|
turntables vs. cd players (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ Dowlz |
I'd recommend you start off by buying a CDDJing set. I've got the pioneer cdj-100s and it works a dream. That way you can learn the basics, and you won't need to outlay much into a cd collection, since you can burn your mp3s onto cd. It also means that if you happen to DJ at friends' parties you'll be able to play crappy pop when they request it :-P
Then you could make a recording and distribute it round to some small scale clubs that might be looking for someone to fill in the earlier slots. That might get you a job, which will hopefully supply you with enough income to start buying vinyls. And you'll certainly need a lot of money! :-( While vinyls are a little more difficult to cue then cds (you can't just press the cue button to return somewhere), they're a lot easier and more accurate to mix, cause you have so much more control (for instance, cd players are limited to 0.1% tempo increments). Also, it's easier to mix vinyls, cause you can just apply pressure to the rim to get a perfect beat match.
Now, a comparism of the medium. CDs are good cause they have nice midrange (vocals etc) and vinyls are good cause they have phatt (that's got to be spelt with a "P") bass.
Personally, I'm a CD/vinyl DJ cause it means that I can burn average songs onto CD and only buy vinyl songs which I really like. |
|
|
| Scottaculous |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_qub
correct me if i'm wrong but vinyl mixing is easier cuz u get more control right? |
The newest (most expensive) cd turntable from pioneer (cdj-1000) allows you to manipulate cds like vinyl. But for us mere mortals who can't afford those $1000USD cd player, yes, vinyl offers you a more hands on control. Incidentally, I find beatmatching easier on a CD player than vinyl but the turntablism tricks I can do on turntables, can't be done on "normal" cd turntables.
Again, look at your finances, if you have enough money to keep up get turntables. If you don't, get cd players. And if you're stinking rich, get both including the cd-1000s. |
|
|
| mantisnl |
i`m 15 years old and i recently bought ttz :D so why can`t u?
[stupid post:tongue2] |
|
|
| TranceGeek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trypsin
Turntables have been around for what, 100 years? Although the storage has changed from wax to vinyl, the technology is exactly the same. To say that CDs will be phased out in 5 years is pure conjecture. And as for the DVD example... ever notice how DVD players are reverse compatible with regular audio cds and VCD/SVCD? There are so many audio cds out there currently, and making a digital reader reverse compatible is easier than making an analogue one, that I think we'll see CDDA support for a while. |
yea, i agree, somewhat though... remember about 5-6 years, those big huge 12" laserdiscs that were supposed to revolutionize the movie industry by moving away from VHS? yea, it died 6 months later even though millions bought into it... although the digital encription will be around for a while, the cd size will not... i really doubt that cd's the way they are now will be around in 5-10 years... there's bound to come out some new thing thats gonna hold more data and require less space.... like flash cards nowadays... better than cd's cuz they're rewriteable and easily carried around... |
|
|
| Ray_Finkle |
I think that both will be around in the future.
Why do you need gigs and gigs of storage on a dvd when you're just gonna put one song on a cd right? So either route will offer no disadvatages. |
|
|
| sym |
For DJing purposes ya, Just one song per cd is good... but what about for other purposes? Burning a compilation cd with a ton of tracks? Or even recording a 4 hour liveset? Wouldn't it be more practical to be able to fit more on one cd? Eventually every media will be replaced, but if your looking at the here and now, CD's are cheaper. Vinyl is more expensive, but to me a much better medium. Different people have different tastes.
It also depends on what type of music to plan to play. If your gunna play pop and top 40, than your better off going cd. But if you plan to play Trance or House or basically anything in a genre similiar, your going to have go vinyl if you want to spin the latest stuff, since cd releases of songs happen much later. You could argue that you can get the mp3's and burn them, but the problem here is in different bitrates and levels I believe. I mean i've never dj'd with CD's, but just from cd's i've burnt with mp3's I could see this as an obstacle since occasionaly songs will seem to have completely different levels. |
|
|
| Scottaculous |
My biggest gripe with vinyl: When I spendd $10 on a vinyl, I want that vinyl to last forever or provide me means to make it last forever. I've started buying 2 or 3 of the same vinyl just so I can delay that. On top of which, if you keep your vinyls in perfect condition, sound quality starts to degrade after 100 uses. I'm not sure on that number because I read it else where but the point is, it's a limited number.
Scientifically ang logically, there is no reason why a vinyl would sound better than it would on a CD. People claim vinyls have a rounder sound because it's analog, but they forget to mention that a track is producted digitally (in the dance world at least), placed onto a cdr (the same ones you and I use), and then given to the vinyl pressers to work their magic. CDs win in the category of longevity, portability, and scalablity.
