Bedroom DJ using MP3s

dublin 16 lad · 07-12-2009 5:28am

On the topic of sound systems. Does anyone know what Dublin club has the best one?

PatrickD32 · 07-12-2009 5:29am

My guess would be Tripod?

Jev/N · 07-12-2009 6:18am

dublin 16 lad wrote: »

On the topic of sound systems. Does anyone know what Dublin club has the best one?

Twisted Pepper, no competition

PatrickD32 · 07-12-2009 6:27am

Jev/N wrote: »

Twisted Pepper, no competition

really ye? havnt been there.
Must try make a gig sometime.

Jev/N · 07-12-2009 6:30am

Check out some info here:

http://www.voidaudio.com/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=53

jtsuited · 07-12-2009 10:10am

Jev/N wrote: »

Twisted Pepper, no competition

+1.

It mightn't be the highest spec (maybe it is) but downstairs in the TP is tuned absolutely perfectly for techno/house and for the size of the room. An absolute joy to listen to.

VinylJunkie · 07-12-2009 12:43pm

jtsuited wrote: »

+1.

It mightn't be the highest spec (maybe it is) but downstairs in the TP is tuned absolutely perfectly for techno/house and for the size of the room. An absolute joy to listen to.

Agreed, excellent system.

electrogrimey · 07-12-2009 1:31pm

Jev/N wrote: »

Twisted Pepper, no competition

Yep.

+1

jimi_t · 07-12-2009 2:29pm

Only thing I will say was that at Carl Craig the saturday before last, at least one of the CDJs completely crapped out around 2am - possibly from the condensation. Sound system is decent alright, but its easily enough done in a place with such a low ceiling. I think that overall Tripod has the best venue/system in dublin given the space they're catering for. TBMC used to be brilliant but was underwhelemd the few times I've been back to the rebranded Button Factory.

electrogrimey · 07-12-2009 2:33pm

jimi_t wrote: »

Only thing I will say was that at Carl Craig the saturday before last, at least one of the CDJs completely crapped out around 2am - possibly from the condensation. Sound system is decent alright, but its easily enough done in a place with such a low ceiling. I think that overall Tripod has the best venue/system in dublin given the space they're catering for. TBMC used to be brilliant but was underwhelemd the few times I've been back to the rebranded Button Factory.

With experience of playing in both, I'd rate the system in Tripod miles above that of The Button Factory, but I'd still say the Twisted Pepper is better than both of them.

SteveDon · 07-12-2009 4:15pm

the system in the tivoli is pretty wild aswell, but id agree that the basement in the pepper is the best around

Zascar · 08-12-2009 6:27pm

I've never really been that impressed with the Tripod system. Been there plenty of times including big nights like Hawtin, Underworld and Dubfire and to me it has always been 'good' but not 'brilliant'. I prefer the one in Button Factory - anyone know what make it is? The Turbosound in the original Redbox years ago was amazing. I

ED E · 08-12-2009 6:57pm

Those void speakers look brilliant. Seems the produce good sound too.

*Added to lotto list*

copeyhagen · 08-12-2009 7:28pm

Zascar wrote: »

I've never really been that impressed with the Tripod system. Been there plenty of times including big nights like Hawtin, Underworld and Dubfire and to me it has always been 'good' but not 'brilliant'. I prefer the one in Button Factory - anyone know what make it is? The Turbosound in the original Redbox years ago was amazing. I

didnt the redbox system win a few awards years back?

sherdydan · 08-12-2009 7:40pm

hi guys, might be pulling the thread off topic a little too much, and if i am could a mod rectify it, but basically, im after ordering one of the following: http://www.musicstore.com/en_EN/IEP/Gemini-CDM-3600-Doppel-CD-Player/art-DJE0002271-000?CatalogVideo=

it isnt here yet, but have i made a good choice (probably should have asked before ordering:o) i checked up a few reviews online and it seemed alright, doesnt have scratch is the only thing it really seems to be missing, but i want it mainly for house/trance/techno and maybe a little *cough*hardstyle*cough* so im not bothered about that. Prefered the idea of vinyl, but try get vinyl down here in athlone:rolleyes:

c_o_ck p_i_ss chillage · 09-12-2009 5:14am

jtsuited wrote: »

most club systems are blurry, bassy and unclear.

