TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- The 0.2 vs 0.5 resolution debate.....!
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
The 0.2 vs 0.5 resolution debate.....!
Just read Miami Tranceman's post in another thread which basically said: 0.5 vs 0.2 debate is a non starter because anyone with any beatmatching skills can hold a mix at 0.5.
Whilst I see the logic, I feel that being able to match a beat at 0.2 requires a MORE sensitive ear.
Sure, the 0.5 resolution will require better skill at RIDING the beat, but 0.2 gives a truer replication of the analogue experience most of us learnt on, and most of us agree that mixing on an analogue input is a true skill.
BTW - not intended to bash Miami Tranceman.
Jarv
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.
Sorry, title was supposed to read 0.02 and 0.05.........
Re: The 0.2 vs 0.5 resolution debate.....!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Jarvmeister Just read Miami Tranceman's post in another thread which basically said: 0.5 vs 0.2 debate is a non starter because anyone with any beatmatching skills can hold a mix at 0.5. Whilst I see the logic, I feel that being able to match a beat at 0.2 requires a MORE sensitive ear. Sure, the 0.5 resolution will require better skill at RIDING the beat, but 0.2 gives a truer replication of the analogue experience most of us learnt on, and most of us agree that mixing on an analogue input is a true skill. BTW - not intended to bash Miami Tranceman. Jarv |
what is the actual pitch resolution on 1200s? this is of course assuming they are fresh out of the box. something ive been wondering for a few years.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Jarvmeister Sorry, title was supposed to read 0.02 and 0.05......... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by i got big pants what is the actual pitch resolution on 1200s? this is of course assuming they are fresh out of the box. something ive been wondering for a few years. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by palm so was my comment i thought there where something wrong there. 0.01 or gtfo. or wait, this is not right. was cdj800 0,05 or was it not? those wherent good enough atleast. what is cdj1000 now? havent beeen djeing for a few years |
im actually talking about the analog turntable...maybe i need to formulate my question a bit better. it makes sense in my head just not when i type it out...
i would imagine there has to be something to base the 1200 pitch to. some standard of measurement more than anything else. or is the pitch the all might 0.00000000000000000000000002??? 
perhaps im just rambling...which happens often.
jerk...
it's analog, no resolution, the pitch is where you put the slider, that's why the tiniest of nudges to the pitch slider will affect the pitch, even if it doesn't seem to move
as in that other thread, if you can;t mix at 0.05 resolution, 0.02 is not going to help at all.
The deviation in the differences in those resolutions on say a 1 minute mix is so tiny that you shouldn't have to touch it again once you have them right. Escpecially as the other deck also can be ptiched to get you closer. You've got 20 points of adjustment per %
You don;t need to ride the pitch like they're belt drives and constantly going out of time.
In fact I've got an old CDJ100 with a pitch resolution of 0.1 and in a 2 minute transition I maybe have to touch it once.
IMO, anyone that's not doing 4 minute mixes and says they can't get it locked with two CDJ's that have 0.05 resolution can't mix. The rest is purely psycological.
I donno... people seem to think the .02 is vastly different.. like they can mix tracks for hours at a time. .05 is enough. If most people are fine with .05 then whats wrong with the people who say they can only use .02? If you wanted something even more accurate get something with serato itch.. since it has .01 resolution. Mixing with .05 is EXACTLY the same for most situations.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ RANN In fact I've got an old CDJ100 with a pitch resolution of 0.1 and in a 2 minute transition I maybe have to touch it once. |
1200's have THEORETICALLY limitless pitch resolution since the control is analog, but due to physical limitations (like the length of the slider, etc.) they actually aren't even as good as CDJ-1000's.
The physical length of the slider is the same on a CDJ-1000 and a Technics SL-1200. With CDJ-1000's in ".02" increment mode, you get a range of +/- 6%. With the SL-1200's, you are always dealing with a range of +/- 8%. Therefore it's physically harder to move a 1200's pitch slider "just a tad" to get that .02% or less of change.
You can see this clearly with a DVS like Traktor Pro. The latest version shows pitch to two decimal places (128.23, 128.34) for example).
