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

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 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.

you're wrong and right.

cdjs move in .02 increments and yes it is a tiny movement. but for those of us that have played on TTs for years know that the pitch can be moved in much finer resolutions. that is simply because its analog.

i'm not a vnyl junkie. in fact 99 percent of what i play now is on cd, so i'm not bias on the subect. i just know that less correction is needed on TTs than cdjs, that is if the wax was pressed correctly. no increments means more precision. period.

No, you can't. I play vinyl too. You can't move the pitch slider 1/2 mm and get it that accurate.

Everyone I know who's been playing for many years agrees... CDJ's are much easier.

quote:

Originally posted by hooj1 you're wrong and right. cdjs move in .02 increments and yes it is a tiny movement. but for those of us that have played on TTs for years know that the pitch can be moved in much finer resolutions. that is simply because its analog. i'm not a vnyl junkie. in fact 99 percent of what i play now is on cd, so i'm not bias on the subect. i just know that less correction is needed on TTs than cdjs, that is if the wax was pressed correctly. no increments means more precision. period.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 No, you can't. I play vinyl too. You can't move the pitch slider 1/2 mm and get it that accurate. Everyone I know who's been playing for many years agrees... CDJ's are much easier.

i agree, cdjs are easier by far. but i know i can move the pitch slider in tinier increments on TTs...but hey thats just me. i guess we agree to disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by hooj1 you're wrong and right. cdjs move in .02 increments and yes it is a tiny movement. but for those of us that have played on TTs for years know that the pitch can be moved in much finer resolutions. that is simply because its analog. i'm not a vnyl junkie. in fact 99 percent of what i play now is on cd, so i'm not bias on the subect. i just know that less correction is needed on TTs than cdjs, that is if the wax was pressed correctly. no increments means more precision. period.

no he's completly wrong

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 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.

Analog will always be more accurate than a digital CDJ1000, Just cuz of the .02 incertments with 6% pitch slide doesn't mean its more accurate, it means just smaller amount of pitch change DUH. And that theory mentioned above is true. I have more evidence but i wont post it hehe

You're talking theory, I am talking reality. The CDJ's are 100% stable at any pitch, and you can ACTUALLY achieve .02% pitch increments.

You think you can with 1200's, but really, you can't.

We should find out what the M5G's have for pitch accuracy, because they use digital pitch control. I bet it's .1%.

Regardless, all these pitch arguments are usually made by people who can't beatmatch and blame the equipment for their lack of skill.

quote:

Originally posted by FreqNasty2 no he's completly wrong Analog will always be more accurate than a digital CDJ1000, Just cuz of the .02 incertments with 6% pitch slide doesn't mean its more accurate, it means just smaller amount of pitch change DUH. And that theory mentioned above is true. I have more evidence but i wont post it hehe

You're talking theory, I am talking reality. The CDJ's are 100% stable at any pitch, and you can ACTUALLY achieve .02% pitch increments.

You think you can with 1200's, but really, you can't.

We should find out what the M5G's have for pitch accuracy, because they use digital pitch control. I bet it's .1%.

quote:

Originally posted by FreqNasty2 no he's completly wrong Analog will always be more accurate than a digital CDJ1000, Just cuz of the .02 incertments with 6% pitch slide doesn't mean its more accurate, it means just smaller amount of pitch change DUH. And that theory mentioned above is true. I have more evidence but i wont post it hehe

i think cdj's indirectly make beatmatching easier. vinyl and cdj are both basically the same, but there are definitely differences. the cdj's to vinyl is like cell phones are to home phones. they both do the same thing, but they are different.

1200's (and variations) use a quartz timing mechanism (like the ones found in digital watches) to reference the motor for speed. This makes them at least as accurate as a CDJ. Because the pitch is an analogue potentiometer(in terms of voltage) the "increments" can be minute (effectievly infinite.) This is why techs, seem more difficult to mix with but are in fact more precise than a CDJ as long as you have the correct technique to make this fine adjustments.

This is of course dependent on all other things being equal and set up correctly (stylus weight vs. Tonearm balance etc) as if not right they can affect playback performance.

CDJ's are "easier" to mix with, I think mainly because of the displays etc.

Also, different manufacturers and kit, use different components and software, to calculate the BPM and playback pitch functions, so some "digital" kit is more "accurate" than others.

I also get very worried when people start bringing maths in to beatmatching conversations, because you, as a "DJ" should be able to fucking beatmatch, without a sodding calculator.

....and we wonder why some some DJ's sets are so boring. What next? people bringing laptops to gigs and staring at a screen fir the duration of their set? Bugger, too late.

Yeah, and Nike's make you run faster

quote:

Originally posted by discobiscuit i think cdj's indirectly make beatmatching easier. vinyl and cdj are both basically the same, but there are definitely differences. the cdj's to vinyl is like cell phones are to home phones. they both do the same thing, but they are different.

I just love the feel of the platter

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations Yeah, and Nike's make you run faster

Wasn't that Adidas's?

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 Regardless, all these pitch arguments are usually made by people who can't beatmatch and blame the equipment for their lack of skill.

and people who make blind staments like this are just bitter.
and btw. this is not an argument, we are stating FACTS about TTs.

The fact that TT's aren't as accurate as CDJ's regarding pitch that is...

CDJ's are more accurate
TT's are theoretically more PRECISE, but realistically are not due to physical limitations.

