TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- what are the pitch increments of the Pioneer cdj-100s

what are the pitch increments of the Pioneer cdj-100s

as the title says

.1

about the same as technics tt's. they have the same length slider. the display may only show 0.1 increments but movement of the slider without a change on the disply will affect the pitch.

the pitch slider is longer on the pioneer than a technics and the slider is so loose and sensitive that when you move it you can't get much more accurate than .1 sometimes you may be able to get it in between a percent change so itll go back and forth between 5.7 and 5.8 but essentially its .1. Personally i don't think mixing on the pioneer is pleasurable it's more of a chore.


Btw supposedly the pioneer 100s is supposed to be one of the faster front loading cd players is that true?

quote:

Originally posted by richg101 about the same as technics tt's. they have the same length slider. the display may only show 0.1 increments but movement of the slider without a change on the disply will affect the pitch.

It actually will only change the pitch in 0.1% increments, it's simply down to the number of sensors in the pitch control, it being digital. You'll always find with CD decks, and as I think we proved with the Numark TTX1 in another thread, if there's a digital display then 99% of the time the accuracy the display shows is the accuracy to which you're able to change the pitch.

If nothing else, because it's a lot easier to program the thing to show the exact pitch change it's applying (even if it requires adding another digit to the display) than make the pitch slider itself more accurate, so it would be stupid for them to do the more expensive of the two and not the less expensive one, without making a marketing point about how accurate the pitch is.

The spec chart here: http://www.pioneer.co.uk/uk/product...onomy_id=44-106 confirms that it has 0.1% "Tempo Control Steps", as they call it.


And it does load pretty quickly, yes

As much as I love my 100s, I'd say you're better off with a 200 if you can push the extra cash - pitch control is just as accurate as a cdj1000 with the same pitch ranges (apart from +/-100%), it's got loops, fx etc... about the only thing it lacks is vinyl mode. I think the jog wheel is probably better built too so should last longer.

i still think its takes forever to load though...hence why i like vinyl

quote:

Originally posted by spdandpwr i still think its takes forever to load though...hence why i like vinyl

Of course yeah, vinyl is a lot quicker... and with vinyl if you need to get it cued up quicker then you can, it's just down to how quickly you can move your hands instead of how quickly the technology works!

quote:

Originally posted by spdandpwr the pitch slider is longer on the pioneer than a technics and the slider is so loose and sensitive that when you move it you can't get much more accurate than .1 sometimes you may be able to get it in between a percent change so itll go back and forth between 5.7 and 5.8 but essentially its .1. Personally i don't think mixing on the pioneer is pleasurable it's more of a chore. Btw supposedly the pioneer 100s is supposed to be one of the faster front loading cd players is that true?

i thought both sliders are 100mm? there's no way the slider on the 100 is more than that of a tech..


it seems like the inclusion of a display automatically makes people question increments of the slider. if i set my vestax pdx-d3 mk 2(from back in the days before plastic vestax...) to +/-3% and move the slider then i can move it more than 3 mm before the display changes by .1%. but the platter speed is definately affected even if the display doesnt change. these are digital decks...

a movement of the slider on the 100's will change a voltage supplied to the motor/laser control. and surely this is pretty much infinate? wouldnt it be more complex to have the control setup so it notches the pitch by .1 every time?

quote:

Originally posted by richg101 i thought both sliders are 100mm? there's no way the slider on the 100 is more than that of a tech.. it seems like the inclusion of a display automatically makes people question increments of the slider. if i set my vestax pdx-d3 mk 2(from back in the days before plastic vestax...) to +/-3% and move the slider then i can move it more than 3 mm before the display changes by .1%. but the platter speed is definately affected even if the display doesnt change. these are digital decks... a movement of the slider on the 100's will change a voltage supplied to the motor/laser control. and surely this is pretty much infinate? wouldnt it be more complex to have the control setup so it notches the pitch by .1 every time?

No, because it's digital they have to digitally process the data on the CD to make it speed up, so they need to know how much to make it speed up... again as it's digital the pitch shift value will be a binary number, so the accuracy will depend on how accurately they convert the value being read by the pitch control from an analogue signal to a digital signal if it is just a variable resistor although I very much doubt this is the case, I think it is effectively just a big row of switches (possibly optical, I'm not sure) so it's down to the number of switches in the length of the slider as they'll determine the accuracy.

Remember CDs don't read like vinyl, if you speed up or slow down the rotation of the CD it doesn't make playback speed up or slow down because it always reads the same number of bits per second, which obviously helps with skip protection and means that you won't get fluctuations in pitch with a dodgy CD player.

Yep that's correct. A number of people say that an analog TT such as as Tech 1200 has "infinite" pitch increments, since the pitch slider is an analog potentiometer connected to a motor. While this is partially true, it doesn't necessarily mean that a 1200 is more accurate than a CD deck, since you have to deal with the analog aspects of vinyl (wow and flutter).

I find I can keep a mix much tighter with my CDJ-1000's than with my Technics. The Technics require riding the pitch, whereas I can keep the CDJ-1000's locked for a good long time.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox No, because it's digital they have to digitally process the data on the CD to make it speed up, so they need to know how much to make it speed up... again as it's digital the pitch shift value will be a binary number, so the accuracy will depend on how accurately they convert the value being read by the pitch control from an analogue signal to a digital signal if it is just a variable resistor although I very much doubt this is the case, I think it is effectively just a big row of switches (possibly optical, I'm not sure) so it's down to the number of switches in the length of the slider as they'll determine the accuracy. Remember CDs don't read like vinyl, if you speed up or slow down the rotation of the CD it doesn't make playback speed up or slow down because it always reads the same number of bits per second, which obviously helps with skip protection and means that you won't get fluctuations in pitch with a dodgy CD player.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 Yep that's correct. A number of people say that an analog TT such as as Tech 1200 has "infinite" pitch increments, since the pitch slider is an analog potentiometer connected to a motor. While this is partially true, it doesn't necessarily mean that a 1200 is more accurate than a CD deck, since you have to deal with the analog aspects of vinyl (wow and flutter). I find I can keep a mix much tighter with my CDJ-1000's than with my Technics. The Technics require riding the pitch, whereas I can keep the CDJ-1000's locked for a good long time.

Well that depends on the quality of the deck... a relatively new 1210, or one which has been looked after and serviced well has only got a wow/flutter of 0.01%, making it more accurate than a cdj1000

Although admittedly in most clubs they're about 5 years old and they've had the shit kicked out of them.

Well, wow/flutter isn't the ONLY measurement of accuracy.

I think people tend to equate Wow/Flutter with pitch accuracy.

Wow/Flutter is a measurement of ERROR of the deck, how much it wavers up and
down as the platter spins. Yes, Technics have very little wow/flutter (.01%).

A CDJ has NO wow and flutter.

Now think about how pitch resolution affects accuracy...

If you are beatmatching a track with a CDJ-1000/200 with .02% pitch resolution,
the actual needed pitch percentage will fall into either of two categories:

1. It's right on the money with a pitch "notch" on the CDJ (ie, 1.02, 1.04, 1.06). In this case you're golden.
2. It's in between pitch points: 1.025, 1.026, 1.027, 1.030.

So in reality, the ACCURACY (not pitch resolution) of a CDJ-1000 is higher than
.02%, because the speed at WORSE will be .01% off (if say, the pitch needed to
be 1.03%).

Getting a Technics 1200 THAT close with the analog slider is VERY difficult,
and with a CDJ you can SEE the pitch number in the display (making it cake to
nudge it a little and get it back to where you wanted it).

But if you are beatmatching to within .02% (or even .05%) all the time, you
are very good and don't have to worry much about the numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox Well that depends on the quality of the deck... a relatively new 1210, or one w hich has been looked after and serviced well has only got a wow/flutter of 0.01% , making it more accurate than a cdj1000 Although admittedly in most clubs they're about 5 years old and they've had the shit kicked out of them.

lol wasn't supposed to be arguing about it, just giving the other side of the story

At the end of the day my beatmatching isn't accurate enough on either for me to just leave it rolling through the mix, I always have to adjust it at some point, even with relatively short mixes (although this will be partly because if it's a short mix the chances are I cued it up more quickly than usual)

So there

I agree digital technology is better, as I was saying to someone else yesterday for primarily vinyl users it's kind of a psychological thing - being able to see the numbers change or not change when you make very small movements makes you think about the mix slightly differently. I've been saying for a while I'll be very happy when they bring out a CDJ with 0.01% increments at 10% range, as I think at this point no matter how small a movement I make it'll make a difference - thus crossing said psychological barrier. Plus being accurate as fuck

i think the pitch display causes no end of problems to people who are used to decks without a display. i find myself looking at the display more than the pitch slider and vu meters! it has a bad effect on my mixing standard. and made me question my decks performance.

displays on tt's=bad imo.

Hehe, I wasn't arguing either... I just started to think about the numbers

My beatmatching requires corrections as well, just more so with vinyl. I WISH I could just "set it and forget it" (as the bad info-mercial says), but that would be too easy.

