|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
Author |
Message |
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 1:27 am |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am Posts: 3885 Images: 0 Been Liked: 397 times
|
Any discs that I buy, (which are few and far between, now), I rip at 320. Is there a major difference?? No, not really, UNLESS I am under headphones. In a crowded bar, there really isn't much of a difference. Why do I do it?? Only because I KNOW the quality is better, and I am a bit OCD.
What I wish I had is the technological knowledge to remix much of what I have ripped. The mixes on some of these Karaoke discs is HORRIBLE. Either they are too compressed, or they are muddy, or they just need a little help.
_________________ I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
Top |
|
|
Cueball
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 1:48 am |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm Posts: 4433 Location: New York City Been Liked: 757 times
|
Lonman wrote: The said certification on CB was a choice and just to register the CB discs with them for nothing. Lonnie, I don't recall seeing that mentioned. All I saw was this: JimHarrington wrote: People who already have a SC certification will be able to register their CB original media at no additional charge. We haven't put that on the website yet.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 2:08 am |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm Posts: 22978 Songs: 35 Images: 3 Location: Tacoma, WA Been Liked: 2126 times
|
Ah maybe that is what i saw.
_________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
Top |
|
|
Karaoke Croaker
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 2:49 am |
|
|
Super Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:07 pm Posts: 576 Been Liked: 108 times
|
Well, there you have it. as soon as someone says they keep the files to save space on their hard drive, someone makes an inference that they must be a pirate if they have so many songs that they don't fit on their internal hard drive. So much for being innocent until PROVEN GUILTY. It's been said many times before. The average person can't tell the difference between 128 rips and 320 rips so why waste the space storing the files in a format that takes up more than double the hard drive space with no perceivable added benefit? Amazing how quickly how someone who doesn't operate like a sheep gets attacked here for having his or her own opinions about karaoke. If you're not being called a pirate, you're being called an asshat or just a plain liar. It's no wonder that this forum has the feel of a ghost town. I guess it's just safer to lurk and linger.
|
|
Top |
|
|
karaokeniagarafalls
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:46 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:39 am Posts: 1735 Images: 12 Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario Canada Been Liked: 190 times
|
You actually notice the difference in sound quality at higher volumes usually more than 100 watts.
As far as assuming pirates, yes they are easy to detect. Anyone who asks for assistance with large hard drives and poor quality songs are "most likely" not the original and always looking for that free ride.
I myself find original karaoke cdg disks on kijiji for like 50 cents a disk, i sell original DK disks for $4.00 so bottom line is why would people waste there time with pirates when they can get the original songs for pennies.
Don't be so damn cheap!
If anyone intends to kj for a living, start off on the right foot.
People on this forum are not stupid, many are professionals, so don't waste their time because they also can tell a pirate from the "Real Deal"
|
|
Top |
|
|
Karaoke Croaker
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:37 am |
|
|
Super Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:07 pm Posts: 576 Been Liked: 108 times
|
Wow! The government could use people like you to weed out the terrorists who are trying to enter the country under the guise of refugees.
|
|
Top |
|
|
karaokeniagarafalls
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:46 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:39 am Posts: 1735 Images: 12 Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario Canada Been Liked: 190 times
|
Funny you mention something like that, i am flattered. I'm not no karaoke police, i just want people in the karaoke world to know there are options available on the cheap to keep head above water without having to fall into that stupid piracy trap.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Karaoke Croaker
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:07 am |
|
|
Super Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:07 pm Posts: 576 Been Liked: 108 times
|
Since 9 out of 10 KJs are pirates; it shouldn't be too hard to spot one. . a blind man would have a 90% chance of picking them out.
|
|
Top |
|
|
karaokeniagarafalls
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:36 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:39 am Posts: 1735 Images: 12 Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario Canada Been Liked: 190 times
|
Hmmm.. not really because i see over 1.5 million DJ's / kJ's attending the shows throughout the year and not much talk on piracy, but then when investigating the underground i see as many as 100-150 pirates bringing the figures to about 1%
The figure is so low that many companies don't waste their time enforcing.
On another hand there are approx 50 or more websites that are offering online music for resale as digital downloads that have very impressive looking storefronts with preview options, these are all pirate sites. I will not mention any but these are the ones that put a big dent in the music industry.
