Karaoke Forums

How does Sound Choice name the tracks they provide for the GEM Series?
Are they separate .CDG and MP3 files? or .ZIP files?
Have you verified the 320kbps rate for all files?

I ask these questions because I was a bit perturbed when I received my Chartbust 12000+ drive to find that the files were dumped to a single directory and sequentially named instead of matching them to something like the KJPro Database.

Example:

CBC00000-0 - Artist - Title.mp3
CBC00000-0 - Artist - Title.cdg
CBC00001-0 - Artist - Title.mp3
CBC00001-0 - Artist - Title.cdg
CBC00002-0 - Artist - Title.mp3
CBC00002-0 - Artist - Title.cdg
CBC00003-0 - Artist - Title.mp3
CBC00003-0 - Artist - Title.cdg

I can deal with the non-ZIP format, but I am very meticulous with how I name and organize my files. It is a bit of an OCD thing for me.

I was also a tad bit surpised to find that the CB12000+ files are 256kbps and not the 320kbps files Sound Choice claims to do.
btw....PHM/Stellar is doing 192kbps for their current releases

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

You will be disappointed with the gem naming as well.
It's very sloppy and there are many that will require renaming. The content is just cgd and mp3 pairs not zipped - no folders - all files on root of cd.

Just remember these are musicians who are anti-computer and used to putting things on cd who are behind it. Probably the same reason their websites are such a mess and difficult to navigate.

Doesn't everyone know at least one good computer guy?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

most people can tell the difference when the bit sampling rate is less then 192k

at 192k and higher it takes a trained ear to hear the difference between a cd and a mp3 file.

i've even read on some sites that 192k is cd quality, but i can tell the difference at that rate, anything above 192k it gets hard to tell for me.

_________________
It's all good!

Latishaw has just lowered the price on their software. I use kj file manager to rename all my files that aren't named the way I like and if i got the gem series it would prolly only take about 10 minutes to rename everything, maybe less.

there are free programs out there, but i can't for the life of me remember them.

-james

192k is probably the most you would ever need, because by your own admission, it's difficult to tell any difference above that and that you would need "a trained ear." And you have to realize that most of the people listening to this, have senses that have been dulled by drinking in the first place.

It's easy for karaoke host to be so persnickety about their sound. They have to listen to it more often than the singers do. However, usually the rest of the audience has been drinking, and if you are doing a private party where there is no drinking, then 192 is still perfectly acceptable.

After posting this, I realized that what I am really miffed about is the lack of standards when it comes to anything other than a CD from the manufacturers. And even with CD's some include the +vocal tracks and some don't and some put them as tracks 1-8 while others use 9-16.

192, 256, 320 rips
zip vs extracted
no standardized naming convention.

Sure, they are competitors, but certain standards would be nice to have.
Am I being too picky?

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Yes.

It was impossible to get 30 suppliers 10 years ago to agree on anything including that clouds are usually white most of the time. Too many egos and too much infighting.

Even the MP3+G format "standard" wasn't created by manufacturers, it was market-driven and they have had to adapt to it.

Agreed. I will chalk it up to my OCD. I imagine that no matter what the standards would be that I would want to tweek it anyway.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

First, there is a small market segment that has exceptional hearing in either the high or low range, or both. These folks can not only tell the difference between an MP3 and CD+G, they find it annoying, and of low quality.

Again, this is definitely a very small piece of the market. Up to you how you wish to deal with it.

Second- as far as quality control- this only exists at the factory. Ripping discs or copying to a PC from the Gems, or downloading from a site is usually done by amateurs on consumer grade PCs. As such, there is absolutely no quality control.

If you wish to use MP3s, that is the choice you will have to make. No fault can be laid on the mfrs.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Here we go again!



This has been proven false over & over in the audio science world. It is a maybe ONLY in a strictly controlled environment under specific circumstances. In a noisy bar, over a PA, singing Karaoke, this will never happen with a song ripped at 256+/MP3. I have ever offered to come to Joe, at a location of his choosing, at my own expense, on his equipment that he knows inside/out, paying him for his time to PROVE this, but he refuses.



Downloading an MP3 does not change the file/song. Copying a GEM file from a data disc to a hard drive does not change the file/song. The perceived "grade" of a computer or the expertise of the user copying the file has nothing to do with it. Chris being a veteran of the PC world knows this. I honestly don't know where you get these ideas.

Ripping discs on a $300 machine or a $30,000 machine makes no difference in the resulting file as long as the same software is used to rip it. I suspect that even using different software (which may use different algorithms) to rip to the same bit rate on those two different machines would result in files that are indistinguishable from each other by the human ear.

I challenge anyone to tell the difference between a 192kbps rip I made on a machine 8 years ago vs one I make today. That 8 yr old machine was markedly inferior to the machine I use now.



I was referring to the MP3s provided by the manufacturers. If SC, CB and PHM are all providing MP3s at different bit rates, that speaks directly the lack of standards I was referring to.

I am not laying fault with manufacturers as much as questioning why one is 192, another 256 and another 320.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

1) Bazza's statement has been proven false time and time again in the real world of science and electronics through the use of testing equipment designed espescially for that purpose. Forgetting the actual ripping to MP3s, the act of simply uploading and downloading alone through whatever medium is available can have an effect on the end product just through transmission loss.

2) Bazza's statement has been proven false time and time again using the same sort of equipment. This statement by is his ESPECIALLY easy to prove false with the help of a PC and scope.

Using file comparisons in a PC, one can EASILY see the difference in file sizes and note the lost audio information.