Listen to old mixes by really renowned DJ's, they drift on TT's. If they are so super precise and perfect, why aren't they making perfect mixes?

quote:

Originally posted by hooj1 and people who make blind staments like this are just bitter. and btw. this is not an argument, we are stating FACTS about TTs.

quote:

I also get very worried when people start bringing maths in to beatmatching conversations, because you, as a "DJ" should be able to fucking beatmatch, without a sodding calculator.

who mentioned a 'sodding calculator'?


the point was that after a while you just know instinctively through simple mathematic relationships how much to pitch it

just like a chef knows the ratios between ingredients after making food for a while


if you have to use only your ears every time then you must not have much experience deejaying, because pitching becomes second nature

Some things to add:

1) BPM Counters (while not always reliable) cut your beatmatching time down by a relatively significant margin (depending on your skill level). By being able to roughly match up the bpms right off the start, you're automaticly within roughly +/-0.8% of being beatmatched. Peace of cake from that point.

2) Cueing. the cueing feature on cdjs makes beatmatching so much faster then vinyl its not even funny. re-cueing is instant rather then a several second process.

I gues these two points don't really prove that cdj1000s make beatmatching easier, but it does make it faster which in my mind, will make it easier as well.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec who mentioned a 'sodding calculator'? the point was that after a while you just know instinctively through simple mathematic relationships how much to pitch it just like a chef knows the ratios between ingredients after making food for a while if you have to use only your ears every time then you must not have much experience deejaying, because pitching becomes second nature

wise words, second that

and basically all tracks in electronic music run at a whole-numbered bpm

Can the Pioneer CDj 1000 make beat matching easier?
in my opinion with the display and bpm counter they actually do compared to vinyl
but then on the other hand, with a bit of practice it doesn't really matter, as beatmatching get's like the most common thing to do...

edit:

djemm got a good point with cueing too, but that comes with all cdjs, the process of beatmatching is the same on e.g. cdj100 and a cdj1000 mk3, the technology itself on the pricier ones isn't more accurate

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 Listen to old mixes by really renowned DJ's, they drift on TT's. If they are so super precise and perfect, why aren't they making perfect mixes?

ummm, thats because they're not perfect DJs. Renowned DJs still drift on CDJs, so your argument holds no water.

i've also seen Digweed throw down perfect mixes on TTs and I've seen him drift on CDJs and vice versa.

but you are right about the fact that CDJs will always hold pitch. thats why its important to have TTs tuned up every so often.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 The fact that TT's aren't as accurate as CDJ's regarding pitch that is... CDJ's are more accurate TT's are theoretically more PRECISE, but realistically are not due to physical limitations. Listen to old mixes by really renowned DJ's, they drift on TT's. If they are so super precise and perfect, why aren't they making perfect mixes?

wrong again, with a digital CDJ1000 there's latency involved meaning there is a delay when moving the pitch of a cdj1000

analogue is more accurate than any digital cd player

Wtf, plus the old mixes from back in the day where 10x more accurate, subtle than they are now (majority) (statistic wise). These days we have ableton mixes with warped tempos, which is nonsense

PLus when using analogue you have the original source in physical form, rather in cd version

/end thread

Listen. They're both easier than a slut step sister.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Listen. They're both easier than a slut step sister.

agree

Important post here.

Ugh this is just wrong on so many levels.

quote:

Originally posted by Andr�meda wrong again, with a digital CDJ1000 there's latency involved meaning there is a delay when moving the pitch of a cdj1000 analogue is more accurate than any digital cd player Wtf, plus the old mixes from back in the day where 10x more accurate, subtle than they are now (majority) (statistic wise). These days we have ableton mixes with warped tempos, which is nonsense PLus when using analogue you have the original source in physical form, rather in cd version /end thread

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 Ugh this is just wrong on so many levels.

how, prove it

Every CD player that was ever made by man or machine has Latency, proven fact.

/end thread again

i win

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 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.

Crack open your 1200's and adjust the scale potentiometer if you want more (or less) resolution. I have the MK5's at the club set so that the range is more like +/- 7 (or a touch below that) over the range of the fader. You can even adjust the "zero point" so that it's non-symmetrical (+10/-6) if you really wanted to (I've thought about it since I have maybe ONE record in my collection that I ever play at anything less than -4).

I have smallish fingers and pretty good dexterity, so I feel that I can make those very small adjustments like others have been saying.

The ONLY way CDJ-type technology made me better was due to the ability to play music that's not out on vinyl and/or play music from digital promo pools that's not out yet on any format (see sig below). I've been playing with CD decks for a few years now, but I still feel like my mixes on vinyl are WAY tighter and smoother. I can throw down a record on the deck at the mixout point of the playing record, without having done ANY prior listening or beatmatching, and have it good to go within a couple measures. Even with a +/- .02 resolution, I still don't feel comfortable doing that on CD decks, and it definitely takes much longer to get matched up compared to vinyl.

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.

In the studio I'm sure almost all producers do use a whole number tempo, but I'm 99% positive that remixers try, but don't always do so. Most remixes with vocal always seem to be just a touch off of a whole number, likely due to trying to get a vocal to fit right, or going +/- a whole number to speed the original vocal up to the point they want so it fits or sounds right (I'm working on a remix contest where that was the case with the vox in my mix, making it 129.8 so that it fit right).

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