TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- CDJ
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

CDJ

i just mix at my pc in the VTT. i want to buy a CDJ, is that good for begginers?

sure, CDJ's are alright if you like to mix for fun and want to save money on just playing burned music or something. However, if you are serious are sound quality and want pitch accuracy, go for technics turntables.

The cdj1000's have a more accurate pitch control than the 100's do.. No idea how they compare to the pitch control on Tech 12's though. I guess since the Techs are an analog device, the pitch control would be analog as well which would ultimately afford more accuracy. But I've got no complaints with the accuracy of my cdj1000s. And yes, these are much easier for beginners to use

quote:

Originally posted by Dmatrox sure, CDJ's are alright if you like to mix for fun and want to save money on just playing burned music or something. However, if you are serious are sound quality and want pitch accuracy, go for technics turntables.

I think you should know that a CD has better quality then a Vinyl, after all
Its digitally recorded and mastered and you dont get noises and stuff.
as for pitch accuracy
I would have to agree with you.

Besides, even thr greatest DJs use CDJs, they are not for beginners, the Pioneer and Denon CD units are the optimal devices for DJs...
I Own a pair of CDJ-100S and I love them, I can mix great with them, as good as I can with vinyl.

quote:

Originally posted by Scorchio I think you should know that a CD has better quality then a Vinyl, after all Its digitally recorded and mastered and you dont get noises and stuff.

I disagree with you on this one. OK so you don't get clicks and pops with a CD, but digitally recording the music loses a lot of the frequencies of the song. If you compare a song played from a vinyl directly with the same song from a CD, you will notice that the vinyl has a fuller, richer sound. Vinyl also sounds a *lot* better at high volumes than a CD.

quote:

Originally posted by DJTJ I disagree with you on this one. OK so you don't get clicks and pops with a CD, but digitally recording the music loses a lot of the frequencies of the song. If you compare a song played from a vinyl directly with the same song from a CD, you will notice that the vinyl has a fuller, richer sound. Vinyl also sounds a *lot* better at high volumes than a CD.

the man only speaks the truth

any online store taht have cdj-100s ?

Psylence, i dont think the 1000s have more accurate pitch, in fact, the manual for the CDj100, 500, 1000 all have a 0.1% pitch accuracy. (i found that in each device manual yesterday). The 3000 model does have a little more accuracy though, supposedly by 0.05%, which is much better than 0.1%.

What i like about vinyl better is you can see the quiet parts of the record, and where exactly it ends.

quote:

If you compare a song played from a vinyl directly with the same song from a CD, you will notice that the vinyl has a fuller, richer sound

The same song from a CD would be cleaner and crisper... thus the vinyl would sound *better* because it has more noise in it which typically people claim is better. For overall sound, digital will always be superior than something that is analog simply because it can be remastered and cleaned out of the noise that we're used to.

My friends
you must face the truth and the truth is that a CD has a better quality then a vinyl.
Vinyl is being Pressed
Cd is Digitally recorded, Digital source is much more accurate and sounds much better.
After all its the progress of our technology.

quote:

Originally posted by Dmatrox Psylence, i dont think the 1000s have more accurate pitch, in fact, the manual for the CDj100, 500, 1000 all have a 0.1% pitch accuracy. (i found that in each device manual yesterday). The 3000 model does have a little more accuracy though, supposedly by 0.05%, which is much better than 0.1%. What i like about vinyl better is you can see the quiet parts of the record, and where exactly it ends.

The 1000's have 0.02% precision at +/- 6% pitch range. Don't remember how precise it as at the other ranges.

And the eternal debate about cd vs vinyl. Half of the people say digital sounds better, the other half says the analog sounds better. Personally I like the vinyl sound most, but fce it, it's only when you listen very carefully on good sounding systems. 90% of the time when you spin out, nobody will be able to tell if the last tune you spun was on cd or vinyl.
I'm more of the idea that it's the result that counts. Do you actually think the crowd cares if you spin on vinyl, cd or even on mp3? Most people I know come for the music, not the media it's on (except some candyravers that come just to see someone doing nifty moves on TT's).

On the 1000's at +/-6%, its .02% precision, and at +/-10% its .05% precision.

