TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Best DJ in the World?
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

Jeff Mills, when he can be arsed.

quote:

Originally posted by Ory SASHA DOES NOT USE VINYL Jeez. And did I ever fucking say all Sasha does is hit the beatmatch button? No, dickwad. Tactik, vinyls aren't discs? They're thin circular objects, which would make them discs. Jesus fucking christ you people are bright. Not.

maby sasha should bounce his hard disk of your dumb ass forehead.

quote:

How did you make that out? I was pointing out that computers can roll two tracks at the same time without skipping a beat or losing it much easier then on 2 decks. What has that got to do with composing?

its the fact that beatmatching on tables with vinyl is more accurate then using a computer.

quote:

yea i forgot john 00 flemming spins country

psy?

rofl.

He isn't even touching the hard disk. That doesn't count.

quote:

Originally posted by Ory rofl. He isn't even touching the hard disk. That doesn't count.

you keep making stupid excuses... you ever touch a cd while its playing?

quote:

Originally posted by sandstorm03 its the fact that beatmatching on tables with vinyl is more accurate then using a computer.

This is not usually true.

You have to factor in that turntables have wow/flutter, a peice of metal scraping over grooves. And then of course you have to factor in the fact that its being controlled by a human, using their ears.

A computer program could match beats with way more accuracy than a human with analog turntables could.

Why are you saying that tables are more accurate in the first place? Is it because you've heard people say vinyl is more accurate than digital?

Well this is true to an extent. Usually they are refering to digital turntables (cd players) which are only as accurate as 0.1, 0.05, or 0.02 at best.

Now people say vinyl is more accurate than digital in this scenario, and it can be, because obviously its analog, it is not limited by those pitch increments. However even when comparing the whole turntable to cdjs scenario you have to realise that turntables may be analog, but they are limited by the pitch fader.

They can only make increments as small as you can move that fader. Myself and other djs that I've spoken with feel that when making small increments (very fine pitching) the increment usually ends up being around what would be 0.05%. In alot of cases its actually easier to get small increments on digital turntables, because for example if you have a range of +/-4 it will be easier to move the fader in 0.02 increments, as with on an analog turntable that same fader movement would be a larger pitch increment.

Anyways what I'm getting at, is that a computer program could be developed that would match beats with accuracy as high as 0.01% or 0.001% who knows how fine they could get. No matter what, this is going to be more accurate than the increments you can get on an analog turntable.

quote:

Originally posted by beats and beeps This is not usually true. You have to factor in that turntables have wow/flutter, a peice of metal scraping over grooves. And then of course you have to factor in the fact that its being controlled by a human, using their ears. A computer program could match beats with way more accuracy than a human with analog turntables could. Why are you saying that tables are more accurate in the first place? Is it because you've heard people say vinyl is more accurate than digital? Well this is true to an extent. Usually they are refering to digital turntables (cd players) which are only as accurate as 0.1, 0.05, or 0.02 at best. Now people say vinyl is more accurate than digital in this scenario, and it can be, because obviously its analog, it is not limited by those pitch increments. However even when comparing the whole turntable to cdjs scenario you have to realise that turntables may be analog, but they are limited by the pitch fader. They can only make increments as small as you can move that fader. Myself and other djs that I've spoken with feel that when making small increments (very fine pitching) the increment usually ends up being around what would be 0.05%. In alot of cases its actually easier to get small increments on digital turntables, because for example if you have a range of +/-4 it will be easier to move the fader in 0.02 increments, as with on an analog turntable that same fader movement would be a larger pitch increment. Anyways what I'm getting at, is that a computer program could be developed that would match beats with accuracy as high as 0.01% or 0.001% who knows how fine they could get. No matter what, this is going to be more accurate than the increments you can get on an analog turntable.

how good are computers with breaks?

quote:

Originally posted by sandstorm03 how good are computers with breaks?

It does not matter which genre it is. Im talking about digital (computer) accuracy vs. analog accuracy.

All computer programs are not the same beleive it or not, which ones are you refering to?

Anyways, you have to look beyond the current software djs are using and realize that it is an ignorant comment to say that a computer could not match beats as accuratly as a human using a vinyl turntable.

