TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- comes down to this
Pages (2): « 1 [2]


Posted by hooj1 on Sep-05-2007 07:00:

quote:
Originally posted by Trance Nutter
Do the maths, an error of 0.05% (the 800mk2 accuracy) on a 130 bpm song will be a slip of 0.065 beats per minute.

So its fuck all, wouldn't be noticable for at least a couple of minutes or even longer (I doubt a track being 0.1 of a beat off the other would stand out).
The pitch slider on a 200 also wouldn't be long enough to give you the resolution to be able to change the pitch of a track by 0.02% if it were slightly out, chances are with the 200 you're going to be more than 0.04% out at any one time anyway.

If you can't beatmatch with an 0.05% accuracy, its you not the machine.



ahhhhh...i love it when people state that pitch resolution isn't that important. it always give me a laugh.


Posted by discobiscuit on Sep-05-2007 14:17:

quote:
Originally posted by dutas
thanks all for your help, i did place order yesterady for pair of cdj's 800 and xone 92


the silver setup ~ nice!


Posted by the_gamemaster on Sep-05-2007 15:22:

What about the Djm 600?


Posted by dutas on Sep-05-2007 23:20:

I order xone92 with rotary faders for $1600
and each cdj 800mk2 for $650

quote:
Originally posted by daphunky1
And how much is this set up going to cost roughly?
(I'm about to make a beginner purchase myself)


Posted by Trance Nutter on Sep-06-2007 00:00:

quote:
Originally posted by hooj1
ahhhhh...i love it when people state that pitch resolution isn't that important. it always give me a laugh.


well it makes me laugh when shit dj's blame the CDJ


It is important, but its not the be all and end all.


Posted by hooj1 on Sep-06-2007 05:48:

quote:
Originally posted by Trance Nutter
well it makes me laugh when shit dj's blame the CDJ


very very true! i can't stand that.

but plain and simple having better pitch resolution does make a difference.


Posted by Clovis on Sep-06-2007 05:50:

Xone + 800mk2


If you can afford a 92 it's probably one of the best investments you can make in DJ equipment...


Posted by echosystm on Sep-06-2007 05:56:

i would get one 800 and one 1000. that way you can mix on anything a club throws at you


Posted by the_gamemaster on Sep-06-2007 15:32:

quote:
Originally posted by echosystm
i would get one 800 and one 1000. that way you can mix on anything a club throws at you


Thats not very feng shui


Posted by basilisk on Sep-06-2007 15:36:

quote:
Originally posted by Trance Nutter
well it makes me laugh when shit dj's blame the CDJ


It is important, but its not the be all and end all.


It's the difference between wasting all your time riding the pitch and allocating for the technical deficiencies of the equipment and actually getting to something creative and worthwhile. Admittedly, it is more of a problem with the CDJ-100 and similar models, but even 0.5 isn't enough to keep things synced for very long a lot of the time. Depending on the production style of the music you're playing, it can cause serious problems when things go slightly out of phase as they are wont to do. It all comes down to this simply question: why pay all that money for a piece of equipment you're going to have to babysit a lot of the time? It isn't a matter of ability; this is a question of time, and the best way to invest it.


Posted by Ryan0751 on Sep-06-2007 16:50:

Lol. If you are worried about the difference with playing on a 1000 or 800 at a club, you shouldn't be playing at clubs

What if you get there and they have a Denon dual unit? Or some crap decks? Be prepared for anything.

But yes, mismatched decks at home, ewww.

quote:
Originally posted by echosystm
i would get one 800 and one 1000. that way you can mix on anything a club throws at you


Posted by Zild on Sep-07-2007 02:03:

quote:
Originally posted by basilisk
It's the difference between wasting all your time riding the pitch and allocating for the technical deficiencies of the equipment and actually getting to something creative and worthwhile. Admittedly, it is more of a problem with the CDJ-100 and similar models, but even 0.5 isn't enough to keep things synced for very long a lot of the time. Depending on the production style of the music you're playing, it can cause serious problems when things go slightly out of phase as they are wont to do. It all comes down to this simply question: why pay all that money for a piece of equipment you're going to have to babysit a lot of the time? It isn't a matter of ability; this is a question of time, and the best way to invest it.


Just because you're using .05 pitch resolution doesn't mean you need to baby sit the mix. I don't really understand what any DJ can be doing that is so creative and worthwhile it keeps them from slightly touching the jog wheel for half a second once every minute or so. The first CDJs I ever used were the 100s and I thought their .1 percent resolution was more than enough to pull off a nice set, so I don't understand the fuss. Hell half the DJs I know prefer to leave the CDJ 1000s on .05 and never even mess with .02 because it really doesn't make that big of a difference.


Posted by discobiscuit on Sep-07-2007 02:27:

quote:
Originally posted by Zild
Just because you're using .05 pitch resolution doesn't mean you need to baby sit the mix. I don't really understand what any DJ can be doing that is so creative and worthwhile it keeps them from slightly touching the jog wheel for half a second once every minute or so. The first CDJs I ever used were the 100s and I thought their .1 percent resolution was more than enough to pull off a nice set, so I don't understand the fuss. Hell half the DJs I know prefer to leave the CDJ 1000s on .05 and never even mess with .02 because it really doesn't make that big of a difference.


+1


Posted by a.chan on Sep-07-2007 04:03:

quote:
Originally posted by discobiscuit
+1


+2

I never use the +- 6%


Posted by basilisk on Sep-07-2007 04:28:

*shrug* I remember having to constantly correct the CDJ-100s to keep things in check when mixing progressive down around 135 BPM. The pitch differentials even out at certain BPMs whereas they end up in weird places at other ratios, so this might be a contributing factor. Pretty much anyone mixing around 142 BPM is going to be fine with the old (erroneous) law of sevens, but that won't fly when you're dabbling in other ranges. My finickiness probably has a lot to do with my chosen style--psytrance--which is notoriously overproduced and highly synthetic in nature. Slightly out-of-phase can sound just as awful as badly out-of-phase, so it is very important to keep those beats locked and good. For that reason, I place more value in pitch resolution than some others might. Still, I find it ridiculous that the 800--nominally a higher-end deck than the 200--has such a shabby pitch resolution. This is, to me, a question of whether you want to spend additional money to struggle with technology, or go with equipment that makes your life easier and frees up time for better things than hovering over the jog and giving precise taps all the time. If you look at vinyl, its only when you get lazy with the pitch control that you have to bother with such a thing. With the CDJ-800s, inaccuracy is built-in; it's a consequence of the design. Seems foolish to me.


Posted by hooj1 on Sep-07-2007 05:00:

quote:
Originally posted by Zild
Just because you're using .05 pitch resolution doesn't mean you need to baby sit the mix. I don't really understand what any DJ can be doing that is so creative and worthwhile it keeps them from slightly touching the jog wheel for half a second once every minute or so. The first CDJs I ever used were the 100s and I thought their .1 percent resolution was more than enough to pull off a nice set, so I don't understand the fuss. Hell half the DJs I know prefer to leave the CDJ 1000s on .05 and never even mess with .02 because it really doesn't make that big of a difference.


but why should you? i rather have better pitch solution than having to touch the plater every minute or so. logically it only makes sense to have a higher pitch resolution, no one can argue that.


Posted by wesleysnipez on Sep-07-2007 05:02:

Will this what I been using for awhile as my gear. Setup simular to what Marcus McBirde has. If you wondering what he uses go here http://www.marcusmcbride.com/about.htm


Posted by aLviNx80 on Sep-12-2007 11:02:

.02 .05 same shit if you know how to mix.


Posted by excite331 on Sep-13-2007 08:56:

quote:
Originally posted by daphunky1
And how much is this set up going to cost roughly?
(I'm about to make a beginner purchase myself)


Why is it all the beginners here get given the impression they have to buy the high-end stuff ? I mean, not just high-ish end but the best on offer.


Pages (2): « 1 [2]

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