I wouldn't have bothered with these if it was only .10! Thankfully someone pointed out this key advantage to the higher end cdj before I made my purchase.
And DJ Thy, I agree with you 100%!

quote:

Originally posted by Scorchio My friends you must face the truth and the truth is that a CD has a better quality then a vinyl. Vinyl is being Pressed Cd is Digitally recorded, Digital source is much more accurate and sounds much better. After all its the progress of our technology.

im sorry man
but i totally have to disagree with u
i can say i heard both cdjs and vinyl live
and the vinyl sounds wayyyyyyy better
dunno, it has a more realistic sound
btw - dont forget that all the tunes u play come orignally from VINYL m8... and u can even see that a Vinyl Rip has a better quality then a CDM rip....

Vinyl VS CD

WARNING! - RANT BELOW

quote:

Originally posted by Scorchio My friends you must face the truth and the truth is that a CD has a better quality then a vinyl. Vinyl is being Pressed Cd is Digitally recorded, Digital source is much more accurate and sounds much better. After all its the progress of our technology

quote:

Orignally posted by Xquisite The same song from a CD would be cleaner and crisper... thus the vinyl would sound *better* because it has more noise in it which typically people claim is better. For overall sound, digital will always be superior than something that is analog simply because it can be remastered and cleaned out of the noise that we're used to.

Reading this thread, I have seen that in this debate you both have very good points about both Digital and Analogue quality. However as much good as digital sounds, I have to say I believe analogue IS superior, I have listened to 4 Strings - Into The Night on Vinyl and on CD, and it does sound better on Vinyl. This was using an old school �1900 Rotel Integrated Amp and my Sennheiser HD280 Pro's.

This can be explained, if you do electronics, or know anyting about electronics, you will know that for Digital, you use Pulse Code Modulation, an ADC (Analogue - Digital Converter), and a DAC (Vice - Versa). Now when the tune is recorded the sample rate is how many samples is taken of the Analogue signal, it is then digitised. But when it is played an ADC is needed unless you think we can heard just 0's and 1's, . Either way it recreates the original signal (which is analogue) as accurately as it can (depending on the sample rate) but unless you take infinite samples it will never be the original analogue signal, it is this reason that it 'sounds' better on a vinyl. The Digital signal is perfectly cleansed of any noise, but whether it sounds better, is debateable indeed.

[/rant]

Hmmm, So what if tunes comes on Vinyl first?
Thats just because Vinyls and Turntables are the standard in clubs,
A Vinyl may have the richer sound so you claim, I dont agree, simply becuase when you are playing a CD both sources are digital, the laser eye and the cd are digital.
A Vinyl is analouge as said before and therefore cant compete with te CDs quality.
Otherwise how would you explain the fact Vinyl came before the CD?

It's not as simple as saying digital IS better as analog. Digital has its advantages but also it's drawbacks. I study audio technics at school, and one of the courses there is analog vs digital. There's a lot of explanation involved how to get digital sound, explanation I will not give here (hell, the analog vs digital course lasts three years, I'm too lazy to explain it all here). You may say what you want, but when you know how digital sound is made, you CAN'T simply say digital is better than analog. You can say "digital is better than analog in controlled conditions".
Like spectra said, no matter how fine you sample, there WILL always be loss of audio data (as analog is a continuous information, and digital is discrete). The general idea is to make that loss as small as possible, smaller than the human can hear.
But digital has more problems than that like aliasing for instance.
Each problem in the digital domain is partially solved already, but with very expensive means (very efficient filters and such, high bit ADC's and DAC's), but the point is, it will still not be identical to the original analog signal (and might I remind you that sound as in the vibration in air is analog). Each time you go over from one domain to another (and even if you got full digital sound from a synth with digital outputs, you'll have at least one domain cross) you lose some information (or gain unwanted information, as in aliasing or noise).

So saying digital is better than analog like that is like saying one color is more beautiful than another. You can't simply put it like that.

Again I say, most people don't even hear the difference, so why bother. It's not like the club crowd is made purely from audiophiles (hell big PA systems can't even be counted in hifi sound).

But back on the topic, I'd say you can't really say this or that is for beginners. The mixing process is the same for everything, it's only the interface that changes. If you know how to mix on VTT, it will only take some adapting time to learn the controls of a cdj or a TT. It's not like you suddenly lose your ability to beatmatch or so! Agreed, some gear needs more effort than other to fully understand it, but that's what the manuals are for

I like to compare it with walking. Once you can walk, and you buy new shoes, you just need to adapt a little to the shoes (or the shoes adapt to your feet hehe), you won't have to relearn to walk. That knowledge you already have.

quote:

Originally posted by Psylence On the 1000's at +/-6%, its .02% precision, and at +/-10% its .05% precision. I wouldn't have bothered with these if it was only .10! Thankfully someone pointed out this key advantage to the higher end cdj before I made my purchase. And DJ Thy, I agree with you 100%!

