Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums
https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/

Software players which one?
https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9565		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  lanzodave [ Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Software players which one?
Hi all just got all my discs conerted onto the hard drive,
BUT
Which is the best software for easy use?
I've tried PCDJ and its rocket science
compuhost seems interesting
and im fidling with virtual DJ

so which is the best value and most user friendly?
Dave
Author:  twansenne [ Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
For player software, I prefer WINAMP (free) with the MP3+G plug-in (donate-ware)

For hosting software (rotation/song search), I prefer Sax & Dotty's Show presenter (about $45 USD) which uses WINAMP as it's player.
Author:  Lonman [ Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
I prefer MTU Video Hoster.  Very user friendly & feature rich.  Also if you don't have a book maker, it will create books as well.  All in one program so no need for a separate ripper.  Only downfall - I don't see it as one personally - is it uses a proprietary format for it's music files so once it's in their format, they can't be used on any other program.  Although it will play standard mp3+g's as well.
Author:  Tigrr27 [ Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
I prefer ClubDJ PRO 2 for mixing DJ music and playing karaoke.  They also have a few other programs that can fit whatever your needs might be including audio rippers, video rippers, karaoke rippers and light versions of clubDJ pro. They also have MobileDJ pro which is geared towards the mobile DJ who uses karaoke/video and also clubDJ lite which is just the audio mixing components of the clubDJ Pro for those who do not require karaoke or video mixing options.  you can read more about their products at their website- http://www.clubdjpro.com/index.php . It doesn't do all the other fancy karaoke hosting options like keeping track of rotation, setting up your equipment, getting you gigs or any of the other demanded options but, for a music/karaoke/video mixer, it is one of the best packages I have worked with.  Good luck with whatever direction you decide to go...


Tig
Author:  exweedfarmer [ Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
Is this for home use or are you a KJ?
Author:  Tigrr27 [ Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
I am a KJ/DJ and also use the same program for use at home...
Author:  exweedfarmer [ Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
Sorry Tig, I was adressing lanzodave.  If he's a home user he won't need a second screen or rotation sorting, book printing, DJ features, and all like that.
Author:  lanzodave [ Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
yep i'm a pro KJ
and all the files are zipped!
is that going to conflict with some players??
Author:  exweedfarmer [ Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
I think pretty much all of the accomodate zipped files (god knows why anyone would karaoke files) but now to quailfy.  Are you talking about the easiest to set up or the easiest to use on the job once it is set up?
Author:  RLC [ Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
exweedfarmer @ Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:19 pm wrote:
I think pretty much all of the accomodate zipped files (god knows why anyone would karaoke files) but now to quailfy.  Are you talking about the easiest to set up or the easiest to use on the job once it is set up?


exweedfarmer, please explain why you feel karaoke files (mp3 & cdg) should not be zipped
I'm curious.(and willing to be convinced)
Author:  mckyj57 [ Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
RLC @ Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:22 pm wrote:
exweedfarmer, please explain why you feel karaoke files (mp3 & cdg) should not be zipped
I'm curious.(and willing to be convinced)

I wouldn't go there. He seems to claim that the lossless zipping/unzipping process used by  hundreds of thousands of companies without problem somehow risks errors, and that no one should try to reduce their storage usage by the typical 15-20% zip gains you on an MP3+G file.
Author:  exweedfarmer [ Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
Unnecessary processing of any type slows down your computer and increases the risk of error.  MP3 doesn't compress very well ususally about 8% graphics do compress well nearly 90% and the savings is hard drive space of about 1.7 (guess) Mb per song.  The cost of that savings is more work for your processor, and rewriting the files every time you play them.  The more you ask your computer to do the more likely it is to fail.  Is failure at a gig acceptable?  No matter how slight you may estimate the increased risk, there is no point in taking it.
Author:  knightshow [ Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
mckyj57 @ Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:32 pm wrote:
RLC @ Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:22 pm wrote:
exweedfarmer, please explain why you feel karaoke files (mp3 & cdg) should not be zipped
I'm curious.(and willing to be convinced)

I wouldn't go there. He seems to claim that the lossless zipping/unzipping process used by  hundreds of thousands of companies without problem somehow risks errors, and that no one should try to reduce their storage usage by the typical 15-20% zip gains you on an MP3+G file.
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS??? C'mon, can't you just say something without going so overboard, Micky? LOL

I will agree that there was a time for zipped files, when space was at a premium. But now that it's truly not, creating the mp3+gs with less compression in the first place is a standard that more and more are adopting. Including myself. I now rip to 192 without thinking about it!
Author:  RLC [ Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
exweedfarmer @ Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:44 pm wrote:
Unnecessary processing of any type slows down your computer and increases the risk of error.  MP3 doesn't compress very well ususally about 8% graphics do compress well nearly 90% and the savings is hard drive space of about 1.7 (guess) Mb per song.  The cost of that savings is more work for your processor, and rewriting the files every time you play them.  The more you ask your computer to do the more likely it is to fail.  Is failure at a gig acceptable?  No matter how slight you may estimate the increased risk, there is no point in taking it.