I don't know anyone who spins 1 track 1 cd. I cram as much as I can into 1. |
|
|
| TranceGeek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scottaculous
Scientifically ang logically, there is no reason why a vinyl would sound better than it would on a CD. People claim vinyls have a rounder sound because it's analog, but they forget to mention that a track is producted digitally (in the dance world at least), placed onto a cdr (the same ones you and I use), and then given to the vinyl pressers to work their magic. CDs win in the category of longevity, portability, and scalablity.
|
well both scientifically and logically vinyl sounds better than cd :) simply because of sample rates and because of analogue sound... lots of loss occurs when analogue is converted to digital... lots and lots and lots :haha: |
|
|
| Scottaculous |
| Remember that you're starting out from digital format and going to vinyl (analog). Are you implying that the vinyl presser adds additional sounds to the original recording? |
|
|
| TranceGeek |
you are reffering to music made on the computer and then pressed on vinyl... what i'm reffering to is analogue sound recorded directly onto vinyl... and as far as i know electronica too is made in sample rates higher than 44hz which is what cds are recorded at where as vinyl is at 92khz if im not mistaken... so yea, in both instances vinyl wins
;) |
|
|
| Scottaculous |
Since we are discussing the vinyl and CD medium in respect to dance music, I confined my reasons to only that.
Electronica is produced digitally. Which means, the original signal is digital. Whatever limitation of that digital recording is then sent to a mechanical device that cuts the vinyl and represents that digital signal into an analog signal. If that digital signal is a 44.1kHz (standard, although there are much higher sampling rates can be created) then the analog representation is recreated from a 44.1 signal.
A record playing system (recording from an analog source) has the potential to reproduce frequencies well above the CD's upper limit. However, in actual practice LP reproduction is limited by many other factors, including the quality of vinyl, stylus compliance, and the condition of the record. Even on the outer grooves, a dust partticle or groove deformation only 0.025 millimeter in diameter will cause the same loss of high-frequently resolution as that designed into the CD standard. On the inner grooves, the dust particle need be only 0.011 mm in diameter to produce the same loss.
No one can argue with the statement that the original recording is the best recording. In the recording industry, the original recordings are the master tapes. From the master tapes, all the vinyls and CDs are created. Now in the electronica world, if the original recording (digital) was produced at 24bit 96kHz and copies onto CD and vinyl, theoratically CD and vinyl would sound the same. Now let's look back at paragraph #2, the upkeep of vinyl is expensive and those dust particles will more than likely get into your vinyl degrading your sound quality. Vinyl has more distortions than CDs because of that. Those cracks and pops found in vinyl are non-existent in CDs. See my point?
Vinyl may sound better recorded from an analog source, but when it's being recorded from a digital source it loses. |
|
|
| DJ_Shockwav |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scottaculous
Since we are discussing the vinyl and CD medium in respect to dance music, I confined my reasons to only that.
Electronica is produced digitally. Which means, the original signal is digital. Whatever limitation of that digital recording is then sent to a mechanical device that cuts the vinyl and represents that digital signal into an analog signal. If that digital signal is a 44.1kHz (standard, although there are much higher sampling rates can be created) then the analog representation is recreated from a 44.1 signal.
A record playing system (recording from an analog source) has the potential to reproduce frequencies well above the CD's upper limit. However, in actual practice LP reproduction is limited by many other factors, including the quality of vinyl, stylus compliance, and the condition of the record. Even on the outer grooves, a dust partticle or groove deformation only 0.025 millimeter in diameter will cause the same loss of high-frequently resolution as that designed into the CD standard. On the inner grooves, the dust particle need be only 0.011 mm in diameter to produce the same loss.
No one can argue with the statement that the original recording is the best recording. In the recording industry, the original recordings are the master tapes. From the master tapes, all the vinyls and CDs are created. Now in the electronica world, if the original recording (digital) was produced at 24bit 96kHz and copies onto CD and vinyl, theoratically CD and vinyl would sound the same. Now let's look back at paragraph #2, the upkeep of vinyl is expensive and those dust particles will more than likely get into your vinyl degrading your sound quality. Vinyl has more distortions than CDs because of that. Those cracks and pops found in vinyl are non-existent in CDs. See my point?
Vinyl may sound better recorded from an analog source, but when it's being recorded from a digital source it loses. |
/me applauds
i still fell that vinyl is better but you are true to an extent and the way you put forth your opinion wins my respect
what we need here is a producer's opinion...
anyone going to step up to the plate?
i'll get in contact with my radio producion instructor and see what he thinks of this :) |
|
|
|
|
