind because instead of looking at the same boring sleeve you're now straining your eyes over a computer screen looking at rows in a table containing track names...

but hey... nothings perfect... you're a DJ... you've got these formats to make the most of them.... rub your willy as best you can... each way has advantages and disadvantages.... just organise and structure it in a way that you can get over the disadvantages

Chris... you're my hero!

pafufta816 · Post by **pafufta816** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:51 pm

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.

yes i know this already. we can discuss the merits of mp3, but your missing my point i wasn't discussing the validity of mp3 at all. i overspoke my point chris. to paraphrase what i meant to say;

"burning mp3's to tracks on an audio cd = bad"
"256kbps + quality for mp3 is ok, if you are playing it as an mp3"
"reencoding file formats = bad" <-- even if you do reencode to a higher quality format it's still mega-bad, never do this PLZ. anyone who works professionally with audio would say the same.

what happens when you reencode:

Bob.mp3, a 320 kbps MP3, approx 10 meg.
*to burn this as a cd track we will convert it back to wave (which is what all cd burning software does), so now we have

Bob.wav, a 44khz/16 bit Wave, approx 100 meg. which has been encoded a total of 2 times now. the fact that it's be en/de/encompressed is the problem i was discussing.

to say that Bob.wav is of equal quality as Bob.mp3 isn't true. Bob.mp3 was already encoded as an mp3. when we convert it to a larger wave format we actually have to Decode it first, then finally dump that info into a Wave file. the back and forth switching of file formats will kill the sound quality of any piece of audio, and this again is something i have taken note of from speaker set ups in various buildings with differing types of systems (cd/mp3/satellite), juke boxes/cars/restaraunts/pubs.

Chris you assumed i was anti-MP3, this is definitely not the case. instead i was proposing a set of values and beliefs in audio quality. some points i mentioned where things to avoid. i didn't say "never play mp3's or you suck". i said "watch your audio quality or it will run away from you and it will be noticable despite that it sounds okay on your iPod."

and yeah, i know it's like "this guy is full of it" but i don't want to hear anyone podcast or dj low quality mp3 files. if i heard some kid playing over-compressed poor quality tunes i would probably find another pub/club to enjoy myself at.

infernal.techno · Post by **infernal.techno** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:30 pm

junger wrote:would be interesting to hear some more views on the whole burning mp3s or not to audio cds etc dilemma..

i don't think there is a dilemma, just depends on what software you use to burn the cds. i play wavs and mp3s together all the time on medium-sized sound systems, and really there is not much of a different. if you are upconverting mp3 to wav, that is just a pointless process because you gain nothing.

dbpoweramp is my favorite windows application for file extension conversion. flac, wav, mp3, aac, m4a, etc.

also, are you throwing up in your avatar?

infernal.techno · Post by **infernal.techno** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:45 pm

the cdj800 operates rather fine, just like its bigger counterparts, sure. the display on the unit sucks, so you really have to know breakdowns of your tracks if that's the kind of thing you pay attention to when playing vinyl. i haven't spent too much time with one, because i usually will play records at a party over using the 800 if that's what is available.

Robot Criminal · Post by **Robot Criminal** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:33 pm

infernal.techno wrote:
junger wrote:would be interesting to hear some more views on the whole burning mp3s or not to audio cds etc dilemma..
also, are you throwing up in your avatar?

lol, he's looking for god

but I don't get this decoding-degrades-quality thing, you have to decode for output anyway, so... ? The same as decoding and writing to cd, no? The trouble ofcource might arise from re-encoding but I bet noones that stupid

ChrisCV · Post by **ChrisCV** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:36 pm

pafufta816 wrote: "burning mp3's to tracks on an audio cd = bad"

but why?? you don't lose anything... you keep the mp3 quality and you have no degradation from what you originally have... that's my technical understanding... please explain to me what happens when you decode to audio CD that's bad?

pafufta816 wrote:"reencoding file formats = bad" <-- even if you do reencode to a higher quality format it's still mega-bad, never do this PLZ. anyone who works professionally with audio would say the same.

This i understand... reencoding will degrade quality as you're reinterpreting an interpretation... and this can be the case when re-encoding to higher quality compression formats....

but with audio cd and wav, because its uncompressed there is no re-interpretation... it just fills in the blanks with the data that it already knows.

so the stuff you were saying about encoding then reencoding to wav is incorrect to my knowledge.

therefore burning mp3 to audio CD, you won't lose anything. you're correct in saying it won't be better quality, but it definitely won't degrade in quality.
[/quote]