Getting a hard time cause i use a controller - Page 5
Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 146
  1. #41
    Tech Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPopinjay View Post
    It's bollocks my friend. Use an encoder, fuck midi for pitch faders!
    My new setup consists of only buttons and encoders, and I use the 2% range anyhow, giving me a 0.01 bpm resolution. I never said that one has to use faders for beatmatching, I personally dislike this type of conventional DJing - I was merely pouting out that your statement was false - which you yourself confirmed.

  2. #42
    Tech Guru MrPopinjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,747

    Default

    What? My statement was that 127 steps isn't enough for a pitch fader. How did I then prove that to be false?
    The xwax Thread! - The minimal open source DVS for Linux!
    Reddit's /r/DJs! - Another great DJ community!

  3. #43
    Tech Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPopinjay View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dual citizen View Post
    You can learn how to beatmatch manually with a controller. It's actually not that hard at all. I never understand why people make such a big deal out of it.
    127 steps isn't enough my friend.
    Clearly the post you're quoting is not specific to beatmatching with faders, and you are not specifying faders yourself, implying that midi itself isn't high resolution enough to be able to beatmatch with. By then showing enough technical skill to understand the relation between pitch range and to what degree bpm is affected per step and suggesting to use encoders instead of faders, you're contradicting your first statement and confirming beatmatching is feasible with midi.

  4. #44
    Tech Guru MrPopinjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,747

    Default

    You're being pedantic. I clearly stated that 127 steps are not enough, encoders do not have a limited number of steps so I clearly was not referencing them in the first place.

    I'm explaining why people make a big deal out of beat matching using a controller and why I'd never use a midi pitch fader.
    The xwax Thread! - The minimal open source DVS for Linux!
    Reddit's /r/DJs! - Another great DJ community!

  5. #45
    Tech Guru MiL0's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Brighton / Bangkok
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    127 steps is enough if you set the pitch range to a small enough range value (I happily beatmix dnb on my EKS Xp10's btw - I have a shift mode which sets the pitch range via the pitch fader).

    Anyway, anyone who uses a controller isn't a 'real dj' (disc jockey) - but then, who cares? controllerism can be more akin to a Live PA performance than simply beat matching two records together (which anyone can do given a few months practice).

    viva la difference

  6. #46
    Tech Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Yes you're clearly stating the amount of steps available in midi but not with which control, and neither does the post you quoted. And no you did not reference them in the first place, but as I said given the displayed knowledge and the remark about encoders clearly indicate that you see midi fit enough with the right controls. Which is why the two statements are mutually exclusive.

    As for encoders, I assume you know this, but for those who don't, the midi specifications were not designed with them in mind (as in piano strokes not only gave rise to the boolean note-command, but also CC to display how depressed the note is (and also velocity which is much less used in DJing)). How encoders work is fully up to how they are implemented, either in relative modes (n+1/n-1) where every encoder reacts as a set of dual buttons. Or in an absolute mode where it sends midi ranges 0-127 and from 127 it goes to 0 again. In any case, software implementation (apart from hardware and firmware midi implementation) also plays a huge role as well, which is what makes them so versatile.

  7. #47
    Tech Wizard
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    24

    Default Gear-Shifting

    Quote Originally Posted by tbilz View Post
    the sync button is there for a reason... to allow you to be more creative if you have it... why not use it. thats the way i see it
    Just like the automatic shifting system was developed to make it easier to drive cars. But as you may have seen, the big boys in the formula 1 still shift manually. Just because it's a novelty/step forward technology-wise, doesn't make it better or efficient (it can in some cases).

    And these so-called "more-creative-sets" are not too much around. And those traktor-videos, where there's more turntablism-techniques involved than button-bashing, cannot be considered as "controllerism". But opinions are like a..holes...

  8. #48
    Tech Guru DigitalDevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    799

    Default

    OT - I'm tired as fuck and I read this thread title as "Getting a hard on cause i use a controller" above "Sexiest Female DJs" in the thread list, very amusing

  9. #49
    Tech Guru MrPopinjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,747

    Default

    I never said anything about midi not being good enough to beat match with, you're still trying to press statements onto me. I said 127 steps isn't enough.

    Encoders don't have 127 steps. I wasn't talking about them.

    And yes, I do know all that shit. Which is why I suggested them in the first place.

    @MiL0: Does the eks10 only send standard midi messages? I've not really looked intot hat controller but I assumed it would be something with a higher resolution since it has that nice looking pitch fader and all. Seems a bit of a waste with regular midi!
    The xwax Thread! - The minimal open source DVS for Linux!
    Reddit's /r/DJs! - Another great DJ community!

  10. #50
    Tech Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    79

    Default

    I'm merely going by what is available to me. Your post did not mention faders, neither did the post you quoted, and thus there was no way whatsoever for me to determine that you were referring to faders and not midi in general; digital DJing is my field, not mind reading. If you are providing insufficient information, the premises on which I base my arguments on are wrong on your behalf, not mine.

    Also, I'm not pressing statements on to you. I'm just using deductive reasoning where my conclusion based on my premises the conclusion is valid, not inductive reasoning where I'm jumping to conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardell View Post
    Clearly the post you're quoting is not specific to beatmatching with faders, and you are not specifying faders yourself, implying that midi itself isn't high resolution enough to be able to beatmatch with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardell View Post
    implying that midi itself isn't high resolution enough to be able to beatmatch with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardell View Post
    implying

Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •