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

___________________
Stu Cox |

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.

___________________
*** Sig edited -> no banner ads in sig
----------------------------------------
http://img404.**************/img404/2794/deresionbanneryx4.jpg
www.deresion.com

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.

___________________
Stu Cox |

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

___________________
Stu Cox |