TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- The 0.2 vs 0.5 resolution debate.....!
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister Either your mixing sucks, or you're talking bullshit. I could believe you if this was every once in a while, but you're talking horseshit if you reckon that for every 2 minute transition you touch the platter once on a 0.1 resolution.

certain tracks just work, but i agree, 2 minutes even on .05 is rare. probably 1-10 transitions where it works perfect like that from my experience

quote:

Originally posted by miamitranceman The mk1 also lags a bit more when cueing in stutter mode...at least the ones I used did.

i'm surprised anyone uses stutter mode by choice

lol u still have to fix it on analogue tech 12 pitch a lot of the time. u will have to fix it im sure on a 0.1 unless you calibrate all your tracks before hand. they have some crazy bpm numbers 127.857

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Is that the same for the 800 mk1?

Never used the 800 mk1s so I'm not sure.

quote:

Originally posted by palm it doesnt have to do with technic imo. its about focusing on other things than the beatmatchning which should be ancient history by now, so i wont buy any software before it gets 0,1 or lower. on 1210 its endless resolution and it just gets perfect. its a waste of time jogging up and down every 10th second when u could be turning knobs for efex. were still humans with only two arms.

So true!

1999 called and wants your point back

Software can go waaay lower than 0.1. You can even let it sync for you, and it will NEVER EVER EVER drift

And come on, with CDJ-1000's in 6%/.02 pitch mode you can lock tracks for WAY longer then on 1200's.

quote:

Originally posted by hooknife So true!

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 1999 called and wants your point back Software can go waaay lower than 0.1. You can even let it sync for you, and it will NEVER EVER EVER drift And come on, with CDJ-1000's in 6%/.02 pitch mode you can lock tracks for WAY longer then on 1200's.

i heard from someone awhile back forgot his ta name, said the technics can be modified to 6%

yup, you're right. You can also make them g to +/-16.

It's just a matter of adjusting the small potentiometer to the correct resistance level. You can do this by running a meter across the pot but I forget now what the setting is.

I even remember seeing one where they guy had drilled a hole though the upper casing and had a mini screwdriver in place so he could adjust it.

What about audio warping, i see the pro's do it for their mixes like asot. Can a whole mix be done in less than 15 mins? Does warping mess around with the tracks waveform destructively?

one year ago, i was thinking that 0.02 was useless, now i find the 0.05 really irritable when you have more than 3 bpm between your 2 songs.
We used to have rent cdj 1000 mk3 during 4 month then boss bought us cdj 800 mk2, that's really boring to know that your 2 songs are not beatmatched cause of your hardware and not cause of yourself.

Re: The 0.2 vs 0.5 resolution debate.....!

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister Whilst I see the logic, I feel that being able to match a beat at 0.2 requires a MORE sensitive ear.

Meh, surely people with a slightly less sensitive ear will just get it as accurately as they do on CDJs with 0.05% increments?


And re. the idea that it's "a non starter because anyone with any beatmatching skills can hold a mix at 0.5"... I've mixed ok with 1% increments before - it was fairly ropey but it's doable - but that certainly doesn't mean I want to do that all the time, having to constantly keep it in time. 0.05% vs 0.02% is the same idea just a slightly more subtle difference.

I think I actually notice the difference between 0.05% and 0.02% more now than I ever have, seeing that I play out (on CDJ1000s) about as often as I play at home (on a CDJ800 and a pair of CDJ100s) and it's primarily for that reason that I've been considering spanking nearly 2 grand on a pair of 1000s in this time of DJ gear being bloody expensive.

Just because I can mix ok on CDJ800s doesn't mean I shouldn't be striving to make it better.

you mean 0.1 increments? Never seen decks with 1%....and you'd constantly have to ride them.

I have the same home setup as you and yes it is slightly nicer to have the 0.02 on 1000's but I can get my cdj800 and cdj100 locked in a matter of seconds and not have to touch it again for a 2 min transition.

So basically the extra $600 (per deck) to upgrade from the cdj800 to a 1000 just isn't justified. Again IMO, if you can't get it down on a 800 then a 1000 isn;t going to magically let you...

so how long before you guys reckon cdjs becoming a .005 and then having a .005 vs .02 debate?

quote:

Originally posted by i got big pants so how long before you guys reckon cdjs becoming a .005 and then having a .005 vs .02 debate?

a long time

Aka never.

Considering a good DJ can mix flawless at .02%, there is no point.

quote:

Originally posted by orTof�nChiLd a long time

.02% is preferred, but with the good use of filters it is not that necessary to pull off long transitions.

an xone 92 can bang out a set practically by itself

Plus you get to a point of diminishing returns. .005 would be way too touchy.

with technology changing every minute, maybe they can make it to where a .005% pitch can act like a .02...im sure when .1% pitch incriments were launched, everybody felt that .1% was enough. same with .05, then .02

just watch...it'll eventually happen...and we'll have a thread like this...

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 And come on, with CDJ-1000's in 6%/.02 pitch mode you can lock tracks for WAY longer then on 1200's.

