TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Can the Pioneer CDj 1000 make beat matching easier?
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Can the Pioneer CDj 1000 make beat matching easier?

I've never spun on those cd turtables (the Pionner) but it's the standard now everywhere.

Do they make beat matching easier? I know it's mainly skills and practice but I'm wondering if the technology on those things makes it more acurate.

its easier if u think cd decks dont have wow and flutter so hold their pitch better ive noticed it does seem a little easier u do much less correcting. but to actually beatmatch i dont think it makes any difference what type of deck u use its the same difficulty its pretty easy anyway.

since the cdjs show you the percentage pitch adjustment on the display

figure out the bpms of your tracks

then do some simple mental math

you're already beatmatched


the difference between 125 and 126 bpm is like .8%


simple

DJing by maths is a terrible idea.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN DJing by maths is a terrible idea.

Especially considering that the majority of tunes aren't exactly at X# BPM, but rather at X.Y, or even X.YZ BPM.

Bottom line: Use your ears and learn how to work mixes with some versatility, shortcuts rarely work.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Especially considering that the majority of tunes aren't exactly at X# BPM, but rather at X.Y, or even X.YZ BPM.

Not Really I use to think like that, but I've noticed that the majority of tunes are at X# BPM.

Still, it's just better to use your ears.

quote:

Originally posted by Pinokio Not Really I use to think like that, but I've noticed that the majority of tunes are at X# BPM.

Not really, if you want to be accurate about it I'll bet there aren't really any tracks at X BPM (sans the .xx).

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Not really, if you want to be accurate about it I'll bet there aren't really any tracks at X BPM (sans the .xx).

I started mixing with Traktor DJ Studio, and often when analyzing the BPM of a song, it would give you X.YZ BPM (eg. 128.36 BPM), I though songs were made like that. Later I started using Mixmeister to calculate the BPM of songs, and 99% of the songs were given results as X BPM (eg. 128.0 BPM).
By own experience, if mixmeister tells you that 2 songs are at the same BPM they will stay in time together.
Mixed in Key is also bad for calculating BPM, because it will often give you X.YZ BPM, and most of the time it's wrong.
I guess that's one of the reasons people get confused about this.

I think when making a song, 99% of producers decide to make songs at X BPM rather than X.YZ BPM.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Not really, if you want to be accurate about it I'll bet there aren't really any tracks at X BPM (sans the .xx).

I'm totally against beatmatching by math, but in my experience nearly all tracks are recorded at a whole-number BPM. (Why the hell would someone produce a track and export it at some random decimal-number BPM?) When I map the beats of the tracks I have in Ableton, they are almost always at exactly at a whole number BPM.

Now, if you're using vinyl, that's less true. And if you're using illegally downloaded tracks (which i REALLY hope you're not), they are usually vinyl rips and don't maintain the original BPM as well.

Again, i'm not encouraging beatmatching by math b/c you wouldn't want to be dependent on that, but I am validating the X BPM argument.

I think people are over analyzing things here a bit. Of course it's going to be easier on 1000s vs TTs or cheaper cd decks. By nature they're more precise. Doesn't make you any more or less of a DJ.

i have shitty stanton 303's

when i pitch a record and its going faster ... i pitch it down just one knotch (highest resolution possible) and it goes too slow then.

my pitch sucks OMG

i gotta pitch bend alot

prolly off topic but o well

quote:

Originally posted by DJChrisB I'm totally against beatmatching by math, but in my experience nearly all tracks are recorded at a whole-number BPM. (Why the hell would someone produce a track and export it at some random decimal-number BPM?) When I map the beats of the tracks I have in Ableton, they are almost always at exactly at a whole number BPM. Again, i'm not encouraging beatmatching by math b/c you wouldn't want to be dependent on that, but I am validating the X BPM argument.

People seem to fail to remember that not everyone uses a computer to make their music.

And MixMeister's BPM detecter is notorious for being off by relatively small increments - you can even notice mixes drift in the program.

While my earlier assertion that there aren't many tunes that are at X BPM is more than likely not apt, if you really want to do the test, take two copies of exactly the same record, beatmatch them on two CDJ's, and let them run seeing how long they stay in time.

If you have to make any corrections at all throughout the duration of the track, it's not at X BPM.

/nitpicking.

If a track's BPM is not a whole number then I'd say it was ripped from a vinyl. Producers aren't that cruel and besides: what's the point?

"OK, today I'm going to produce at 126.375 BPM."

quote:

Originally posted by xtr3m If a track's BPM is not a whole number then I'd say it was ripped from a vinyl. Producers aren't that cruel and besides: what's the point? "OK, today I'm going to produce at 126.375 BPM."

See earlier post about not everyone using digital means to produce.

Honestly - I'm shocked that as many of you who seem to think "Dj'ing by numbers" is tried and true. It isn't.

Also - I don't believe in the existence of whole numbers, but that's another topic for another forum entirely.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Not really, if you want to be accurate about it I'll bet there aren't really any tracks at X BPM (sans the .xx).

You are wrong.

short answer:
it doesnt make beatmatching easier, but allows you to hold a transition longer with fewer adjustments

I learned to beatmatch on Technics, by ear and by hand. I wouldn't recommend anyone learning any other way.

However, now that I have CDJ-1000's and Ableton, I've noticed two things:

1) 95% of tracks are produced at whole number BPMs (127.0, 128.0, 129.0, etc), or some tiny variation thereof (by like .01 or .01).

2) For the average house track at 124-130 BPM, 0.8% of pitch change represents almost exactly 1.0 BPM of tempo change.

