MP3's am I missing something?

[paull]

Hi,

I have just upgraded to a Denon DN-D4500, mainly for its reliabilty and sound quality. I also thought I was investing in the future because of the MP3 capabilty and firmware downloads.

My problem started when I went to Napster to download what I thought was MP3's to find I had spend £30 on WMA files that do not appear to be able to be converted to MP3's because of DRM? more searching has only come up with more of the same Dual Cd players advertising MP3 playback and websites only downloading WMA with DRM.

Have I got this all wrong? is there a legal site with a varied collection of MP3's on it (the sort you get as special requests for weddings etc) that will play on My Denon?

Thanks

[Danno13]

Nope.. unfortunatley, for now all the major legal download providers use WMA because of its compatibility with DRM. Its because all us honest legal downloaders really just want to run off hundreds of copies and sell them.... :eek:

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Can you not burn the WMAs to make an Mp3 disc?

Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick here?

[Alex - Cream Ents]

I know you can convert WMA to MP3 with a couple of utils (I think Cool Edit does it) but I don't know if this works with the DRM encoded ones.

[Danno13]

Well the way i do it is to burn to an audio cd.. and then rip back on to the pc in mp3.. this also leaves you with a backup CD copy!

[Alex - Cream Ents]

Whatever works really. Yes I'd not thought about that.

[paull]

Hi,

I am not sure, that is why I am asking. I tried using wavelab and then audio grabber, but niether liked the DRM. Can you suggest some software that would convert Napster wma files to MP3's that a Denon would be able to play.

Thanks

[Alex - Cream Ents]

http://www.blazemp.com/convert_drm_protected_wma.htm try this


http://www.zittware.com/Products/CDMaster32/Tutorials/CopyProtected_WMA_to_MP3.html

And that may be helpful...gotta love google.

[Shaun]

I'm all for DRM but there has to be a more workable solution.

By default I'm guessing that as soon as you convert it from wma to mp3 it's now an illegal copy?. There has to be a compromise somewhere that allows us to use the purchased medium legally and in a format that's workable for our professional needs?!

[paull]

Why then are the hardware companies making such a big deal about their players being MP3 compatable if you can not legally get music for them!!!!!!!!

Confused

Paul

[paull]

Al

Thanks for that, I had looked at both of those options, but they seemed so long winded hence the reason for the post. I think I will try the method Danno13 described burn to cd as a wma file then rip back as a MP3.

I have a feeling that the sound may be not up to much even at 192k as they both use different encrytption methods. Has anybody tired this? have you had quality issues with this method?

Thanks

Paul

[KrazyKaz]

I personally haven't any sound/quality problems with converting at 192 or 128 for that matter.

I'm sure somebody will disagree with me!! :-)

[paull]

Are you ripping from an audio CD or a WMA downloaded file? The reason I ask, is that I have read that while ripping form an audio CD had a rate of 192k or above should not be noticable to most customers, going from a WMA napster file which is already compressed to another compressed format may have noticable artifacts that could be spotted by our paymasters the general public.

Thanks

Paul

[KrazyKaz]

I have ripped from woolies WMA at 128k and they sound fine to me

[paull]

Thats good news, I will give that a go this evening.

Thank-you all for your help.

Paul

[Paul James Promotions]

As mentioned earlier, i believe the only way to do it is to burn to Audio CD using Windows Media Player, then convert back to MP3.

Use 320kbps, or 192kbps if you're tying to fit more tracks on a disk. 128kbps is poor quality, and you will notice the difference on certain tracks.

[Alex - Cream Ents]

Yes definately don't go for anything below 192Kbps, 128 stuff tends to sound a bit ropey over a large system.

[KrazyKaz]

I suppose because I haven't got a large system, I haven't noticed a quality difference, but to be honest, for what I do, they sound fine on 128, but then, that is just my opinion.

[jwpentgroup]

128 is far far too low. 192 minimum, 320 is what i use.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

I was say that this all depends on what you are using to play out on.

Most of my tracks I ripped originally at 128Kbps, as I did it a few years ago and hard drive space wasn't as cheap as it is now.

Some tracks sound a little bit ropey, but it depends to a certain degree on the production of the individual track. I have certain tracks ripped at 128 that sound better then the more recent ones ripped at 192. How do you account for that?

Generally, your audience won't notice unless you have audiophiles listening.

[KrazyKaz]

As I said, ones that I have ripped at 128 are fine, not ropey,poor quality, inadequate, etc.

[+Scooby+]

Well the way i do it is to burn to an audio cd.. and then rip back on to the pc in mp3.. this also leaves you with a backup CD copy!