Oh, sorry

The 1000 is pretty expensive though

quote:

Originally posted by Scorchio Hmmm, So what if tunes comes on Vinyl first? Thats just because Vinyls and Turntables are the standard in clubs, A Vinyl may have the richer sound so you claim, I dont agree, simply becuase when you are playing a CD both sources are digital, the laser eye and the cd are digital. A Vinyl is analouge as said before and therefore cant compete with te CDs quality. Otherwise how would you explain the fact Vinyl came before the CD?

i hearby nominate you for wanker of the month.... that is all

Why did you have to go there?
Really classy
You cant explain things nicely so you go off and flame
just shows how stupid you are.
That is my opinion, you dont have to agree with it but you must accept it, you know what is pluralism?
Notice I have been speaking nicely trying to explain myself, so did everyone else
then comes a wiseguy like yourself and throws in a stupid line.
Its people like you that ruin this forum.

DJ Thy, nice post.

I think everyone is being defensive here because of the equipment that THEY use. Well, I use turntables, but I'm not going to say anything bad about CD players, because like DJ Thy said, every option has its pluses and minuses.

What I WILL say is that 99% of Trance is released on vinyl. This is the single important fact that dictates the choice for most people.

I think some of you are not going into enough detail here. Of course playing an MP3 file burned onto a CD is going to sound poorer than a vinyl of the same tune. If you are on about the original CD produced by the record labels then they should in theory have a better sound than vinyl. However, that is not always the case.

I beg anyone to tell me that the MP3 format does not degrade the quality of a tune, of course it does, your losing high and low end frequencies which are apparently above and below human range of hearing. But DJ's ears are so much finer tuned than Joe Bloggs tunes, I hear things my friends can not. So if everyone in this thread is on about using MP3 burned CD's then of course the sound quality is not as good.

One advantage of CD's over vinyl is that the medium is more stable and durable, vinyl wears down when in contact with the needle, vinyl can bend and warp and create pits capable of making your needle jump.

The new Pioneer CD player is just as good as in my opinion as Technics 1210's when it comes to using the pitch. Because of the way I have learned to mix I utilise manual pitch bends of the pitch control to compensate for any slippage, the new Pioneer CD players allow you to do this so I am happy. So what if you can never get it 100% dead on, thats what practise is for - to tune your ears into detecting slipping beats. And anyway, even though most DJ's think they have something dead on, if the records were to keep playing I can almost guarentee you that the beats would eventually slip, it just isn't noticable in the time you spent mixing.

Someone mentioned that looking at the vinyl lets you see when breaks are about to occur, well the new Pioneer CD plaer has a similar display showing when a break is about to occur.

So in short, CD mixing will be future, in case you guys are wondering I am primarily a vinyl based DJ but am open to new technologies.

Of course a CD that will be burned using your home burner will sound poorer
However I'm talking about the CD thats being published by the lables...

As I said before, theoretically it should sound better, although I certainly doubt that. But the quality difference with properly produced CD's and vinyl is so neglible it is hardly worth arguing about!

quote:

Originally posted by Scorchio Why did you have to go there? Really classy You cant explain things nicely so you go off and flame just shows how stupid you are. That is my opinion, you dont have to agree with it but you must accept it, you know what is pluralism? Notice I have been speaking nicely trying to explain myself, so did everyone else then comes a wiseguy like yourself and throws in a stupid line. Its people like you that ruin this forum.

once again... this is why i have nominated you as wanker of the month...

Stop it you guys, let's all try and keep the discussion friendly.

I understand Scorchio's argument, but I have to say that analogue is the better sound. I do not agree with the analogy that sound quality between analogue and digital formats are negligible and inaudible to the human ear- trust me, it makes a difference. As DJTJ has already mentioned, analogue sound is going to be richer, fuller, and at high volumes, bassier than digital sound plainly because it is an EXACT representation of the press. In other words, what the needles are running through are the exact pitches and tones that the makers of the track intended it to be. It's just like playing something straight out from a producer's recording studio.
Digital format sound is an APPROXIMATE representation of the sound. DJTJ (again) will tell you that analogue sound come in the form of S-shaped waves, and digital sound come in the form of squared waves- they have to convert the original S-shaped waves into squared 1s and 0s for it to be reproduced digitally. Sound quality will inevitably be lost during this conversion process.
I'm no expert in this field, but I think what I've just said makes sense. I, for one, can say that I've listened to enough CDs and records all my life to conclude that I prefer the richer, fuller sound of analogue.

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