WAY longer than endless? on 1210s u get so perfect matching that the actual record and physical laws on circles is what making it trainwreck (after 10s of minutes).

what a stupid thread.

it doesnt matter whether the pitch is +-6,8,10,20,50,100 if the resolution is 0,02 anyway, its not the resolution of the pitchslider its actualy pitch 0,02% which is good enough (cdj1000 is great to mix on) but nowhere near 1210s as some of you claim.

when (maybe already? i dont know, its why im browsing this forums) software im going software. which software-tool does that (no auto sync please).

i have 1210's and sorry the 1000's are easier to keep time on.

Yep, I have both and agree.

100%. Without a doubt.

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak i have 1210's and sorry the 1000's are easier to keep time on.

yup, the 1000's are certainly easier to keep time

you have to remember that mixing vinyl is almost an artform, as the needle gets closer to the center of the record it will pick up speed and you need to be on your toes to compensate for that, grooves are spaced out further apart as you get closer but that only helps so much

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN you mean 0.1 increments? Never seen decks with 1%....and you'd constantly have to ride them.

Nope, I mean 1% - some of the old rackmount jobs had a 16% range in about a 2 inch slider which only moved in 1% steps. And yes, you had to constantly ride them... like I say, doable but you hardly want to have to work like that all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN So basically the extra $600 (per deck) to upgrade from the cdj800 to a 1000 just isn't justified. Again IMO, if you can't get it down on a 800 then a 1000 isn;t going to magically let you...

And yeah, of course that's what it all boils down to: the price, which is why I haven't bought a pair of 1000s sooner, cos even if you've got the money sitting in the bank it's a lot to spank on slightly better resolution.

And I agree the better resolution won't magically make someone any better at mixing, but my point is very much that if you CAN get it down on an 800, that doesn't mean you can't still benefit from the better accuracy on a pair of 1000s.

quote:

Originally posted by Tony Morello you have to remember that mixing vinyl is almost an artform, as the needle gets closer to the center of the record it will pick up speed and you need to be on your toes to compensate for that, grooves are spaced out further apart as you get closer but that only helps so much

Not the case - the speed will only change if it's pressed (or was produced) really badly by some complete retard.

The needle only speeds up in terms of radial speed; in terms of the speed along the path of the groove it actually slows down (same revolutions per second but shorter radius = shorter circumference and hence less distance covered per second). And remember the cutting needle also changes speed in the same way when it gets nearer the centre, so it ends up playing back at the same speed, as long as the record and playback speeds are both constant.

(If someone wants to try and point out that commercial records are pressed rather than cut, I want to pre-empt them by pointing out that the stamper for the pressing is made from a master which is cut as you might imagine your deck might if you strapped a Stanley knife on instead of a needle)

If you think about it, the inside ring circumference of a 12" single is less than half the circumference of the outside ring, so even if the needle's speed did make a difference, the change in speed would be more than a factor of 2, implying the track doubles or halves in tempo over the course of the record - which obviously isn't the case or every house tune would become happy hardcore by the time it finishes.

Yes but you are forgetting one thing: drag. The tonearm cause more drag on the record when it's near the edge, as it gets closer to the center the drag is decreased. A high torque quart locked table like a 1200 makes this minimal, but you also have to figure in that we use slipmats.

So the record really DOES speed up as it gets to the center, but it's of course very slight.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox Not the case - the speed will only change if it's pressed (or was produced) really badly by some complete retard. The needle only speeds up in terms of radial speed; in terms of the speed along the path of the groove it actually slows down (same revolutions per second but shorter radius = shorter circumference and hence less distance covered per second). And remember the cutting needle also changes speed in the same way when it gets nearer the centre, so it ends up playing back at the same speed, as long as the record and playback speeds are both constant. (If someone wants to try and point out that commercial records are pressed rather than cut, I want to pre-empt them by pointing out that the stamper for the pressing is made from a master which is cut as you might imagine your deck might if you strapped a Stanley knife on instead of a needle) If you think about it, the inside ring circumference of a 12" single is less than half the circumference of the outside ring, so even if the needle's speed did make a difference, the change in speed would be more than a factor of 2, implying the track doubles or halves in tempo over the course of the record - which obviously isn't the case or every house tune would become happy hardcore by the time it finishes.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 Yes but you are forgetting one thing: drag. The tonearm cause more drag on the record when it's near the edge, as it gets closer to the center the drag is decreased. A high torque quart locked table like a 1200 makes this minimal, but you also have to figure in that we use slipmats. So the record really DOES speed up as it gets to the center, but it's of course very slight.

I would suggest that the drag you mention is so minimal (unless you're using sandpaper for slipmats) that it would affect the spped less than the 0.02 differential of resolution. Try it: set a program to record 30 second at the outer edge, then 30 seconds from the inner edge. Check the BPM. It will be a difference in the 1/1000's.

Think about it: maybe 3g of downwards pressure via a calibrated and suspended stylus vs 2kg (2000g) of lateral torque. Not gonna happen even with lax slipmats

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