To answer your (stupid) question many of the poor programs djs are using today (such as abelton) recognize breaks very well. These programs are not nearly as good as they could be though (if developers had the proper funding)

quote:

Originally posted by beats and beeps It does not matter which genre it is. Im talking about digital (computer) accuracy vs. analog accuracy. All computer programs are not the same beleive it or not, which ones are you refering to? Anyways, you have to look beyond the current software djs are using and realize that it is an ignorant comment to say that a computer could not match beats as accuratly as a human using a vinyl turntable. To answer your (stupid) question many of the poor programs djs are using today (such as abelton) recognize breaks very well. These programs are not nearly as good as they could be though (if developers had the proper funding)

what about ambient tracks i hear they are good with them also...

quote:

Originally posted by sandstorm03 you keep making stupid excuses... you ever touch a cd while its playing?

Yes. You put it in, use the pad to move it/scratch (on a CDJ for example). You can't scratch a hard disk. And what if he uses some other form of storage? Like flash memory? That's not a hard disk.

quote:

Originally posted by Ory Yes. You put it in, use the pad to move it/scratch (on a CDJ for example). You can't scratch a hard disk. And what if he uses some other form of storage? Like flash memory? That's not a hard disk.

cd players store the track, you dont control the cd...

programs like final scratch actually gives you much more control

quote:

Originally posted by sandstorm03 ps. j00f is not a trance dj

I beg to differ.

J00F plays a mixture of progressive trance and psy-trance, as well as some "typical" trance tracks occasionly, but he is still a trance DJ in my mind.

If not, what would you call him?

quote:

Originally posted by sandstorm03 ps. j00f is not a trance dj

LOL!!!! MORON!!

quote:

Originally posted by sandstorm03 cd players store the track, you dont control the cd... programs like final scratch actually gives you much more control

How is it different from a cd? Youre not actually moving the mp3 that youre controlling. Youre just moving a peice of vinyl, the same way you would the platter on a cdj.

For the record, I feel that final scratch gives you alot less control than a cdj (both pioneers and denons)

quote:

Originally posted by beats and beeps How is it different from a cd? Youre not actually moving the mp3 that youre controlling. Youre just moving a peice of vinyl, the same way you would the platter on a cdj. For the record, I feel that final scratch gives you alot less control than a cdj (both pioneers and denons)

its not, im just saying that it should still be concidered djing...


i also thought u just said computers have more control?

quote:

Originally posted by A.J. I beg to differ. J00F plays a mixture of progressive trance and psy-trance, as well as some "typical" trance tracks occasionly, but he is still a trance DJ in my mind. If not, what would you call him?

i dont know, what would you call marco v/digweed/pvd/sasha?

can you actually call them one style?

I have heard sets from all 4, that include no trance at all

I wouldn't call any of them trance djs

quote:

Originally posted by Nou OMFG, less than a month into the year and you win RETARD of 2005.

hows that?

go ahead and classify them in 2 words or less

No i agree, you have a good point.

quote:

Originally posted by A.J. No i agree, you have a good point.

i have a j00f cd that he handed out in nyc, it actually didnt even have any stuff remotely trance...

quote:

Originally posted by Nou Have you even ever used FS?

I've used both Final Scratch, and Serato.

I've tried FS2 briefly in a music shop.

quote:

Originally posted by beats and beeps I've used both Final Scratch, and Serato. I've tried FS2 briefly in a music shop.

so you have mastered them

^ ^ ^

One of the reasons why he stands out from the pack

quote:

Originally posted by Nou Marco V: Tech Trance Digweed: Progressive (caz he plays both prog house and prog trance) PvD: Trance Sasha: Progressive (along the same lines as digweed)

lol

fabric 20

enough said

quote:

Originally posted by sandstorm03 so you have mastered them

can you give me examples of trance tunes. i wanna know what you classify as TRANCE.

quote:

Originally posted by RebeL9 can you give me examples of trance tunes. i wanna know what you classify as TRANCE.

well i said ferry is the best trance dj, i will let you figure it out.

quote:

Originally posted by sandstorm03 well i said ferry is the best trance dj, i will let you figure it out.

haha are you kidding me? you call Ferry trance and j00f not trance?
you might wanna check out this review and read the bottom lines. which i can quote:

"The good name of �trance� has been used and abused for far too long. Commercial acts plaguing our charts have taken the �trance� moniker and with it, pigeonholed their style of cheaply produced tat. Well, their days are numbered. John 00 Fleming knows the true meaning of trance; few would question that. It�s music to mesmerise, hypnotise and captivate. �White Label� Level 2 does that, and more. It�s a truly moving blend of trance that trips into goa, progressive and psy-trance genres seamlessly throughout. Note now - probably timeless!"

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