|
DVD DJs - is there really any point? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Stu Cox |
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
check out sanders myspace, there is a snippit of maybe 20 minutes of his vj sets.. i think he works them in quiet well....
it just adds a little something more to the party. but nothing extreme. the videos are simplistic yet meaningful to everysong (sometimes he adds the lyrics) |
Yeah that works well... is that actually done with DVJs though or a 'proper' VJ rig (i.e. one of the software packages, MIDI controllers and a video mixers sorta thing)?
I've just watched a bit of the Yoda one and I've gotta say I was pretty disappointed, not a patch on his normal DJ sets, it was just really boring and the video (particularly scratching it!) looked rubbish.
Apart from the bit where he was scratching a bit of video of a playing a record and cutting the crossfader across, cos he was making it look like the guy in the video was doing the scratching which worked pretty well. |
|
|
| agentdansmith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stu Cox
Yeah that works well... is that actually done with DVJs though or a 'proper' VJ rig (i.e. one of the software packages, MIDI controllers and a video mixers sorta thing)?
I've just watched a bit of the Yoda one and I've gotta say I was pretty disappointed, not a patch on his normal DJ sets, it was just really boring and the video (particularly scratching it!) looked rubbish.
Apart from the bit where he was scratching a bit of video of a playing a record and cutting the crossfader across, cos he was making it look like the guy in the video was doing the scratching which worked pretty well. |
I know what you mean. |
|
|
| Spoonz |
| it's a very new learning curve to "dj's" 25 years ago we'd probs ask something similar... in 10 yrs time sander will be shocking crowds everywhere , not only with his djing, but vjing also. ... it wont just be music and lazers.... but video images too... at least, that's my guess |
|
|
| Clovis |
| IMO the marriage between VJs and DJs should be one of two different people combining their craft. There are amazing and very talented VJs out there who would probably do alot more damage if they worked with a DJ specifically rather than some DJ making amateurish video effects for a few of his tracks to mix in on DVJ. |
|
|
| Trance Android |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
There are amazing and very talented VJs out there who would probably do alot more damage if they worked with a DJ specifically rather than some DJ making amateurish video effects for a few of his tracks to mix in on DVJ. |
I still dont get it - however nice the video show might be, how can you tell whether the images are being manipulated live rather than just streamed from a pre made DVD??? It's not like a DJ playing a pre mixed CD as the video won't affect the party like a good DJ can so why does it make it any worse if the video is pre mixed beforehand (or better if it's all done live)? :conf: :( :conf: :(
No matter how good the videos are I still say all a VJ does is muck about with random images that bear no relation to the music being played :thepirate
I don't think you'll ever convert me on this one!! ;) :p :tongue2 |
|
|
| Paullino |
| the dvd djs are insane. Playing dvd audio at 192 kHz is the optimum quality when it comes to digital audio, pretty close to analogue vinyl in my opinion |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
High resolution digital audio surpasses anything vinyl can offer...
Unfortunately finding source material in our genre at that bitrate means you either:
1. Have to be the producer of the track
2. Know the producer personally
| quote: | Originally posted by Paullino
the dvd djs are insane. Playing dvd audio at 192 kHz is the optimum quality when it comes to digital audio, pretty close to analogue vinyl in my opinion |
|
|
|
| Paullino |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ryan0751
High resolution digital audio surpasses anything vinyl can offer...
Unfortunately finding source material in our genre at that bitrate means you either:
1. Have to be the producer of the track
2. Know the producer personally |
hell yeah and only logic exports the tracks at high quality imo |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
I think other DAW's can do that as well, pretty sure ableton can.
But then you have to look at all your loops, vsts, etc. and make sure they are all outputting that kind of bitrate as well.
But really it all comes down to mastering...
| quote: | Originally posted by Paullino
hell yeah and only logic exports the tracks at high quality imo |
|
|
|
| Paullino |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ryan0751
I think other DAW's can do that as well, pretty sure ableton can.
But then you have to look at all your loops, vsts, etc. and make sure they are all outputting that kind of bitrate as well.
But really it all comes down to mastering... |
interesting :D |
|
|
| Stu Cox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Paullino
the dvd djs are insane. Playing dvd audio at 192 kHz is the optimum quality when it comes to digital audio, pretty close to analogue vinyl in my opinion |
I used to agree with the idea that higher quality digital audio could only be a good thing, that with time our ears would adjust we'd learn to appreciate the improvement over and above CD quality (or at least some years down the line after just listening to higher quality audio we'd start to think CD quality sounds e), but after doing a module which looks at the operation of A-D and D-A converters in a lot of depth, I can see there's absolutely no point.
Sampling at 44.1 Khz, you can just about PERFECTLY reconstruct 22 KHz sine wave, which tend to be out of our range of hearing anyway. Yes, the sampled data won't be a perfect representation but it doesn't actually lack data, it has additional frequencies added in and the filter technology around at the moment is good enough to get rid of this.
So you're just left with quantisation noise due to the resolution (i.e. the "steps" that are introduced because of the discrete levels the data is stored in). Sigma-Delta converters (as are used in audio) tend to over sample by at least 256 times, i.e. they'll sample at 11 MHz rather than 44.1 KHz and use that data to derive sample data at 44.1 KHz, eliminating about all of the quantisation noise that could possibly occur. 16-bit audio has a dynamic range of 96 dB, which is absolutely huge - you'd find it VERY difficult making an amplifier with that range, so making use of any higher resolutions just isn't going to happen, particularly with the amount of compression put on things these days.
So... if you want it to sound better:
a) Make it better in the first place - better mastering, better EQing, better recording
b) Use expensive equipment with high-quality A-D/D-A converters and high quality analogue filters
c) Keep it digital wherever possible - while the data stays digital at the same resolution and sample rate, it can't lose quality
d) Use a decent amp and decent speakers and watch for noise in any analogue interconnects |
|
|
| Rememberence_ |
| Nyquist/Shannon sampling theorem FTW |
|
|
|
|