Bottom line is try to stick with the reputable companies, (soundchoice has earned their seat and are a clear choice for todays professional kj.
|
|
Top |
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:07 am |
|
|
Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am Posts: 4839 Location: In your head rent-free Been Liked: 582 times
|
JimHarrington wrote: jclaydon wrote: I have already paid for my SC certification, which still hasn't taken place by the way, i paid for my GEM series (still not listed on website for that) and i even managed to pay towards the original advance program.
I think you mean to say that the audit hasn't taken place yet. You are certified and listed on the website as such. Since you mentioned it, I went ahead and had them add your GEM series license number to your directory record as well. We are in the process of reformatting the licensee directory, so we have not updated records as frequently of late. No, that's not what he means to say so don't put words in his mouth. He said exactly what he said: "I have already paid for my SC certification, which still hasn't taken place by the way..."Which means he paid you for something... and you've so far, done NOTHING. Unless of course, your definition of "certified" is simply mailing in a fee and that's not any kind of "certification" and you know it. Which is not surprising. Just another tinkling in your own well when your own supporters are complaining that you seem to have plenty of time and money to pursue other interests like the advance fiasco, acquiring trademarks to sue for, etc.. But you just don't seem to have enough time to perform a certification (what a joke that is) that you've already been paid for.... you're simply accepting money and calling them "certified." And this is not the first time this has happened either. I really wonder how you can sleep at night knowing that you treat your OWN customers this way... (I say "your own customers" because you are "an officer" of PEP squad an no longer just employee counsel.)
Last edited by c. staley on Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:37 am |
|
|
Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am Posts: 4839 Location: In your head rent-free Been Liked: 582 times
|
JimHarrington wrote: c. staley wrote: JimHarrington wrote: Since you've claimed to have a non-expiring CB certificate, it will cost you nothing to register; all you have to do is supply us with a scan of the certificate and a group photo of your discs. Bwahahaha! I just about spewed on my monitor reading this pompous, arrogant and presumptuous demand! Gee whiz, you mean I can "register" for free? I'm still laughing... You have (or you claim to have) a certificate from a company that no longer exists. We're simply asking that you provide us with a copy of the certificate and a photo of your original media so that our records can accurately reflect your status. If the certificate is unexpired, we're not asking you to pay anything. If you don't want to cooperate, that's on you. "Cooperate?" Really? Perhaps you should have done your own due diligence when you "acquired" the trademark and "acquired" the sales records as well because it's not my obligation to provide you with squat.. and you know that, but you want to act like the sabre-rattling bully and try fool people into thinking they need to do anything? I'm still laughing! I really don't care about "your records" and like I said before, you're welcome to "ask" all you want, I'm under no obligation to provide you with anything at all... ever. You are grossly overstepping your boundary here and you're well aware of it and just hoping no else will notice. Too bad for you. JimHarrington wrote: c. staley wrote: I don't have to do anything for you. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. I'm under no obligation to give you diddly-squat or lift a finger. Especially just because you "want to know." You can "ask" all you want.... and in the interest of fair play, it will cost you nothing to ask.
Of course you don't have to cooperate. You can be a jackass about everything if that's your preference. It's not a matter of "preference" at all. You're the one being the jackass trying to scare people into believing that somehow they have to give you everything you just happen to want. Just keep poisoning the well with your scare tactics though and keep putting out "new programs" to add to your ever-growing list of goods and licenses you can't seem to manage anyway because we're still waiting for you to "get the band back together." JimHarrington wrote: c. staley wrote: I see that Chris Avis has verified that the gem tracks are in fact, on the IRC pirate channels. Of course he'll claim they're bogus because of the bitrate because he -- as well as bazza and sandman -- think that there is some sort of detectable difference in bitrate in a noisy club or that someone would actually take the time and trouble to "match up" the blue logo files with 128 audio for 6,000 files. A preposterous assumption to say the least.
