MIXVIBES Dj Community old forum

Ok, after emptying my money tin on an Edirol FA-101, I've noticed that Mixvibes Cross cannot analyse vinyl timecode at sample rates of 88200 or 96000khz. I have not tested this on CDJs yet with the Timecode CD which I shall do later. Here are the relevant test results:

MacBook Pro 15", OSX 10.6.3 (2.53Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo)
- Timecode good on 44.1khz, 48khz
- Timecode very bad on 88.2khz
- Timecode extremely bad on 96khz

Cross CPU usage VERY high on both, 96khz reaching about 85%

old MacBook 13", Windows XP SP3 (1.83Ghz Intel Core Duo)
- Timecode good on 44.1khz, 48kh
- Timecode very bad on 88.2khz
- Timecode extremely bad on 96khz

Cross CPU usage very low, 96khz reaching only 11-15%

For the purposes of testing, on the girlfriend's old macbook, Mixvibes Producer 7.043 used 96khz perfectly, with ASIO, in the same fashion that Cross used it. The circle looks perfect. Cross has the impression of a very bad noise signal. Note that this version of Producer is before the timecode analysis update, and I cannot test Producer 7.3 as I do not have a legal license to do so.

Screenshots may follow, along with CD tests.

Screenshots, guys, and tested CDs as well. They work perfectly. Well.. The option does.

Have a look at these screenshots. The left deck plays a CD, and the right deck plays a vinyl, regardless of what I've set the options to. The left deck input has been set to line, and the right deck input set to phono, throughout all the below tests.

The first ones are Cross operating at 88.2khz.
Option set to CD on both decks

Option set to vinyl on both decks


As you can see in the second screenshot, it appears to apply what looks like an RIAA filter to it. Well whatever way it works it looks horrendous. Compare it to the less distinct 48khz mode.
CD:

Vinyl mode:


NOTE that I have the left deck LINE and right deck PHONO options! No matter what these are set to, it appears to always apply an RIAA filter to the timecode analysis image when I choose vinyl instead of cd (NOT phono instead of line). It appears the only thing phono/line option appects is the line-in pass though, which turns the RIAA filter on or off. Actually it might affect timecode analysis as well, but it doens't appear to be (as we can see the options have no effect)

Why is this effect (when vinyl is selected) more prominent the higher sample rate we go? CDs work perfectly, and I believe it's a simple bug in the software, affecting how it handles (a combination of) vinyl timecode, RIAA and sample rates.

I can confirm that this is a bug occuring from Cross 1.2.11 beta and above (namely all those that changed the way vinyl timecode was analysed). Installing and running Cross 1.2.5 prevents the bug mentioned above. 88.2 and 96khz works perfectly. There is also no difference in the timecode analysis window when changing between vinyl/cd options.

From the way that 1.2.5 works (as in no difference between the image on CD vs. vinyl modes) this leads me to think that there probably shouldn't be a difference in the above images AT ALL. I always wondered why the new way of un-filtered timecode vinyl looked worse, this proves that it actually slightly was (hence my reluctance to change modes), however now that this bug has been exposed perhaps the new timecode analysis method will show off it's full potential (when it's fixed).

To clarify all of the above, in versions of Cross higher than 1.2.11 beta, where the new timecode analysis code was introduced (that prefers unfiltered vinyl timecode), the timecode quality drops gradually the higher a sample rate you go. The timecode starts to drop below a significant quality once 88.2khz+ is reached. This bug did not exist before the new timecode analysis.

Brilliant research again! Everbody should leave karme for this!

Greetings,

Steve

Blackbrook wrote:Brilliant research again! Everbody should leave karme for this!

Greetings,

Steve

DONE AND DONE!
Cheers

better yet hand him some beta test material,like his perserverence and thourghness

Tested @ 88Khz, still usable even if the quality seems low. But @ 96Khz there is too much noise, we'll try to improve things...

88khz is usable, but over a period of time the timecode analysis does slip, so it's on the edge of usability.

Note that line-in / thru does work perfectly (obviously a noticeable quality difference between 44.1/48khz and 88.2/96khz.

What period of time about 88Khz ? I run it 1h and nothing...