If you do that, have you not then altered the terms of the licence and the format and made an illegal copy?

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

If you do that, have you not then altered the terms of the licence and the format and made an illegal copy?

It really depends on the terms of the individual track.

Woolworths for example, give you a useage with each track - x amount of burns, transfers to portable device and number of PCs.

You could burn to a CD quite legally, but as it stands you'd need the SG6 and permission of the record companies to rip it, so just like ripping any other CD really.

However all this will change soon hopefully. :)

[paull]

I have succesfully burned the wma to a CDRW but can not rip it back as a MP3. I was succesful when burned the file as data, but lost all the tags relating to song name and artist.

What software do you use and in what sequence do you use it to get from having a Napster WMA file (paid for not rented) to having a MP3 with tags all intact?

[Have a disco]

hate to say this remove drm tags from file properties and da da will burn to any format. Not reccommending this as would make track illegal but solves all problems in one go. you could just copy DRM info and the delete it change the format and replace once in MP3 format this is only a small loop hole out of many out there!!!!

roll on the illusive DJ Licence and fair usage ability

[CRAZY K]

Daz, Jamie and others--can I ask--as I am thinking of joining the Laptop Brigade shortly in a small way--when you say loss of quality on some recordings---are we talking less bass--less treble---distortion or does it just sound rubbish---can you compensate with EQ or is that not possible :sad:

Is it older tracks say from the 50s and 60s that sound bad? or no particular pattern?


Thanks

CRAZY K

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Daz, Jamie and others--can I ask--as I am thinking of joining the Laptop Brigade shortly in a small way--when you say loss of quality on some recordings---are we talking less bass--less treble---distortion or does it just sound rubbish---can you compensate with EQ or is that not possible :sad:

Thanks

CRAZY K

I did an experiment a while back by playing an mp3 alongside a CD, and yes the CD sounded better. To me a slightly more rounded sound with more gain and slightly more mid.

So, I just eq'd the mp3 up slightly (not much) and they both sounded the same! You will always get more gain from a CD though.

[Have a disco]

stick to 192 rather than 128 better quality if you can get 320 do so but remember it takes up more space on any disc format

[CRAZY K]

So using 320 ---what size is the the file reduced to compared to 128?

In other words roughly how much more harddrive is taken up to get better quality?---50 per cent or more?

Just so I can do some calculations!

As initially its only about 50 CDs then wont matter much.

Thanks

CRAZY K

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

So using 320 ---what size is the the file reduced to compared to 128?

In other words roughly how much more harddrive is taken up to get better quality?---50 per cent or more?

Just so I can do some calculations!

As initially its only about 50 CDs then wont matter much.

Thanks

CRAZY K


OK, just had a look for you....

A tune ripped at 320kbps, playing time of 3 mins 42 secs = 8699KB
A tune ripped at 192kbps, playing time of 3 mins 41 secs = 5203KB
A tune ripped at 128kbps, playing time of 3 mins 41 secs = 3467KB

Personally, I would rip at 320 if you are starting from scratch, as HD space is fairly cheap and it means you won't have to do it again (like I'm going to have to at some point :sad: )

Hope this helps. :)

[BeerFunk]

Hi,

I have just upgraded to a Denon DN-D4500, mainly for its reliabilty and sound quality. I also thought I was investing in the future because of the MP3 capabilty and firmware downloads.

I would strongly advise against using MP3s on CDs - unless you have them all organised well and encoded at a constant bit rate of at least 192kbps. My Denons play MP3s, but in live use it is a lot slower and less reliable than using regular CDs

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

I would strongly advise against using MP3s on CDs - unless you have them all organised well and encoded at a constant bit rate of at least 192kbps. My Denons play MP3s, but in live use it is a lot slower and less reliable than using regular CDs

Might as well get a PC then... :teeth:

[CRAZY K]

Thanks Daz--youre a STAR!

CRAZY K

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Thanks Daz--youre a STAR!

CRAZY K

No problem!

Take those figures as an average though, 'cos they do seem to vary. (Don't ask me why though)

[BeerFunk]

Well obviously a hard disc drive can read an MP3 perfectly and a lot quicker than a CD drive can - a CD drive will skip over 'un-readable' parts which doesn't affect the ouput audio (to the human ear anyway). However, 0.01 second of CD audio is the equivalence of 0.1 seconds of MP3 audio (approximately)

[Paul James Promotions]

I would strongly advise against using MP3s on CDs - unless you have them all organised well and encoded at a constant bit rate of at least 192kbps. My Denons play MP3s, but in live use it is a lot slower and less reliable than using regular CDs

Wouldn't happen to be the DN D4000 would it? I have the same unit and it's not the best player of MP3 in the world :sad:

[BeerFunk]

Na, I use the Denon DN-S5000s Jamie. No DJ CD players are brilliant with MP3s, it's just not the primary use for them (yet)

[Fresh]

No problem!