As for .01 at 10%, .02 at 6% is DAMN accurate. I don't feel like calculating it out, but it takes MINUTES for a mix to drift at that accuracy. But hey, better is better

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox lol wasn't supposed to be arguing about it, just giving the other side of the story At the end of the day my beatmatching isn't accurate enough on either for me to just leave it rolling through the mix, I always have to adjust it at some point, even with relatively short mixes (although this will be partly because if it's a short mix the chances are I cued it up more quickly than usual) So there I agree digital technology is better, as I was saying to someone else yesterday for primarily vinyl users it's kind of a psychological thing - being able to see the numbers change or not change when you make very small movements makes you think about the mix slightly differently. I've been saying for a while I'll be very happy when they bring out a CDJ with 0.01% increments at 10% range, as I think at this point no matter how small a movement I make it'll make a difference - thus crossing said psychological barrier. Plus being accurate as fuck

I like the displays, at least on the CDJ's If I correct a mix, I can get the pitch right back to where it was if need be (I find the pitch on the CDJ's is easier to overcorrect with).

I even like *gasp* the BPM counters! I don't need them to mix at all, but I find them useful to guage how my mix is progressing and building. If I'm at 128 bpm and want to get up around 130-132 by the end of the mix, I'll work up slowly to that point.

quote:

Originally posted by richg101 i think the pitch display causes no end of problems to people who are used to decks without a display. i find myself looking at the display more than the pitch slider and vu meters! it has a bad effect on my mixing standard. and made me question my decks performance. displays on tt's=bad imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 As for .01 at 10%, .02 at 6% is DAMN accurate. I don't feel like calculating it out, but it takes MINUTES for a mix to drift at that accuracy. But hey, better is better

0.02% means worst case scenario (i.e. when the required pitch is half way between two increments) it'll take 50 seconds to noticeably drift out from being perfectly in time, on average it'll be twice this, i.e. 1 min 40 seconds.

Although you may not necessarily have it perfectly aligned (as there's technically a small band of positions of the two tracks where the kicks will fall close enough to sound in time, due to the length of the kick), probability says that it's just as likely to be mis-aligned in the opposite direction to the direction of the pitch inaccuracy (so that the inaccuracy will actually pull the mix closer together at first) for this to cancel itself out, when looking at an average

So yeah, average length of time for 2 beats to noticably slip out from being set to 0.02% accuracy would be 1m 40s but it could be practically instant if the two beats were far enough apart (even if they sound in time) and the inaccuracy pushes them away from one another... but obviously there you'd notice and correct

Do you get the impression I've thought too much about this? I do haha

And I know what you mean about knowing that you've moved the pitch back to exactly the same place.

Well actually the worst case scenario is .01% for .02 pitch resolution, not .02. At .02% pitch resolution, if the pitch is smack dab in the middle of two pitch settings (say it's supposed to be 1.03 and you can only set the CDJ to 1.02 or 1.04), it'll still only be at worse .01% off from the correct pitch mark.

So your numbers could probably be doubled! That's a long time for a mix to slip...

Now actually FINDING that perfect pitch number to .02% accuracy is another thing altogether

I think we put too much thought into this, but it goes to show you that people really blow the numbers out of proportion. The accuracy of both Technics 1200's and CDJ's are still better than most DJ's ears/brains.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox 0.02% means worst case scenario (i.e. when the required pitch is half way between two increments) it'll take 50 seconds to noticeably drift out from being perfectly in time, on average it'll be twice this, i.e. 1 min 40 seconds. Although you may not necessarily have it perfectly aligned (as there's technically a small band of positions of the two tracks where the kicks will fall close enough to sound in time, due to the length of the kick), probability says that it's just as likely to be mis-aligned in the opposite direction to the direction of the pitch inaccuracy (so that the inaccuracy will actually pull the mix closer together at first) for this to cancel itself out, when looking at an average So yeah, average length of time for 2 beats to noticably slip out from being set to 0.02% accuracy would be 1m 40s but it could be practically instant if the two beats were far enough apart (even if they sound in time) and the inaccuracy pushes them away from one another... but obviously there you'd notice and correct Do you get the impression I've thought too much about this? I do haha And I know what you mean about knowing that you've moved the pitch back to exactly the same place.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 Well actually the worst case scenario is .01% for .02 pitch resolution, not .02. At .02% pitch resolution, if the pitch is smack dab in the middle of two pitch settings (say it's supposed to be 1.03 and you can only set the CDJ to 1.02 or 1.04), it'll still only be at worse .01% off from the correct pitch mark. So your numbers could probably be doubled! That's a long time for a mix to slip... Now actually FINDING that perfect pitch number to .02% accuracy is another thing altogether I think we put too much thought into this, but it goes to show you that people really blow the numbers out of proportion. The accuracy of both Technics 1200's and CDJ's are still better than most DJ's ears/brains.

No, sorry I should have worded that differently... I meant:

"With 0.02% increments, at worst case it'll take 50 seconds to noticeably drift out", as you say (and I said!) worst case being half way between two increments.

And my numbers are based on this, so they won't be doubled - I promise you they are correct. But it's still a long time. And I think finding the most accurate pitch setting is probably where this DJ person comes in

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