What he confirmed is that there are tracks that claim to be GEM tracks on IRC, but that are not in fact GEM tracks. Since we know who all the licensees are, if we discover these bogus tracks in public use, that makes a willful infringement case virtually automatic. I'm perfectly comfortable with that state of affairs. You don't have a choice when it comes to that "state of affairs" because the tracks have been pirated, apparently downcoded to 128 and put on the IRC. So much for all the bragging rights you've had so far.... right down the tubes. I don't believe there is anything in your gem contract that prevents any professional kj from singing any of the tracks at a show they don't run themselves....
|
|
Top |
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:46 am |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm Posts: 6086 Images: 1 Location: Redmond, WA Been Liked: 1665 times
|
c. staley wrote: I see that Chris Avis has verified that the gem tracks are in fact, on the IRC pirate channels. Interesting....... I say the blue GEM graphics are in the wild and Chip chooses to believe it without confirmation because it supports his word vomit. I say the Red Peters tracks are in the wild, and I can't be believed. Good thing for the pirates they aren't watermarked.
_________________ -Chris
|
|
Top |
|
|
Cueball
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:08 am |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm Posts: 4433 Location: New York City Been Liked: 757 times
|
chrisavis wrote: Interesting.......
I say the blue GEM graphics are in the wild and Chip chooses to believe it without confirmation because it supports his word vomit.
...
Well, barring your on going spar back and forth with Chip, I'd like to see you respond to this: reposted from 2 pages back...chrisavis wrote: I can confirm that there are bogus GEM tracks on iRC sites. They even have the BLUE label graphics files. however, they have 128k music files.
Seems like a lot of trouble to go to matching up GEM blue label files with lower quality audio files but someone did it. First off, how can you tell that they're bogus? Is it just the fact that it's at a lower bit rate? And, assuming they are not bogus, why do they even bother then? All of the original SC song tracks are already out there (we've had this argument before)... but here's the twist, you're now saying that the GEM tracks are out there too ( I purposely left out the word bogus), but at the same bit rate as the others. IF they are not bogus GEM tracks, then all I have to say about that is, so much for your argument about comparing a regular DVD movie to a Blue-Ray version.
|
|
Top |
|
|
karaokeniagarafalls
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:25 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:39 am Posts: 1735 Images: 12 Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario Canada Been Liked: 190 times
|
any mojo in the karaoke world can simply use MP3+GTOOLZ to convert to the desired disk format, then simply rip them at a lower bit rate. I would also sense that anyone who would try this is pretty stupid-in mind.
Any Mojo with CDG graphic knowledge can alter the colours manually or even automatically in large batches to create the desired look of the "GEM" but then again the phrase "Stupid-in mind who loves to waste time on ripping songs that can easily be purchased for "The amazing low price of 50. cents per song DIRECTLY from SOUNDCHOICE. Why bother investing the time when you can get the "real deal" for peanuts.
No one wasted their time, those Gem "fakes" were made from a compilation of Soundchoice songs and compiled using the Gem song list.
To those who know who you are... just go through the process and buy the damn originals if you intend to use SC at your shows. (Smack'em in'da head)
I do agree with Jim on the fact that we should put the "Pirating part behind us because it serves "no justice" and should not be mentioned... moving forward.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Paradigm Karaoke
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 3:16 am |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm Posts: 5107 Location: Phoenix Az Been Liked: 1279 times
|
if they are genuine GEM, the only part that matters is the CDG. the audio has already been out for a long long time for each of those tracks. if the GEM is out, then it would serve to show that 1) they can and are on pirate sites against the swearing of certain GEM license holders. 2) it will give a line on how fast PEP reacts to it 3) the licensee who put them up should be taken to court in quick fashion 4) the results should in court should be fairly quick and public to serve as a deterrent to any future piracy
_________________ Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens
|
|
Top |
|
|
MrBoo
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:30 am |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:35 am Posts: 1945 Been Liked: 427 times
|
I was thinking the same thing. From a trademark standpoint, the CDG is what matters the most.
|
|
Top |
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:09 am |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm Posts: 6086 Images: 1 Location: Redmond, WA Been Liked: 1665 times
|
cueball wrote: First off, how can you tell that they're bogus? Is it just the fact that it's at a lower bit rate? It's exactly the lower bit rate that makes them bogus. Every GEM track is a 320k MP3. cueball wrote: ... but here's the twist, you're now saying that the GEM tracks are out there too (I purposely left out the word bogus), but at the same bit rate as the others. No. What I am saying is that SOME of the GEM .CDG files are in the wild. In the short search I did, they were matched with 128k files. Which, as I noted, seems like an lot of work do. Why not just upload the GEM files with the 320k MP3's? Storage is cheap and plentiful. The only reason I can think of is that the uploader had/has a very slow Internet connection and wanted to cut upload time drastically.