Take those figures as an average though, 'cos they do seem to vary. (Don't ask me why though)

Varies due to the track as each song will have more or less silent parts or a continued passage that is good for compression

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Varies due to the track as each song will have more or less silent parts or a continued passage that is good for compression

I knew some smart-arse would know.... :teeth:

[Alex - Cream Ents]

I believe 320Kbps is "CD Quality" as it were, in relation to direct comparison. And yes the Denon 4000s are a bit slow with MP3 discs - but then again so are all the MP3 CD players at the moment. It's only a matter of time before they improve!

[paull]

As I just want to use Napster for getting requested tracks not in my collection, would it be easier to by a wma compatible MP3 player and hook it up to my mixer ( PC is the long term option, but I have only just brought the Denons and a whole bunch of JBL speakers )

Has anybody else done this? is it a workable option whilst DJ'ing

Paul

[stokeentertainment]

Some interesting reading there. (This can become addictive).

I just wanted to say that all of my MP3's have been encoded at 128kb/s and they sound great, even at very high volumes. I also have some MP3 CD's which I use as backup (as you never can fully trust a PC) and they have the same 128kb/s MP3's on them and sound just as good. Some valid points though about hard drive space. If you're encoding now, you may as well go higher than 128 although I would hate to think that I had to re-encode my 21,000 MP3s :omg:

Incidentally, Sony's Sound Forge actually class 128kb/s as "CD quality" and I wouldn't disagree with that. As long as you have a decent quality encoder, even the experts wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Some of the encoders out there are a total waste of time. I have tried a few. Even encoding at the highest quality would not be beneficial in the long run for these poor encoders. I've used CDex for years. What does everyone else use?

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

As I just want to use Napster for getting requested tracks not in my collection, would it be easier to by a wma compatible MP3 player and hook it up to my mixer ( PC is the long term option, but I have only just brought the Denons and a whole bunch of JBL speakers )

Has anybody else done this? is it a workable option whilst DJ'ing

Paul


I've just had a thought (One that I should of had earlier... :embarasse )

If you buy PCDJ Red VRM, this actually plays WMA DRM files as long as you download straight to your gig machine.

Now I know of lot of people will say you shouldn't be putting your gig machine on the internet, but you're hardly going to be getting any nasties downloading from legal sites such as Napster or Woolies are you?

[Alex - Cream Ents]

That's a very good point Darren, and seeing as I have PCDJ Red VRM I too should have thought of that one earlier!!! So :embarasse all round really! And yes as long as you're using "legal" download sources, have a virus scanner and firewall, there shouldn't be too much risk of 'netting your work PC/laptop.

[KrazyKaz]

I've just had a thought (One that I should of had earlier... :embarasse )

If you buy PCDJ Red VRM, this actually plays WMA DRM files as long as you download straight to your gig machine.

Now I know of lot of people will say you shouldn't be putting your gig machine on the internet, but you're hardly going to be getting any nasties downloading from legal sites such as Napster or Woolies are you?

That's interesting.

What about PCDJ Blue VRM? Does that play WMA DRM files too?

:teeth:

[stokeentertainment]

Yes, interesting. I've not really read up on WMA DRM files but I will have to do some research for my software (http://www.stokeEntertainment.com/livedjpro/downloads.htm). Yet another obstacle to overcome :)

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

That's interesting.

What about PCDJ Blue VRM? Does that play WMA DRM files too?

:teeth:

Yup :)

Have a look at the comparison chart here. http://www.pcdj.com/Products/RedBlueVRM.asp

[Paul James Promotions]

Incidentally, Sony's Sound Forge actually class 128kb/s as "CD quality" and I wouldn't disagree with that. As long as you have a decent quality encoder, even the experts wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Some of the encoders out there are a total waste of time. I have tried a few

There is definately a difference between 128 and 320kbps, especially with vocal mids. If you take a track like 'Norah Jones - Don't Know Why' (superb recording), convert it from 320 to 128, it simply doesn't sound the same.

[KrazyKaz]

Yup :)

Have a look at the comparison chart here. http://www.pcdj.com/Products/RedBlueVRM.asp

Cheers, thanks for that :)

[stokeentertainment]

You should never convert an existing audio file into a different audio file with a different bit rate as this is bound to hinder the quality. I am sure that the 128kb/s file would sound much better had it been converted directly from the original source.

