|
Re: BPM issues when mixing with USB's
| quote: | Originally posted by Amir_9
One thing I realized today was tunes that are below 130 BPM go up 2 BPM up at 1.20%, 130-136 go up 2 BPM up at 1.15% and 138+ go up 2 BPM at 1.10%. At least thats how it is on my CDJ-400. |
Clearly, you're through the looking glass, so there's no point in keeping this problem relating to shoddy craftsmanship much of a secret, any more. For years, songs written in one tempo have been subject to this clearly arbitrary "pitch" adjustment "scheme". Using the pitch fader, in order to increase or decrease the speed of music playing, has relied on relatively little, if any, correlation to the actual tempo of the music. Now that you've blown the lid off of this scandal, maybe these insinuations that the fader is related to the BPM of the song instead of how fast the platter is spinning will finally come to a rest.
The reason they've fooled you into thinking that the pitch relates directly to the tempo is because it affects how quickly the song plays! This is something all the major manufacturers have tried to keep covered up! WHY?!?! Because, if Pioneer made a product where pitch was a static value proportionally related to the tempo of the music their products were playing, no one would ever buy it. Therefore, what Pioneer and numerous other manufacturers have done is to make a product where pitch is a variable proportionally related to the BPM of the music their products are playing!
WHAT ALLOWS THEM TO GET AWAY WITH SUCH PATENTLY FALSE ADVERTISING?
They claim that changing the Revolutions Per Minute (RPM) changes the Beats Per Minute (BPM) of the music playing on their faulty, bad, evil, vile, dangerous products!
It comes down to this disingenuous equation:
CAUTION: Discontinue
trying to figure
this out if you
feel dizzy, light-
headed, nauseous,
or if you develop
a head-ache, and
call your doctor or
poison control
center, immediately.
Tell them you have
been exposed to
beginner's algebra.
You SEE?!? It would have been impossible for them to have made a product where the pitch was a static value because it would never, in a million years, sell! Therefore, they made the BPM a static value while making RPM variable. In so doing, they could use this mathematical mumbo-jumbo to formulate an entirely theoretical new value for the BPM in the readout of these supposedly "accurate" machines.
THE MP3/FLAC SCANDAL!
Back in the old days, DJ's were relegated to how quickly a platter spun in order to change the speed of a record. Tempo was arbitrarily decided by musicians and producers. In order for a DJ to change the speed of the record, he'd have to change the speed of the record player spinning, normally, at 33.5 or 45 revolutions per minute. One would have thought that the advent of portable digital media formats would have released DJ's from using this draconian system of tempo control.
Unfortunately, musicians and producers, to this day are allowed to make completely arbitrary decisions about how quickly their musical events occur in relation to one another. While the platter, spinning at up to 10,350 RPM, on the cd player has been replaced with complex algorithms which track a frame-rate synchronized with a "word-clock" - whatever that means - the DJ is still relegated to controlling a pitch value, intrinsically related to the original tempo of the song. The worst part about frame rate and word-clock is that THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE ORIGINAL TEMPO THE MUSIC WAS RECORDED IN!
SELL THE HOUSE, SELL THE CAR, SELL THE CDJ's, FIND SOMEONE ELSE. FORGET IT. I'M NEVER COMING BACK. FORGET IT.
The end result is that there's no possible way to be sure, unless you play music which is either sixty or even one-hundred twenty beats per minute. With so much music being written in tempos well outside those two values, you'd have to have successfully completed the seventh grade with honors classes or have a tremendously good sense of rhythm to be able to consistently beat-match. It's practically impossible!
___________________
Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012
|