Most djs haven't a clue about levels and distortion!!!!

jimi_t · 09-12-2009 9:30am

c_o_ck p_i_ss chillage wrote: »

Most djs haven't a clue about levels and distortion!!!!

Yeah, but as long as the levels on the mixer itself aren't red and clipping, its hard to mess up on that end. Its more to do with the way the club system is set up.

ironclaw · 09-12-2009 11:23am

jimi_t wrote: »

Yeah, but as long as the levels on the mixer itself aren't red and clipping, its hard to mess up on that end. Its more to do with the way the club system is set up.

Agreed but it does have alot to do with the mixer output.

On the side of the Button Factory, who put the speakers so low? The amount of people I've seen pressed against them... I can only imagine the ringing and I wear plugs specifically when I go there. The sound is excellent but too bassy hence the plugs clear it up :pac:

xdeletiax · 18-12-2009 7:16pm

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.

Zascar · 18-12-2009 7:22pm

xdeletiax wrote: »

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.

Seriosuly???? Sorry I find that hard to swallow. An mp3 like any other digital file is a series of One's and Zero's - I can't see how an mp3's audio quality can degrade over time... Can someone explain?

electrogrimey · 18-12-2009 7:26pm

Zascar wrote: »

Seriosuly???? Sorry I find that hard to swallow. An mp3 like any other digital file is a series of One's and Zero's - I can't see how an mp3's audio quality can degrade over time... Can someone explain?

Can't find any evidence to support the deterioration argument with a quick search...Could xdeletiax point us towards some reliable evidence?

Scubadevils · 18-12-2009 7:27pm

xdeletiax wrote: »

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.

I rip all CDs to FLAC and wouldn't dream of anything else. In my case not for digital DJing (yet) but for listening on my MP3 player... I have a 1TB drive that I store all my encoded FLAC music.... almost 700GB of that is now taken up but they are so cheap now I won't mind adding another soon.

I did a very basic sound test with some mates a while back... basically played a CD through my main music system and also ran an MP3 player through the AUX with the same album ripped in 256 MP3, then also compared with vinyl and the difference was unreal... vinyl the clear leader, CD 2nd and the MP3 miles behind... this was done with all sound settings flat. Not a completely scientific way to prove anything but no one could argue with the results they heard!

Melty · 18-12-2009 7:28pm

Google 'rotational velocidensity' and see what you find:rolleyes:

jtsuited · 18-12-2009 7:32pm

hahaha rotational velocidensity.

electrogrimey · 18-12-2009 7:33pm

So basically it's a loada bull****.

Zascar · 18-12-2009 7:36pm

Melty wrote: »

Google 'rotational velocidensity' and see what you find:rolleyes:

http://tinyurl.com/ya6vws4 - sounds familiar

Zascar · 18-12-2009 7:38pm

So if FLAC is so much better, why is mp3 the defacto standard my a mile? How come more sites don't offer/push FLAC more?

Scubadevils · 18-12-2009 7:39pm

Just to point out also, my quote on that was in reference to the difference in quality of FLAC and nothing to do with any loss of quality in MP3s over a period of time!!! Thats a head scratcher alright.

electrogrimey · 18-12-2009 7:43pm

Felixdhc wrote: »

Just to point out also, my quote on that was in reference to the difference in quality of FLAC and nothing to do with any loss of quality in MP3s over a period of time!!! Thats a head scratcher alright.

It's not a head-scratcher, apparently it's the "final verdict", Professor Troll must be right!

Scubadevils · 18-12-2009 7:44pm

Ok, some investigative work done and the results are compelling.

Same person or info taken from another site... you decide.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/why-flac-better-451369/

Hearing the difference now isn’t the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is ‘lossy’. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA – it’s about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don’t want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.

Bedroom DJ using MP3s

Comments