[Paul James Promotions]

You should never convert an existing audio file into a different audio file with a different bit rate as this is bound to hinder the quality. I am sure that the 128kb/s file would sound much better had it been converted directly from the original source.

It appears to make no difference.

[BeerFunk]

It's all down to one's ear..


That's a very good point Darren, and seeing as I have PCDJ Red VRM I too should have thought of that one earlier!!! So :embarasse all round really! And yes as long as you're using "legal" download sources, have a virus scanner and firewall, there shouldn't be too much risk of 'netting your work PC/laptop.

It ain't just about the risk - the less drivers and services activated on a mchine - the more stable it will be. A barebones OS is what you want for maximum stability (although not essential if you keep your system tidy)

[stokeentertainment]

Well, I'll steer clear of 'Norah Jones - Don't Know Why' and stick to my other 21,000 MP3's so I don't have to recode them :)

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

It's all down to one's ear..





I agree. :)

[stokeentertainment]

Incidentally I've just listen to 'Norah Jones - Don't Know Why' and you're right, it's a lovely track :)

[CRAZY K]

Matt, can you please explain your last post re converting for best results
at 128KB in idiot language--

for my benefit :teeth:

Statistically ( as they say) it seems a bit unlikely that your other 20,999 tracks are perfect and the one mentioned by Jamie isnt!

But then what do I know about these things :omg:

Thanks

CRAZY K

[Have a disco]

320 is basically used for Video CD's music were as
192 is now std for all cd's available upon the market place
128 is used buy older cds

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

320 is basically used for Video CD's music were as
192 is now std for all cd's available upon the market place
128 is used buy older cds

Are you sure about this as CDs are uncompressed.

Hence - uncompressed audio as stored on a compact disc has a bit rate of 1411.2 kbit/s (16 bits/sample × 44100 samples/second × 2 channels).

[stokeentertainment]

Exactly, I'm afraid the other stats were wrong. CD's are uncompressed and cannot be any other bit rate/frequency than mentioned previously because it is a set standard. MP3's can be compressed at almost any bit rate, depending on the quality that you require.

Anyways, I'm happy with my tiny "non-cd quality" bit rate of 128Kb/s for my MP3's :)

[Have a disco]

belive thats what a lot of companies are doing

[CRAZY K]

Ok so in idiots language for me again-- :sad:

If I wish to put all my CDs on to a laptop(new thread) by converting them first to MP3 what rate should I be using---320 appears to be the recommendation to get absolute best quality---but then is it affected by the age of CD as Badger is suggesting --- if there are different rates on older and newer CDs how do I know what the rate for any particular CD is? AND should I be converting at different rates? OR is that a red herring :sad:

Or just convert everything at 320 to be safe?

Confused of Northamptonshire--wheres Wolfie when you need him :teeth:

Thanks

CRAZY K

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Ok so in idiots language for me again-- :sad:

If I wish to put all my CDs on to a laptop(new thread) by converting them first to MP3 what rate should I be using---320 appears to be the recommendation to get absolute best quality---but then is it affected by the age of CD as Badger is suggesting --- if there are different rates on older and newer CDs how do I know what the rate for any particular CD is? AND should I be converting at different rates? OR is that a red herring :sad:

Or just convert everything at 320 to be safe?

Confused of Northamptonshire--wheres Wolfie when you need him :teeth:

Thanks

CRAZY K

Ignore what Badger said, it's complete rubbish.

Read what I said about CDs being an uncompressed format first and the bit rate ( uncompressed audio as stored on a compact disc has a bit rate of 1411.2 kbit/s) which is the same for all CDs. The quality will also depend on the production etc on the original recording, so it's not necessarily true that a 320 ripped disc will sound better then a 128 ripped disc if the original recording is rubbish.

You are taking an uncompressed format and compressing it down to a smaller file. If you didn't you'd end up with a WAV file which is the same quality as a CD, but would be a massive file, hence the reason to compress them, lose some sound quality and have a smaller file.

If you have a large hard drive then rip at 320kbps and go for the best quality.

Generally anything from 128 upwards is acceptable, but as someone mentioned earlier it really depends on the listeners ear.

I personally rip at 192 and that's fine for me and my system.

The best thing to do Alan is to do a few tests yourself.

Rip the same track at different bit rates, and then play them through your PA and see how they sound.

Hope this helps!

[BeerFunk]

Yup - 192kbps is more than adequate - I'd recommend you go with that :thumbs_up

[CRAZY K]

Thanks guys, stops me wasting time!

CRAZY K