Printable View
Unless some other company can learn to compete with the Pioneer marketing behemoth, I think CDJs might be around longer than CDs. I mean who buys CDs these days? Sure we burn them but a thumb drive is far superior for getting bits of data off your PC. Or maybe they'll be re-marketed as USBJ 2000s?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sambo
Lol, good thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick V
To be taken seriously these days you need to learn how to dj AND produce. There are plenty of big name acts using strictly controllers or controllers and a mixer with software. The wealth of modular controllers and stands makes the limited dj booth space point moot. Cdjs are probably the easiest medium to transfer beatmatching and mixing skills learned elsewhere (tts, controllers, laptop keyboard) and they just feel better than controllers imo. Feel is not always the most important factor in a dj setup though. Workflow, consistency, and ergonomics can take more priority. I don't think learning to use cdjs or manual beatmatching is a requirement for playing clubs, but I do think they are fairly basic skills to learn and can make things much easier in the long run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student
I'm confused, Why would a controller take up more room than a set of CDJs and a mixer? that doesn't make sense to me. I agree that CDJ's are smaller than a TT/mixer setup but controllers are rather small compared to most Pio CDJ Setups.Quote:
Originally Posted by amadeus
I think CDJs are not much different than a controller anyway. I know very few people who use CDJs with CDs. They are just like controllers without a Computer—all-in-one computer vs. a Tower Desktop, Modular vs unified. Nothing more than a difference of philosophy.
I think Controllers are pretty much the future but the participating companies in the industry are pulling each other's hair for becoming the "industry standard". Because it's still unclear how things will turn out, certain companies are betting on the different philosophies.
companies like Pioneer are using unified workflow philosophy in hopes that clubs will buy them and DJ will just bring their media. This is levels the playing ground between DJs and can alleviate the amount of equipment a DJ has to bring. It also is less painful for clubs to setup. It is very expensive, especially for beginners which could cause a slow adoption rate. Also, They have very little room for customizing your workflow and sound.
Companies like Native instruments are betting on the modular approach in hopes that a DJs need for being unique will drive them to bring there own setup where ever they go. Modular systems allow DJs to find a unique workflow that makes them appear/sound more distinct. This can be less expensive depending on the setup choosen. Although some setups can be rather large, Most can be small and inexpensive. The problem is that a lot of these custom setups are very problematic for setting up for the night and can be alienating for DJ's to use if they don't have that particular set up. Even the same hardware can use different mappings making it difficult or frustrating for visiting DJs.
Did you actually read what I put? I said that unless your playing in big clubs, DJ booths aren't the biggest, and with a full set up of either CDJ/TT's and mixer, there isn't really that much room for a controller unless you stack it on top of the gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdorianjames
Controllers will live alongside CDJ's for a long long time, I cannot see any club moving over to having a booth that only had a controller. It just won't happen. CDJ's will continue to be the club standard.
I don't get how a controller can make you sound more distinct, at the end of the day what will seperate you from everyone else is the music you play.
Your laptop, stand, and controller/all-in-one/modular pile aren't semi-permenantly installed in the venue you're playing at, CDJs are. "BYOG" clubs are a bit of an offshoot, and create kafikaesque nightmares with the various production companies that contract with them. My local college club is such a venue, and in the few years I've been here, the sheer amount of clusterfucking that empty table has created would probably monetarily be worth an installed CDJ setup. But the club just offloads those costs and headaches on a case by case basis to the various production companies that contract with them, so they really don't give a shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdorianjames
This is a bit of a misconception, barring obvious defects, dedicated hardware is always going to be easier to manage, more responsive, and much, much more reliable than the layers of interface that a software setup goes through. Contrary to popular belief, modern CDJs and mixers aren't just "controllers with computers built into them," they use discrete processing components and RAM, with a minimalist OS running on top of it to manage files. While mixers use discrete converters and a DSP core to handle audio processing. It's a completely different, and generally more bulletproof, way of handling processing.Quote:
I think CDJs are not much different than a controller anyway. I know very few people who use CDJs with CDs. They are just like controllers without a Computer—all-in-one computer vs. a Tower Desktop, Modular vs unified. Nothing more than a difference of philosophy.
Software uses a program written in an operating system to emulate the way that discrete hardware operates, and then busses the result over something to the effect of 3-4 different interfaces until it hits a final outboard DAC. There's layers upon layers of code, emulation, and bussing involved in software setups that hardware just doesn't have to deal with.
