|
Best DJ in the World? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Gordy |
| best mixing right now? IMO it would have to be christopher lawrence. that man has come along way with his style and mixing. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| Jeff Mills, when he can be arsed. |
|
|
| sandstorm03 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ory
SASHA DOES NOT USE VINYL
Jeez. And did I ever ing say all Sasha does is hit the beatmatch button? No, dickwad.
Tactik, vinyls aren't discs? :stongue: They're thin circular objects, which would make them discs. Jesus ing christ you people are bright. Not. |
maby sasha should bounce his hard disk of your dumb ass forehead.
| quote: | | How did you make that out? I was pointing out that computers can roll two tracks at the same time without skipping a beat or losing it much easier then on 2 decks. What has that got to do with composing? |
its the fact that beatmatching on tables with vinyl is more accurate then using a computer.
| quote: | | yea i forgot john 00 flemming spins country |
psy? |
|
|
| Ory |
rofl.
He isn't even touching the hard disk. That doesn't count. |
|
|
| sandstorm03 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ory
rofl.
He isn't even touching the hard disk. That doesn't count. |
you keep making stupid excuses... you ever touch a cd while its playing? |
|
|
| beats and beeps |
| quote: | Originally posted by sandstorm03
its the fact that beatmatching on tables with vinyl is more accurate then using a computer.
|
This is not usually true.
You have to factor in that turntables have wow/flutter, a peice of metal scraping over grooves. And then of course you have to factor in the fact that its being controlled by a human, using their ears.
A computer program could match beats with way more accuracy than a human with analog turntables could.
Why are you saying that tables are more accurate in the first place? Is it because you've heard people say vinyl is more accurate than digital?
Well this is true to an extent. Usually they are refering to digital turntables (cd players) which are only as accurate as 0.1, 0.05, or 0.02 at best.
Now people say vinyl is more accurate than digital in this scenario, and it can be, because obviously its analog, it is not limited by those pitch increments. However even when comparing the whole turntable to cdjs scenario you have to realise that turntables may be analog, but they are limited by the pitch fader.
They can only make increments as small as you can move that fader. Myself and other djs that I've spoken with feel that when making small increments (very fine pitching) the increment usually ends up being around what would be 0.05%. In alot of cases its actually easier to get small increments on digital turntables, because for example if you have a range of +/-4 it will be easier to move the fader in 0.02 increments, as with on an analog turntable that same fader movement would be a larger pitch increment.
Anyways what I'm getting at, is that a computer program could be developed that would match beats with accuracy as high as 0.01% or 0.001% who knows how fine they could get. No matter what, this is going to be more accurate than the increments you can get on an analog turntable. |
|
|
| sandstorm03 |
| quote: | Originally posted by beats and beeps
This is not usually true.
You have to factor in that turntables have wow/flutter, a peice of metal scraping over grooves. And then of course you have to factor in the fact that its being controlled by a human, using their ears.
A computer program could match beats with way more accuracy than a human with analog turntables could.
Why are you saying that tables are more accurate in the first place? Is it because you've heard people say vinyl is more accurate than digital?
Well this is true to an extent. Usually they are refering to digital turntables (cd players) which are only as accurate as 0.1, 0.05, or 0.02 at best.
Now people say vinyl is more accurate than digital in this scenario, and it can be, because obviously its analog, it is not limited by those pitch increments. However even when comparing the whole turntable to cdjs scenario you have to realise that turntables may be analog, but they are limited by the pitch fader.
They can only make increments as small as you can move that fader. Myself and other djs that I've spoken with feel that when making small increments (very fine pitching) the increment usually ends up being around what would be 0.05%. In alot of cases its actually easier to get small increments on digital turntables, because for example if you have a range of +/-4 it will be easier to move the fader in 0.02 increments, as with on an analog turntable that same fader movement would be a larger pitch increment.
Anyways what I'm getting at, is that a computer program could be developed that would match beats with accuracy as high as 0.01% or 0.001% who knows how fine they could get. No matter what, this is going to be more accurate than the increments you can get on an analog turntable. |
how good are computers with breaks? |
|
|
| beats and beeps |
| quote: | Originally posted by sandstorm03
how good are computers with breaks? |
It does not matter which genre it is. Im talking about digital (computer) accuracy vs. analog accuracy.
All computer programs are not the same beleive it or not, which ones are you refering to?
Anyways, you have to look beyond the current software djs are using and realize that it is an ignorant comment to say that a computer could not match beats as accuratly as a human using a vinyl turntable.
To answer your (stupid) question many of the poor programs djs are using today (such as abelton) recognize breaks very well. These programs are not nearly as good as they could be though (if developers had the proper funding) |
|
|
| sandstorm03 |
| quote: | Originally posted by beats and beeps
It does not matter which genre it is. Im talking about digital (computer) accuracy vs. analog accuracy.
All computer programs are not the same beleive it or not, which ones are you refering to?
Anyways, you have to look beyond the current software djs are using and realize that it is an ignorant comment to say that a computer could not match beats as accuratly as a human using a vinyl turntable.
To answer your (stupid) question many of the poor programs djs are using today (such as abelton) recognize breaks very well. These programs are not nearly as good as they could be though (if developers had the proper funding) |
what about ambient tracks i hear they are good with them also... |
|
|
| Ory |
| quote: | Originally posted by sandstorm03
you keep making stupid excuses... you ever touch a cd while its playing? |
Yes. You put it in, use the pad to move it/scratch (on a CDJ for example). You can't scratch a hard disk. And what if he uses some other form of storage? Like flash memory? That's not a hard disk. |
|
|
| sandstorm03 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ory
Yes. You put it in, use the pad to move it/scratch (on a CDJ for example). You can't scratch a hard disk. And what if he uses some other form of storage? Like flash memory? That's not a hard disk. |
cd players store the track, you dont control the cd...
programs like final scratch actually gives you much more control |
|
|
| A.J. |
| quote: | Originally posted by sandstorm03
ps. j00f is not a trance dj |
I beg to differ.
J00F plays a mixture of progressive trance and psy-trance, as well as some "typical" trance tracks occasionly, but he is still a trance DJ in my mind.
If not, what would you call him? |
|
|
|
|