Knowing this, I can beatmatch almost instantly, almost every time. Of course, there are small variations that need correcting, and once and a while you'll get a track with an irregular BPM. So obviously, if you rely on this trick you're only setting yourself up for failure. But, like with anything, if you use it properly it can be a valuable resource. If I want to change my mind at the last second about what track to spin next, or if I want to make a quick transition, or do a 3 deck mashup, I can do it quickly.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT See earlier post about not everyone using digital means to produce.

There's a lot of producers out there making tracks via non-digital means? What are they using?

I have yet to meet an electronic music producer that is recording straight to tape and lining up tracks up by ear. At some point it gets into a sequencer of some kind, whether for producing or mastering. That's not to say, though, you can't end up with a .xy bpm... you can. For example, in Ableton, you can warp the bpm of a loop to match the song, or warp the song to match the loop. If you randomly recorded the loop and set the song to match the loop, it's possible you end up with some weird bpm number.

On the subject of math and dj'ing, I think it is helpful to know the math - I assume it can't hurt in a crunch. Personally, it's easier for me to beat match by ear, but everyone is different.

quote:

Originally posted by miamitranceman Of course it's going to be easier on 1000s vs TTs or cheaper cd decks. By nature they're more precise. Doesn't make you any more or less of a DJ.

ummm, no.

turntables are more accurate because the have a analog pitch control. mixes will hold longer on TT's than on CD decks. theres no arguing that. however i do feel its easier for a beginner to mix on CD decks than turntables.

quote:

Originally posted by hooj1 ummm, no. turntables are more accurate because the have a analog pitch control. mixes will hold longer on TT's than on CD decks. theres no arguing that. however i do feel its easier for a beginner to mix on CD decks than turntables.

How can that be when 1000s go to .02 accuracy? There's so many other physical issues with TT such as motor Torque too.

quote:

Originally posted by starboy You are wrong.

And you're a legendary cunt.

Look, now we're both Captain Obvious.

i tend to save my ears for listen to the sound of a track and the musical aspect of it.

after you've done it a while on cdjs, you just sort of know how much to pitch it regardless of if you do the math or not.


of course you have to use your ears, but it only makes sense to approximate it quickly in your head while the cd is still sliding in the drive, and then fine tune it with your ears


and regardless of it you have the tempos exactly matched, you still have to align the two tracks properly and that will make all the difference.


i tend to mash my tracks a lot and so I use these rules of thumb because I don't have a lot of time to beatmatch when the first and last 3 minutes of tracks are playing with other tracks

I learned to dj with vinyl. It is true that you can make mixes last a long time with the analog pitch control, you're pretty much restricted by the sensitivity of the fader and your manual dexterity.



People produce tracks mostly at whole number bpms. I don't know many who would go into cubase or something and set the master tempo to 126.04. When I buy music digitally, I load them up in ableton and key them by playing along, determine the bpm using the warp grid, and then record all the track details in an excel database, where I then sort them out into groups of 9 or 10 for putting them on cds.

even if a track's tempo is like 125.98 compared to 126,

that's a variation of

0.016 %, which is not going to cause you many problems, especially if you're using your ears. you can never get it exactly anyways since tracks rarely are going to have tempo differentials of exactly .2 % multiples, or .5%



it's not 'deejaying with numbers'. for me it's common knowledge, like special right triangle sides to engineers. i pull a cd out of my box and the first thing i think is, is this faster or slower, then, by how much, then i basically know how much i have to pitch it to get it close with multiples of around .8 at the tempos i usually play, then it's all ears. I don't see the problem here

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec i tend to save my ears for listen to the sound of a track and the musical aspect of it. after you've done it a while on cdjs, you just sort of know how much to pitch it regardless of if you do the math or not. of course you have to use your ears, but it only makes sense to approximate it quickly in your head while the cd is still sliding in the drive, and then fine tune it with your ears and regardless of it you have the tempos exactly matched, you still have to align the two tracks properly and that will make all the difference. i tend to mash my tracks a lot and so I use these rules of thumb because I don't have a lot of time to beatmatch when the first and last 3 minutes of tracks are playing with other tracks I learned to dj with vinyl. It is true that you can make mixes last a long time with the analog pitch control, you're pretty much restricted by the sensitivity of the fader and your manual dexterity. People produce tracks mostly at whole number bpms. I don't know many who would go into cubase or something and set the master tempo to 126.04. When I buy music digitally, I load them up in ableton and key them by playing along, determine the bpm using the warp grid, and then record all the track details in an excel database, where I then sort them out into groups of 9 or 10 for putting them on cds. even if a track's tempo is like 125.98 compared to 126, that's a variation of 0.016 %, which is not going to cause you many problems, especially if you're using your ears. you can never get it exactly anyways since tracks rarely are going to have tempo differentials of exactly .2 % multiples, or .5% it's not 'deejaying with numbers'. for me it's common knowledge, like special right triangle sides to engineers. i pull a cd out of my box and the first thing i think is, is this faster or slower, then, by how much, then i basically know how much i have to pitch it to get it close with multiples of around .8 at the tempos i usually play, then it's all ears. I don't see the problem here

You are right =)

I'd have to say no as they're both fucking easy to use.

Yeah, CDJ's are much more accurate than 1200's. The "it's analog therefore infinite precision" argument is total B.S. Theoretically, maybe, but physical, definately not.

The 1200's have a +/- 8% pitch slider, the CDJ-1000 +/- 6%, and they are physically the same length. Now move the CDJ's slider just enough to make a .02% pitch change... it's a TINY movement. Try doing that with a 1200 and it's 8% pitch slider, can't do it so well.

TT's definately require significantly more pitch correction than CDJ's. Most DJ's won't admit that the technology made them better, but it did.

quote:

Originally posted by miamitranceman How can that be when 1000s go to .02 accuracy? There's so many other physical issues with TT such as motor Torque too.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.