Using a scope, one can EASILY see the differences ( negative) between MP3s and BIN or even WAV files.

This will happen no matter how skilled the PC operator is. However, an unskilled operator can certainly cause an even greater loss of quality.

You can do these tests yourself, and do not have to rely on my word.

Bazza simply thinks that because I mention these things, and he uses MP3s, that I am attacking their use by anyone, and feels he must defend himself.

The truth of the matter is, as I have stated over and over- only to be ignored by Bazza- that I only choose not to use them myself.

As also stated ad nauseum and ignored, it is only a VERY small segment of folks who can hear the difference, and it should have no effect on most shows.

I simply have a personal preference that annoys Bazza, for reasons unknown to me.

I stated in the post above that it was a small market segment that is affected, and then re-iterated the same. Bazza just feels that everyone has the same hearing range as himself, though this is also known to be untrue. For that matter, his own hearing range will change as he ages.

That being said, I'm off of this thread before Bazza goes off on another rant.

Bazza has said what he wanted, and so have I. It's up to the OP to take it from there.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Have you ever thought of being a politician? You have never proven anything. You simply make things up over & over. I on the other hand have given sources & links time and again. Would you like me to dig up the threads and repeat them all for you?



Total, unequivocal BS. Please explain exactly how this "transmission loss" occurs during an FTP transfer (download) or file copy (GEM disc).



PLEASE PAY ATTENTION: For the 5th time, this proves nothing. People do not listen to music on a scope.

AGAIN: If you take the purest water and look at it under an electron microscope, you will see bacteria. This does not mean it isn't safe, or you can taste it.

The same goes for music on a scope. Put your CD's on a scope next to the original master tapes. They will be different. What does mean? Nothing. You can't hear the difference.



PLEASE PAY ATTENTION: This proves nothing, except ....the file sizes are different. PLEASE educate yourself as to psycho-acoustics and file compression. For the 5th time, if you take a Stephen King novel and ZIP it, a file comparison will show a 60% or greater reduction in size. This DOES NOT mean the 60% of the novel (or song) is lost. It only means the file is smaller.



PLEASE PAY ATTENTION: People do not listen with their eyes. People do not listen to music on a scope. The only thing you have proven, is that they are different. No one, not even you could tell the difference between a CD and a 256+ MP3, in a bar, over an analog PA.



This is one of the more bizarre cards in your deck of responses. Please explain exactly what you mean. How could an "unskilled PC operator" cause "greater loss of quality" downloading an MP3 or copying a GEM disc?



No. Bazza says Joe spouts BS on a regular basis. And, seeing as I work every day at a digital audio software company, I have the background to call you on it.



And your choices are your own! It's when you make things up and spout them as fact to others to vindicate that choice, that I get my hackles up.



And I have replied ad nauseum that even THOSE people MIGHT only be able to tell in a controlled, scientific study. Which is not how normal people listen to music. MANY, MANY tests have been done on this subject. Statistically, those who claim this ability are no better than random chance.



I have NO problem with your personal preference. What annoys me is when you invent BS in attempt to justify that personal preference.

Just say "I like them better" and stop.

Making things up about "transmission loss", "unskilled operators" and "file size comparison" do nothing but discredit you.



Then let me come you you, at my cost, to a venue of your choice, PAY YOU for your time, on your equipment, and using a proven test CD from MIT, buy you a beer and let you prove to me your abilities.



Of course you are. There is no valid response and I didn't expect one. Just as you have never answered any of these same questions in previous threads. You spout, and run.



Yes, and as long as mis-information is spread, I will continue to respond. If I was to post over and over again that Resistors store power for later use and I could prove it with a multimeter, you would eat me for lunch because it's made up BS. This is no different. I am sure you were/are a brilliant electrical engineer, but you have an extremely limited understanding of digital audio & file transmission methods.

well chartbusters chose 256 because it was the highest quality bitrate they could have while still fitting their music on one sd card. *this is a personal guess i have no definitive proof of this*

soundchoice chose 320 because when they were asking for feedback on how to realease them everyone said they wanted 320.

i have no idea why stellar chose 192. I would have at least preferred 256 but like everyone else said, no one can tell the difference in a bar

When I last loaded the GEM series onto a drive, I used the renamer that comes with musc book deluxe to rename all the files. You need an active subscription to their database updates to use it though.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Yup.


Complete and utter hogwash. Anyone with half an education in digital technology knows your statement is absolutely false.


The only reason it is only Bazza is that the rest of us just sort of figure it's obvious that you don't know what you are talking about, and we are sick of disputing you. We just let you sit there as an island of some type, the shoals of which we all avoid by navigating carefully.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

There two aspects that will affect the sound of your ripped songs.

your bit rate and your sample rate.

Personally, there is a difference for bit rate and I actually rip at 320. I Have a terra byte HD what do I care about 12 MB size files?

this allows me to take advantage of higher (dvd quality they say) sampling that my sound card offers at 1024 samples. That said, a lot of computers can't handle DVD sampling.

I really don't like 192 bit rate. I have tracks ripped at that speed, and when i listen to the difference with the 320, the 320 is fuller, more expansive and easier to mix with the singer to get a clean sound.

If you rip at a lower bit rate, then later on, if you want to play the songs at a higher sample rate, you may not be able to get the full benefit of the sound... just my personal outlook on this.

This is something I can hear easily by changing the sample rate in mid song. There is definately a noticable change.

_________________
Good music, good friends, howling good times!