_________________ -Chris
|
|
Top |
|
|
Lone Wolf
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:05 am |
|
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 10:11 am Posts: 1832 Location: TX Been Liked: 59 times
|
chrisavis wrote: cueball wrote: First off, how can you tell that they're bogus? Is it just the fact that it's at a lower bit rate? It's exactly the lower bit rate that makes them bogus. Every GEM track is a 320k MP3. cueball wrote: ... but here's the twist, you're now saying that the GEM tracks are out there too (I purposely left out the word bogus), but at the same bit rate as the others. No. What I am saying is that SOME of the GEM .CDG files are in the wild. In the short search I did, they were matched with 128k files. Which, as I noted, seems like an lot of work do. Why not just upload the GEM files with the 320k MP3's? Storage is cheap and plentiful. The only reason I can think of is that the uploader had/has a very slow Internet connection and wanted to cut upload time drastically. What I want to know is just how you determined they were at 128 without downloading them? Did you download them? If you did then you are no better than a pirate even if you didn't use them in any way. You supported an illegal site that has such illegal material.
_________________ I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS! A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet
|
|
Top |
|
|
djdon
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:10 am |
|
|
Super Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:11 am Posts: 846 Location: Ocean County, Jersey Shore Been Liked: 197 times
|
Lone Wolf wrote: chrisavis wrote: cueball wrote: First off, how can you tell that they're bogus? Is it just the fact that it's at a lower bit rate? It's exactly the lower bit rate that makes them bogus. Every GEM track is a 320k MP3. cueball wrote: ... but here's the twist, you're now saying that the GEM tracks are out there too (I purposely left out the word bogus), but at the same bit rate as the others. No. What I am saying is that SOME of the GEM .CDG files are in the wild. In the short search I did, they were matched with 128k files. Which, as I noted, seems like an lot of work do. Why not just upload the GEM files with the 320k MP3's? Storage is cheap and plentiful. The only reason I can think of is that the uploader had/has a very slow Internet connection and wanted to cut upload time drastically. What I want to know is just how you determined they were at 128 without downloading them? Did you download them? If you did then you are no better than a pirate even if you didn't use them in any way. You supported an illegal site that has such illegal material. Even if he doesn't use them? I disagree with that. I think it falls under 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer.' Nothing wrong with knowing what 'the enemy' is doing. That's his choice. He's not supporting anything by using IRC, if that's what he did. It's not like IRC costs money to use. It's not like knowing how IRC works is reprehensible. Let's be realistic.
_________________ DJ Don
|
|
Top |
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:32 am |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm Posts: 6086 Images: 1 Location: Redmond, WA Been Liked: 1665 times
|
Lone Wolf wrote: chrisavis wrote: cueball wrote: First off, how can you tell that they're bogus? Is it just the fact that it's at a lower bit rate? It's exactly the lower bit rate that makes them bogus. Every GEM track is a 320k MP3. cueball wrote: ... but here's the twist, you're now saying that the GEM tracks are out there too (I purposely left out the word bogus), but at the same bit rate as the others. No. What I am saying is that SOME of the GEM .CDG files are in the wild. In the short search I did, they were matched with 128k files. Which, as I noted, seems like an lot of work do. Why not just upload the GEM files with the 320k MP3's? Storage is cheap and plentiful. The only reason I can think of is that the uploader had/has a very slow Internet connection and wanted to cut upload time drastically. What I want to know is just how you determined they were at 128 without downloading them? Did you download them? If you did then you are no better than a pirate even if you didn't use them in any way. You supported an illegal site that has such illegal material. I compared the zip file sizes against my zipped GEM tracks as well as my own 128k rips. The 128k files on the iRC channel were within a few bytes of my 128k zip files and substantially smaller than my 320k GEM. Oh....and I also asked a few of the folks in the channel to confirm. I didn't need to download anything, but even if I had, there is a big difference between downloading with the intent to use personally or in a karaoke show vs downloading for research and informational purposes. BTW......You don't support illegal file sharing sites by downloading from them, you support them by sharing back out to them.
_________________ -Chris
|
|
Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 537 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|