Dubstepforum.com

Is this like a troll thread or something, this is DUBSTEPforum and people are talking about how vinyl is dated and shit and how the new hottest dj controller is the best thing ever. How its all about the music and not whether the person is beatmatching or not. I just fail to see how going to see someone who cant beat match and jsut syncs everything is better than going to see someone spin properly. Im not saying I hate digital, it has its place, I cant afford to buy everything on vinyl, so have to get some things on digi, dubs would be on digi and no one wants to cut dubplates these days really, so yeah serato or cdjs are good coupled with vinyl. even someone using just cdjs is ok, cos atleast they are beatmatching, but just using a controller and syncing is shit. I can understand how controllers are cheaper than a cdj/vinyl setup, so many people may start on that, but if I were going to dj in a club, I'd rather atleast use the cdjs, and learn to beatmatch properly using a controller so that id be prepared to play on cdjs, rather than not learning how to do any of it, and worst comes to worst take the controller and use that like a conventional DJ. Just taking the easy route is a fass move, probably by someone who cant be arsed to put the time in and just wants the 'fame' of being a 'DJ'.

paradigm x wrote:

VirtualMark wrote:I tend to spout fact as fact - as usual you just jump into a topic, have a pop at me, then disappear without backing up any of your accusations. Perhaps you can point out to me which part i've stated as fact? Or are you just pulling your usual nonsense?

See below. I see where youre coming from, and ive said it before, i dont mean to be personal, but you have a habit of stating opinion as fact.

EDIT: to clarify, i generally lurk a lot these days but jump in when compelled. Your classic contributions to the noise music and analogue threads, just for example, made me lol/cry, so i waded in. Nothing personal.

VirtualMark wrote:Yeah, 128 sucks. But 320 sounds a shitload better than vinyl. More clarity, dynamic range etc.

since you asked. Jsut the first thing that popped up.

'Better' can never be a fact, by definition. Its subjective.

Yeah i did make a bit of noise in the noise thread lol. With regard to this, by better i generally mean more faithful to the original recording. Personally, i'd like a perfect sound system, and by that i mean if you record an orchestra and play it back on a perfect system, you hear exactly the same thing as if they were playing in front of you. Anything less than that is a form of distortion. Mp3 has compression artifacts, cd's have high end distortion due to strong filtering, tapes have hiss and wow and flutter and vinyl has crackle etc. From a purely objective point of view, cd usually comes out as a clear winner for accurate reproduction.

I agree that time stretching can sound like crap, personally i wouldn't want to do that in a live set. I think you'd be hard pushed to hear a difference in normal pitch shifting tho? Unless you pushed it to the extremes.

JTMMusicuk wrote:Your really pulling at just a tiny detail that i made to try and say im wrong about everything, if your not actually doing anything difficult when your on stage then whats the point in being there at all..its like a guitarist getting up and playing one note over and over..people dont want to see something that they could easily do themselves without any practise if theyre paying £15 quid on the door

Yeah we've gone a bit off topic, i only mentioned the sound quality as you'd stated it as a point in vinyl being better. Believe me, if i was going to play a set, i'd spend days practicing and getting my shit together. I just haven't got time to study production, hold down a job and study dj skills at the same time so i choose to focus on production first.

Its all cool man. I honestly dont mean to pick on you, just something about what you write sometimes compels me to post

VirtualMark wrote:

paradigm x wrote: I think you'd be hard pushed to hear a difference in normal pitch shifting tho? Unless you pushed it to the extremes.

i think you might be surprised. Coming from an oldschool pitching Akai sampler (years before abelton etc) means i have a highly tuned ear for this.

The maths is interesting. To play something digital faster you have to either throw away data, or alter it. All has its trade offs. To play slower, you either repeat data, or pad it out. Again an interesting challenge mathematically. Analogue just doesnt have this issue as its not discrete data.

So i would, tentatively, agree, that a recording would, generally, SUBJECTIVELY, sound 'better', as in more accurate to the original recording, on CD, but once you start manipulating it i suggest otherwise.

i love how every argument on here always ends up being answered by everything being subjective

JTMMusicuk wrote:i love being subjective

a lot is subjective, but some things, which macc is particularly good at explaining, are more objective.

i object

If you all really place such an emphasis on audio fidelity, why are you goin out to club nights in the first place?

paradigm x wrote:Its all cool man. I honestly dont mean to pick on you, just something about what you write sometimes compels me to post

VirtualMark wrote:

paradigm x wrote: I think you'd be hard pushed to hear a difference in normal pitch shifting tho? Unless you pushed it to the extremes.

i think you might be surprised. Coming from an oldschool pitching Akai sampler (years before abelton etc) means i have a highly tuned ear for this.

The maths is interesting. To play something digital faster you have to either throw away data, or alter it. All has its trade offs. To play slower, you either repeat data, or pad it out. Again an interesting challenge mathematically. Analogue just doesnt have this issue as its not discrete data.

