|
Your favorite BPM speed (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spirit5 |
| I think 0 BPM would sound really cool. DJs should try playing tunes at 0 BPM that way there wouldn't be much of a beat...at all and people wouldn't dance anymore, they would stand around with a beer in their hand starring at a DJ doing absolutely nothing...;) |
|
|
| Clovis86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
I think 0 BPM would sound really cool. DJs should try playing tunes at 0 BPM that way there wouldn't be much of a beat...at all and people wouldn't dance anymore, they would stand around with a beer in their hand starring at a DJ doing absolutely nothing...;) |
ELITIST! |
|
|
| all-nite-freak |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
I think 0 BPM would sound really cool. DJs should try playing tunes at 0 BPM that way there wouldn't be much of a beat...at all and people wouldn't dance anymore, they would stand around with a beer in their hand starring at a DJ doing absolutely nothing...;) |
nathan fake...the name of the song escapes me, but he released a track with no beat.
125-135 for me |
|
|
| superglo |
| 125 bpm tech house ---> 150bpm acid techno / psy |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by all-nite-freak
nathan fake...the name of the song escapes me, but he released a track with no beat.
|
Would it be "Numb Chance"? it would be hilarious if a DJ put that in the middle of a banging set and the crowd would be like "wtf??" :p and then all of a sudden BANG it's back to the beat.... |
|
|
| all-nite-freak |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
Would it be "Numb Chance"? it would be hilarious if a DJ put that in the middle of a banging set and the crowd would be like "wtf??" :p and then all of a sudden BANG it's back to the beat.... |
thats the one |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
I think 0 BPM would sound really cool. DJs should try playing tunes at 0 BPM that way there wouldn't be much of a beat...at all and people wouldn't dance anymore, they would stand around with a beer in their hand starring at a DJ doing absolutely nothing...;) |
You are drunk. And so am I. So therefor, we agree. Hooorah! |
|
|
| Numidia |
| 140-145 bpm for me |
|
|
| ThaMaestro |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
But wouldn't something say at 120 to 120.2 not be compatiable with each other? Cause technically 120.2 rounds down to 120, there's not a huge difference between them. At least that's how i've always thought of it but it's probably from using MixMeister. The BPMs on MixMeister has decimal points so going from something at 137.9 to 138 to me sounds fine. So you could increase the track your playing from 120 to 120.6 in the middle of the mix and then play the next track at 121? |
thats one idea yes. but basically, all given advice comes down to this; when a track is playing, or during breakdowns; pitch it up. or a bit different; mix like tiesto in the breakdown. thnx for all the advice, but basically this is all the same, at least thats what it seems to me. it all comes down to incremently pitching a track up bit by bit, so nobody hears a difference ... whne you play some 10 or 20 tracks, you can easily go from 120 to 140 by these incremental steps ... right?
| quote: | Originally posted by sandstorm03
It will work fine, just change the pitch of one of the tracks to match the other. |
only will work i think if you pitch up the out-going track ...
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
Yeah I mean sometimes it seems like i'm mixing in a track at 130 and it's really close to 131 and I play the next track at 131 and it seems fine (yeah I may need to do some pitch bending sometimes or do some minor corrections but no biggy). With all of the %1.45, %1.50, %2.35, %3.25 etc etc pitch wouldn't it be hard to not do that because there doesn't always seem like a huge difference between something pitched at %1.50 to something at %1.60. I dunno if it's just me but I have trouble telling a difference on some tracks, but when it goes down to say %1.30 from %1.50 or %1.60 then I hear a little difference, but all of those percentage points make it difficult sometimes to tell if it's exactly pitched right even if I think it is from listening...and then you get into %1.52, %1.53, %1.54 etc. I mean do you have to be THAT accurate?? because it starts to get confusing when you have all of those decimal points on CDJs... |
i think one is accurate enough, when a mix between 2 songs is adequately beatmatched, sounds seemless without any major bumps or beats that are out of the rythm ... thats what matters, not what BPM-counters tell you. next to that, dont look at bpm-counters during mixing. you become a better mixer/dj when yuo do it without the help of those things. in the begin they're handy, but later you dont have to trust them, you must be able to do it on your own. next to that, those things arent always right. it occasionally happens to me that i mix a track from 135 to 137 bpm, simply because the bpm is not accurate, or very slow to give new updates on the bpm-count ...
| quote: | Originally posted by sandstorm03
mix during a breakdown
or just tiesto slam into the next track
use fx to pitch up one of the tracks to the track thats 140 and mix into the track thats 140 |
can you please explain a bit morewhat you've wrote in the first part of your reply; mixing during breakdown?
and btw, i dont have an fx machine/device, so cant do that sir ;) |
|
|
| isoterra |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
Yeah I mean sometimes it seems like i'm mixing in a track at 130 and it's really close to 131 and I play the next track at 131 and it seems fine (yeah I may need to do some pitch bending sometimes or do some minor corrections but no biggy). With all of the %1.45, %1.50, %2.35, %3.25 etc etc pitch wouldn't it be hard to not do that because there doesn't always seem like a huge difference between something pitched at %1.50 to something at %1.60. I dunno if it's just me but I have trouble telling a difference on some tracks, but when it goes down to say %1.30 from %1.50 or %1.60 then I hear a little difference, but all of those percentage points make it difficult sometimes to tell if it's exactly pitched right even if I think it is from listening...and then you get into %1.52, %1.53, %1.54 etc. I mean do you have to be THAT accurate?? because it starts to get confusing when you have all of those decimal points on CDJs... |
the cdj800s work with 0.05% increments (0%, 0.05%, 0.1%.. etc) and from personal experience i know this isn't accurate enough to be guarenteed a smooth mix at all times, without making any adjustments mid-mix. the cdj1000s are more accurate, with 0.02% increments (providing the tunes stay within -/+6%) but theoretically that can still not be enough.
the bpm readings aren't always totally accurate though; this is why you'll sometimes get 2 tracks matched even though the bpms are slightly out. in reality, a difference of 0.1bpm becomes noticeable after about 10 seconds or so.
as for going from 120-140 in 2 hours... providing you have a decent progression of styles (ie, starting with slower housey stuff & working up to full-on trance stuff), it's alot easier than some on here are making out. all it takes is gently pushing the pitch up by 1% or so after each transition, before putting on the next tune. if you do it gradually enough (say for example... 0.05% per beat) then it will go virtually unnoticed. then once you get up to around +4-5%, you want to start looking for faster-paced stuff. eg, if your first 5 tunes were 120bpm house tracks and you did this, then the 5th one would be at +4%, which would equate to 124.8... you could then find a faster paced 125bpm track which will mix into it at just under 0%. if you keep on doing this, you can go as high as your tunes permit, regardless of the decks only going up at -/+8% |
|
|
| isoterra |
| and i like prog trance 132-137. uplifting trance 140-146. energetic tech trance up to 148 tops.. any more than that and you're into hard house territory |
|
|
|
|