When using my CDJ-1000 (with timecode CD), you can very easily make tiny adjustments to adjust the pitch very accurately.
Using timecode vinyl with my 1200's, even the smallest amount I can move the slider causes a much larger change in speed.
But in the end it doesn't matter, as I mix differently on both. With CDJ's I lock the tracks and during the mix use the platter if necessary (or to get the mix started). On 1200's I get as close as I can up front, but when mixing the track in live I just ride the pitch a teeny amount.
I do find a difference using .02 and .05 on the 1000's, but it's not really a problem to have to use .05.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Ryan0751 1200's have THEORETICALLY limitless pitch resolution since the control is analog, but due to physical limitations (like the length of the slider, etc.) they actually aren't even as good as CDJ-1000's. The physical length of the slider is the same on a CDJ-1000 and a Technics SL-1200. With CDJ-1000's in ".02" increment mode, you get a range of +/- 6%. With the SL-1200's, you are always dealing with a range of +/- 8%. Therefore it's physically harder to move a 1200's pitch slider "just a tad" to get that .02% or less of change. You can see this clearly with a DVS like Traktor Pro. The latest version shows pitch to two decimal places (128.23, 128.34) for example). When using my CDJ-1000 (with timecode CD), you can very easily make tiny adjustments to adjust the pitch very accurately. Using timecode vinyl with my 1200's, even the smallest amount I can move the slider causes a much larger change in speed. But in the end it doesn't matter, as I mix differently on both. With CDJ's I lock the tracks and during the mix use the platter if necessary (or to get the mix started). On 1200's I get as close as I can up front, but when mixing the track in live I just ride the pitch a teeny amount. I do find a difference using .02 and .05 on the 1000's, but it's not really a problem to have to use .05. |
cheers!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Ryan0751 1200's have THEORETICALLY limitless pitch resolution since the control is analog, but due to physical limitations (like the length of the slider, etc.) they actually aren't even as good as CDJ-1000's. The physical length of the slider is the same on a CDJ-1000 and a Technics SL-1200. With CDJ-1000's in ".02" increment mode, you get a range of +/- 6%. With the SL-1200's, you are always dealing with a range of +/- 8%. Therefore it's physically harder to move a 1200's pitch slider "just a tad" to get that .02% or less of change. You can see this clearly with a DVS like Traktor Pro. The latest version shows pitch to two decimal places (128.23, 128.34) for example). When using my CDJ-1000 (with timecode CD), you can very easily make tiny adjustments to adjust the pitch very accurately. Using timecode vinyl with my 1200's, even the smallest amount I can move the slider causes a much larger change in speed. But in the end it doesn't matter, as I mix differently on both. With CDJ's I lock the tracks and during the mix use the platter if necessary (or to get the mix started). On 1200's I get as close as I can up front, but when mixing the track in live I just ride the pitch a teeny amount. I do find a difference using .02 and .05 on the 1000's, but it's not really a problem to have to use .05. |
I've been around
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ RANN Excellent post. Been a while....haven't seen you post here recently? Or maybe I haven't been in the right places? |
if only the cdj1000 wasn't discontinued, i'd buy one and see which one feels better
cdj1000 is discontinued? when did this happen? somehow i dont see that happening, but i could be wrong.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by i got big pants cdj1000 is discontinued? when did this happen? somehow i dont see that happening, but i could be wrong. |
Oh why does that make a difference? They are all similar, I've played on all 3. The only weird thing about the MK1 is the platter is a bit tighter.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by orTof�nChiLd the very first one, mk1 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Ryan0751 Oh why does that make a difference? They are all similar, I've played on all 3. The only weird thing about the MK1 is the platter is a bit tighter. |
The mk1 also lags a bit more when cueing in stutter mode...at least the ones I used did.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Ryan0751 1200's have THEORETICALLY limitless pitch resolution since the control is analog, but due to physical limitations (like the length of the slider, etc.) they actually aren't even as good as CDJ-1000's. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by miamitranceman The mk1 also lags a bit more when cueing in stutter mode...at least the ones I used did. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.