This is the kind of thing that's holding "digital" DJing back in entirety. Given infinite options, a bell curve distribution will only produce a very small amount of truly superior options, while the (68%) overwhelming majority will be really mediocre offerings. Companies are becoming overly focused on developing products that people might want, products that might take off, products that people want to buy, and forgetting to target what people truly need. Especially in a professional setting...Quote:
I think Controllers are pretty much the future but the participating companies in the industry are pulling each other's hair for becoming the "industry standard". Because it's still unclear how things will turn out, certain companies are betting on the different philosophies.
A lot of people who never leave their bedrooms, sell said technology, or make money from writing about things like this don't really seem to understand that this isn't a mitigating factor, its a complete DOA non-starter. Marketing departments and enthusiasts like to skate around this little detail, trying to downplay it like it's some minor inconvenience to be overcome.Quote:
The problem is that a lot of these custom setups are very problematic for setting up for the night and can be alienating for DJ's to use if they don't have that particular set up. Even the same hardware can use different mappings making it difficult or frustrating for visiting DJs.
Given the choice between "infinite possibilities" after a long list of headaches, random equipment, points of failure, excessive preparation, and general management grindings; and a reliable setup that provides 95% of the options, works exactly the the same way every time you turn it on, only requires you to turn it on, and continues to turn on and work indefinitely until it's physically broken, you can kinda see why the only people that strongly cling to the former are the ones dependent on it and afraid of the latter.
Preach!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
*sits back with bowl of popcorn*
Shishdisma, I agree with much of what you said besides the difference between a pioneer setup and a controller setup.
Although, pioneer setup is a streamlined and more reliable workflow, it still is about as different as a PlayStation is to a gaming PC. Both DJ setups are digital(unless you hook up your Pion setup analog,which lessens the quality), both use an operating system. pioneer's have two operating systems,one for the cdj and one for the mixer. Anything that needs firmware has a OS,However streamlined it is. The separation of the mixer and the cdj adds an extra unnecessary interface that isn't apparent in the controller. They both use RAM,(maybe not as plentiful in a pioneer setup). Even a old CD player has Random Access Memory for keeping it from skipping. CDJs use it for that same function as well as keeping hot cues and loading tracks from a flash drive for easy access. The mixer needs it for Delay effects if not for a handful of other functions that I'm not thinking of. Yes it's more reliable and less of a headache but the difference is very little.
The rule of thumb when dealing with the question of digital vs analog is to make the conversion as few times as you can. I don't think this knowledge has escaped Pioneer. If controllers aren't the way things are going then Pioneer wouldn't be spending so much effort on going the controller route.
I have a hard time seeing beyond the fact that while i still use vinyl, Everybody else has gone from CDJs to controllers. Even some rather big clubs have started using Pioneer controllers and Serato. I know very little have empty tables for "BYOG", but even if DJ's in Ibiza are still using High-end CDJs, wedding DJ's and Top 40 club DJs are still going for controllers for convenience sake. This is unfortunately a large portion of the market. Most Clubs aren't that mindful of how the music plays as long as people buy drinks at the bar. Just think of all the places that use those digital jukeboxes. I've worked for a business that put in a majority of the sound systems in bars and clubs in chicago. Rarely did they care about the means to which the music is played as long as the club is hopping. I also know that pioneers have very little profit margin compared to lesser brands and most of the bars and clubs won't care if they buy a gemini turntable or pair of techs as long as the money they make from the club is greater than the cost of repairing or replacing lesser equipment. The main reason they would buy a pioneer over something else of equal durability was because it makes their club look more top dollar. They could buy a Denon which is just as reliable but it doesn't have as much recognition. Just like how many clubs that carry Cristal champagne when there are plenty other great champagnes(cough..cough..Clicquot),but they take cristall because of it's notoriety.
Denon DID have as much (and more) recognition for many many years - they simply dropped the ball when the CDJ500 arrived on the market and continued with their antiquated rack mount units rather than getting something that would be accepted by the turntable DJ's into clubs as a replacement. The 500s/700 arrived and every club DJ wanted them in the DJ box and new clubs were installing them instead of the 2000f / 2500 rack mount systems of denon (and for good reason).Quote:
They could buy a Denon which is just as reliable but it doesn't have as much recognition. Just like how many clubs that carry Cristal champagne when there are plenty other great champagnes(cough..cough..Clicquot),but they take cristall because of it's notoriety.
The Denon was better in some ways, but by the time it came to market the much more substantial "turntable"size CDJ1000 had been released in the wild to DJ's who already were comfortable with the Pionner Workflow. DJ's had already adopted the CDJ as the standard - bit like Vestax turntables, which were/are rare to find in clubs despite being better in many many ways than techs.