So i would, tentatively, agree, that a recording would, generally, SUBJECTIVELY, sound 'better', as in more accurate to the original recording, on CD, but once you start manipulating it i suggest otherwise.

That is pretty interesting tbh - i just assumed that as pitch and tempo are linked then speeding up or slowing down digital was pretty straightforward. I know timestretching uses granular methods, but are you sure that this sort of method is used for normal tempo/pitch changes?

This analog vs digital debate has been going on for years, certainly not something we're going to settle in this forum. Its always interesting to hear other perspectives tho. And don't get me wrong - i grew up in the analog age as much as the rest of you. I had record players and half a dozen walkmans when i was a kid and got many hours of enjoyment. I also remember the hiss, dodgy tapes(sometimes my tapes were so worn i could hear the other side playing while listening to the first side), batteries constantly running out etc. I had one of the first portable cd players and it was awful - if you moved it would skip, and the thing was massive and unsightly(but i loved it at the time). I've had dozens of friends who had 1210's over the years, absolutely loved them at first - i suppose i'm a bit bored with them now.

My current setup is tiny usb keyrings and mp3s. I have a copy of my collection on my laptop and desktop and also a usb head unit in my car. I have an ipod shuffle that's half the size of a packet of rizlas and holds dozens of albums - i use it for when i go running. The sound quality's nothing amazing but its still pretty good for the size, plus the battery lasts forever!

So i've done all the analog stuff for years, and am pretty pleased that we've overcome a lot of the limitations of this technology. I can now hold my entire music collection in my hand, i can duplicate it, sample it, back it up, bluetooth it, listen wherever i want etc, its pretty amazing tbh.

Times have changed but i don't blame technology, there will always be something new that changes things. The music is the most important thing, and its all still there.

i knew id read about the technicalities of it years ago, couldnt find it.

then i remembeed it was r a very old sos article about sampling, amd finally found the bloody thing!

very indepth whole series is worth a look but check this out

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep05/a ... cience.htm

no such thing as a free lunch with digital

Cheers

and sorry again, it was a bit unfair.

how is this thread alive lol

JTMMusicuk wrote:Your really pulling at just a tiny detail that i made to try and say im wrong about everything, if your not actually doing anything difficult when your on stage then whats the point in being there at all..its like a guitarist getting up and playing one note over and over..people dont want to see something that they could easily do themselves without any practise if theyre paying £15 quid on the door

But the thing is, people aren't paying twenty bucks to see a DJ do anything complicated. Shows aren't promoted as "This weekend, come see ____ with a two hour beatmatching set." That's like saying people go to theaters to experience a projectionist changing reels.

people aren't paying to see "come see dj jukebox, check his facebook page while pressing sync" either

ive only been mixing vinyl a month but i think ive already perma-damaged records b/c i rock them constantly

feels bad

Attila wrote:That's like saying people go to theaters to experience a projectionist changing reels.

Heh, that's a really good comparison, actually.

would you rather see someone play an awesome set on a laptop or a shitty one on vinyl?

also, where the fuck did this idea that all you need to do with a controller is hit sync and play?
myself and my buddy work our fucking asses off with a controller. obviously not everyone does, and there are probably more "djs" out there not doing shit with them but come on

deadly habit wrote:

this thread makes me frustrated, now i know why i stopped coming on dsf and to those that are arguing that mp3 is better than vinyl i think you need to just accept your wrong in this case

paradigm x wrote:i knew id read about the technicalities of it years ago, couldnt find it.

then i remembeed it was r a very old sos article about sampling, amd finally found the bloody thing!

very indepth whole series is worth a look but check this out

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep05/a ... cience.htm

no such thing as a free lunch with digital

Cheers

and sorry again, it was a bit unfair.

No worries bud! That's a pretty interesting read, basically its the interpolation and aliasing that digital has to fight, as usual. From experience, this can usually be solved by throwing more processing and higher sampling rates at the problem. But i know what you're saying - digital has to work harder to perform things that analog does naturally. Whether its noticeable or not on modern equipment is debatable - i've used CDJ's a few times and they sound pretty good, Abletons warping can sound a bit dodgy tho and isn't something i'd want to use live.

I found an interesting sampler comparison here, although its a bit old now.

mikeyp wrote:would you rather see someone play an awesome set on a laptop or a shitty one on vinyl?

also, where the fuck did this idea that all you need to do with a controller is hit sync and play?
myself and my buddy work our fucking asses off with a controller. obviously not everyone does, and there are probably more "djs" out there not doing shit with them but come on

would you rather see someone play an amazing set with vinyl or a shitty one on a laptop?

JTMMusicuk wrote:

mikeyp wrote:would you rather see someone play an awesome set on a laptop or a shitty one on vinyl?

also, where the fuck did this idea that all you need to do with a controller is hit sync and play?
myself and my buddy work our fucking asses off with a controller. obviously not everyone does, and there are probably more "djs" out there not doing shit with them but come on

would you rather see someone play an amazing set with vinyl or a shitty one on a laptop?

I'd rather HEAR someone play an amazing set, i don't care what they play it on.