I understand what you are saying here and I am not a programmer as you are, so I have another question.
Say you have 6,000 zipped songs.
Your database is indexed.
You queue up a song-it then has to be "unzipped" (temporarily rewritten, if you will)
But the matching cdg file is already there-in other words during the "unzipping" process the matching cdg file is found.
You hit play. Wala!

Now those same 6000 songs unzipped equals 12000 files (6000 mp3 & 6000 cdg).
Your database here is also indexed, but only to the mp3 files.
You queue up a song and your processor has to find the matching cdg file, but it doesn't even begin to look for it until you hit play.
It may get lucky and find it as the first one it looks at or it may have to look at all 6000 cdg files - finding it on the last look (more than likely somewhere in the middle)
Which is using more processing?
Author:  mckyj57 [ Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
The idea that the small amount of processing required to unzip a file causes a significant chance of error is laughable. If it were true, hundreds of thousands -- and since there are several million companies in the world that is not hyperbole -- of companies would not use the program in their business. And you would certainly see some people attributing system failure to compression. Can anyone point those engineers out? I have been using it for 25 years, and I know of no cases where use of the compress/deflate algorithms have caused failure. Can I dream of an application where it wouldn't be wise to use it? Absolutely. But unzipping a music file in a karaoke setup isn't even close to it.

There is nothing wrong with believing it isn't worth the trouble. But casting FUD on a program and process as if it is a signficant source of failure when it is not, is simply wrong. Lossless compression technology is safe and useful. To imply otherwise is simply wrong.
Author:  exweedfarmer [ Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
RLC @ Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:37 am wrote:
exweedfarmer @ Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:44 pm wrote:
Unnecessary processing of any type slows down your computer and increases the risk of error.  MP3 doesn't compress very well ususally about 8% graphics do compress well nearly 90% and the savings is hard drive space of about 1.7 (guess) Mb per song.  The cost of that savings is more work for your processor, and rewriting the files every time you play them.  The more you ask your computer to do the more likely it is to fail.  Is failure at a gig acceptable?  No matter how slight you may estimate the increased risk, there is no point in taking it.

I understand what you are saying here and I am not a programmer as you are, so I have another question.
Say you have 6,000 zipped songs.
Your database is indexed.
You queue up a song-it then has to be "unzipped" (temporarily rewritten, if you will)
But the matching cdg file is already there-in other words during the "unzipping" process the matching cdg file is found.
You hit play. Wala!

Now those same 6000 songs unzipped equals 12000 files (6000 mp3 & 6000 cdg).
Your database here is also indexed, but only to the mp3 files.
You queue up a song and your processor has to find the matching cdg file, but it doesn't even begin to look for it until you hit play.
It may get lucky and find it as the first one it looks at or it may have to look at all 6000 cdg files - finding it on the last look (more than likely somewhere in the middle)
Which is using more processing?

Well, that's not quite my point.  Your six thousand zipped songs are no more or less indexed as far as the computer is concerned than you 12,000 MP3+CDG.  8,388,608
bytes in your adverage karaoke rip (assuming 8Mb).  So, the computer has pick up you 5.5 mb file, change every filpping bit of it just about, split it into two files, and rewrite both of them.  MP3 as already compressed so you just sent that through the washing machine for nothing.  CDG uses bit level graphics.  There are error correction bytes in the packets but most readers ignore them because of the processing overhead which is huge.  ....Okay, I was about to devolve into an explanation beyond the scope of this board but suffice it to say that, it being a binary process, adding only the two extra precess involved in zipping would at least squre you chances of error.  And for what???
Author:  lanzodave [ Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
Wow, hey,,,,,
The biggest problem of a file not playing or is slow in coming up has been overlooked!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We should all remember how freequently that the hen night gets up to sing and manages to trip over and pull the power lead to the laptop out!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now back on topic folks

i need something that will have a monitor on it and some facility wherebye i can type in the song and 'boosh' its on the player.
Author:  exweedfarmer [ Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
lanzodave @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:40 pm wrote:
i need something that will have a monitor on it and some facility wherebye i can type in the song and 'boosh' its on the player.

Doesn't pretty much every hoster do that?
Author:  DannyG2006 [ Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
lanzodave @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:40 pm wrote:
Wow, hey,,,,,
The biggest problem of a file not playing or is slow in coming up has been overlooked!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We should all remember how freequently that the hen night gets up to sing and manages to trip over and pull the power lead to the laptop out!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now back on topic folks

i need something that will have a monitor on it and some facility wherebye i can type in the song and 'boosh' its on the player.

Sounds like you want to do it the pc way then as that is the easiest.  
WHat software you choose is up to you. Try all the demos and choose which one is for you.
I'm still using roxbox as it contains most of the features that I use.
Doesn't mean that it's for everyone though.  Was going to convert over to AutoKDJ but two issues that needs to be addressed for me to do so. Winamp has to start accepting the standard naming conventions thatthe other programs reckognize and it has to be able to handle over 10,000 songs as I am not going to pair down my library to be under that amount.
Author:  exweedfarmer [ Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Software players which one?
What is it that doesn't handle over 10,000 songs?  I'm lost.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/