|
Vinyl is the only way to Dj. IMHO (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| oje_oje |
| quote: | Originally posted by skip
LOL! you think vinyl is cheaper to produce than CDS!? and what are CDs doing if not storing music productions digitally?! and what's wrong with the mixers used nowadays?!
|
Come on! CDs are the most expensive way to store music productions digitally.
I have nothing against any mixer, you misinterpreted me. |
|
|
| akkare |
When you start thinking that a type of medium is more important than the music, and the delivery of it itself, that's when you become an elitist.
It's a good thing the masses don't really give a , because if they did, EDM would be held back from progressing heavily because of this non-sense mentality. |
|
|
| DJ Cinos |
| quote: | Originally posted by oje_oje
Come on! CDs are the most expensive way to store music productions digitally.
I have nothing against any mixer, you misinterpreted me. |
Vinyls cost more though. Even if they're not digital. |
|
|
| skip |
| quote: | Originally posted by oje_oje
Come on! CDs are the most expensive way to store music productions digitally.
I have nothing against any mixer, you misinterpreted me. |
surely not the most expensive. what's cheaper then other than downloads? cds are pretty damn cheap to produce. i can't think of any better/cheaper format at least. and what was it that you meant to say about the mixers then? why wouldn't the mixers of today be suitable?
:wtf: |
|
|
| oje_oje |
| quote: | Originally posted by skip
surely not the most expensive. what's cheaper then other than downloads? cds are pretty damn cheap to produce. i can't think of any better/cheaper format at least. |
:wtf: "what's cheaper then other than downloads?" <--> "cds are pretty damn cheap to produce. i can't think of any better/cheaper format at least." :wtf:
You seeeee??? It is cheapest to d/l them: no external costs for the producers at all (shipping, CD-burning, etc...)
| quote: | Originally posted by skip
and what was it that you meant to say about the mixers then? why wouldn't the mixers of today be suitable?
|
Read the thread again, again and again until you find out that I said exactly the opposite. |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
| quote: | Originally posted by oje_oje
You seeeee??? It is cheapest to d/l them: no external costs for the producers at all (shipping, CD-burning, etc...)
Read the thread again, again and again until you find out that I said exactly the opposite. |
and that's just why the online download sites are making huge markups on their products...that's all that is really changing. i think downloads are a little too expensive actually. i'm not gonna pay 2-3 bucks for a downloaded song... |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
| It really is too bad that this ipod mixer cant speed up and slow down the tunes. Plugging in 2 hard drives full of music into a mixer is a fun idea though, but if yer gonna go that far you might as well use an entire computer and get a control surface or something. |
|
|
| skip |
| quote: | Originally posted by oje_oje
:wtf: "what's cheaper then other than downloads?" <--> "cds are pretty damn cheap to produce. i can't think of any better/cheaper format at least." :wtf:
You seeeee??? It is cheapest to d/l them: no external costs for the producers at all (shipping, CD-burning, etc...)
Read the thread again, again and again until you find out that I said exactly the opposite. |
there's only one problem with downloads! you can't sell your old downloads! i think that's a major problem. and most people want something concrete, something they can touch, not some file on computer's hdd. but still i'm not against downloads, i think they have potential.
and i still don't see what you were saying about mixers. why do you have to be such an idiot that you can't elaborate? i think you're just talking out of your ass, but i'd be glad to be proved wrong, but so far all your explanations have been very bad. did you seriously think vinyl is cheaper to produce than CDs?
:o |
|
|
| david.michael |
| repost x 0298102938019283 |
|
|
| jonze234 |
i think Lawler said it very well.
ETN: Do you feel that vinyl still has any advantages or is it totally a dead format?
Steve Lawler: It's a dead format, really. It kills me to say that. I mean I still collect vinyl, I still buy records, and I still keep them, but what I tend to do is, whatever I get on vinyl I burn it straight to CD. I can do so much more with CD players now than what I can with vinyl, it doesn't really hold up any more. If I started playing records I'd get bored. There's all I can do apart from put two records together, you know? With CD players I'm constantly doing , so it's much more creative for me. |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by david.michael
repost x 0298102938019283 |
Yep. Same topic, same opinions, same bitching. It'll always be debated, and there will never be an agreement between either side. |
|
|
| Jason7 |
Not using vinyl takes some of the romance out of DJing. If you went to a rock concert and the guitarist just stood next to a computer and played a pre-recorded guitar rift, it would most likly sound the same, but people would feel like they got ripped off. It's similar to DJing - some people like to see the DJ manuelly queing up vinyls with their hands and grabbing the big black disks out of his box/bag and flipping them onto the turntables.
However, with that being said my argument doesn't hold too much water. The only time the DJ is the surpreme focus of a the gig is when your watching a dvd / online video of his set. When your at the club the focus is (or also is) the party going on. What the DJing is playing is more important than how it's being played in such a case. Also, a lot of the time you can't even see what the DJ is doing since the DJ booth is usually elevated.
My opinion on this -- I care about the music fist and foremost. I'ld prefer vinyl being used (not nesecarly 100% vinyl even), but it's not gonna make me think X_dj sucks because they use cds. |
|
|
|
|
