|
The 0.2 vs 0.5 resolution debate.....! (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| i got big pants |
| so how long before you guys reckon cdjs becoming a .005 and then having a .005 vs .02 debate? |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| quote: | Originally posted by i got big pants
so how long before you guys reckon cdjs becoming a .005 and then having a .005 vs .02 debate? |
a long time |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
Aka never.
Considering a good DJ can mix flawless at .02%, there is no point.
| quote: | Originally posted by orTofønChiLd
a long time |
|
|
|
| elFreak |
.02% is preferred, but with the good use of filters it is not that necessary to pull off long transitions.
an xone 92 can bang out a set practically by itself:p |
|
|
| miamitranceman |
| Plus you get to a point of diminishing returns. .005 would be way too touchy. |
|
|
| i got big pants |
with technology changing every minute, maybe they can make it to where a .005% pitch can act like a .02...im sure when .1% pitch incriments were launched, everybody felt that .1% was enough. same with .05, then .02
just watch...it'll eventually happen...and we'll have a thread like this...:) |
|
|
| palm |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ryan0751
And come on, with CDJ-1000's in 6%/.02 pitch mode you can lock tracks for WAY longer then on 1200's. |
WAY longer than endless? on 1210s u get so perfect matching that the actual record and physical laws on circles is what making it trainwreck (after 10s of minutes).
what a stupid thread.
it doesnt matter whether the pitch is +-6,8,10,20,50,100 if the resolution is 0,02 anyway, its not the resolution of the pitchslider its actualy pitch 0,02% which is good enough (cdj1000 is great to mix on) but nowhere near 1210s as some of you claim.
when (maybe already? i dont know, its why im browsing this forums) software im going software. which software-tool does that (no auto sync please). |
|
|
| elFreak |
| i have 1210's and sorry the 1000's are easier to keep time on. |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
Yep, I have both and agree.
100%. Without a doubt.
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
i have 1210's and sorry the 1000's are easier to keep time on. |
|
|
|
| Tony Morello |
yup, the 1000's are certainly easier to keep time
you have to remember that mixing vinyl is almost an artform, as the needle gets closer to the center of the record it will pick up speed and you need to be on your toes to compensate for that, grooves are spaced out further apart as you get closer but that only helps so much |
|
|
| Stu Cox |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
you mean 0.1 increments? Never seen decks with 1%....and you'd constantly have to ride them.
|
Nope, I mean 1% - some of the old rackmount jobs had a 16% range in about a 2 inch slider which only moved in 1% steps. And yes, you had to constantly ride them... like I say, doable but you hardly want to have to work like that all the time.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
So basically the extra $600 (per deck) to upgrade from the cdj800 to a 1000 just isn't justified. Again IMO, if you can't get it down on a 800 then a 1000 isn;t going to magically let you... |
And yeah, of course that's what it all boils down to: the price, which is why I haven't bought a pair of 1000s sooner, cos even if you've got the money sitting in the bank it's a lot to spank on slightly better resolution.
And I agree the better resolution won't magically make someone any better at mixing, but my point is very much that if you CAN get it down on an 800, that doesn't mean you can't still benefit from the better accuracy on a pair of 1000s. |
|
|
| Stu Cox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tony Morello
you have to remember that mixing vinyl is almost an artform, as the needle gets closer to the center of the record it will pick up speed and you need to be on your toes to compensate for that, grooves are spaced out further apart as you get closer but that only helps so much |
Not the case - the speed will only change if it's pressed (or was produced) really badly by some complete retard.
The needle only speeds up in terms of radial speed; in terms of the speed along the path of the groove it actually slows down (same revolutions per second but shorter radius = shorter circumference and hence less distance covered per second). And remember the cutting needle also changes speed in the same way when it gets nearer the centre, so it ends up playing back at the same speed, as long as the record and playback speeds are both constant.
(If someone wants to try and point out that commercial records are pressed rather than cut, I want to pre-empt them by pointing out that the stamper for the pressing is made from a master which is cut as you might imagine your deck might if you strapped a Stanley knife on instead of a needle)
If you think about it, the inside ring circumference of a 12" single is less than half the circumference of the outside ring, so even if the needle's speed did make a difference, the change in speed would be more than a factor of 2, implying the track doubles or halves in tempo over the course of the record - which obviously isn't the case or every house tune would become happy hardcore by the time it finishes. |
|
|
|
|
