Wave Music Home
ReleasesCommunityYour OrderWave Music
ArtistsEventsDJ MixesShop

Wave Music Home


Home
About Us
Labels
Distributed Labels
Links




Search


Adv. Search



Subscribe


Email






Go Back   Wave Music Community Board > Tech Talk for Gearheads

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #76  
Old 10-31-2012, 03:13 PM
R_Dub R_Dub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan0751
That's not true at all actually. If you are using rekorbox, and you verify that the beat grids are set correctly (about 95% of the time, you don't even need to correct them, the software is that good), the BPM counter on the CDJ-2000 and CDJ-2000 Nexus is 100% accurate.

This is nothing like on the CDJ-1000 where the player analyses the audio from the CD on the fly, and displays what it thinks is the beat counter. The 2000 is a different beast entirely (if you are playing from rekordbox analyzed files).

It's always been easier to mix on CDJ's. You don't need to learn the art of riding the pitch.

As for it only having 3 extra buttons... try playing around with the new loop modes, particularly with slip mode turned on . The roll-type effect is pretty nice actually.

The people with iPhones are so annoying. I play at an afterhours underground venue, and obviously I'm not playing commercial music. People have come up with an iPhone and are completely confused when you tell them you won't play their track. "Why can't you just plug it in?" Technical aspects aside, your Beyonce track isn't really going to work in my set, thanks.

It's still not the same as sync. for instance, take 2 of your rekordbox analyzed tracks, load them up, get the beats matched (get the BPM display to match on each deck) get a mix going, then walk away to take a piss, come back in 30 seconds and 9 times out of 10 you'll have a trainwreck going. with sync those songs will stay locked forever. my point is that even with the accurate BPM display of the cdj 2000, you still need to stay on it and keep them locked tight. with sync you dont. thats the difference. As far as being easier to mix on the CDJs, well its different for everyone. I've seen seasined Vinyl DJs struggle on the CD players, so its all what your used to. I've actually found it easier to lock 2 records on 1200's because there is no "digital gapping" in the pitch fader.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-31-2012, 03:41 PM
Estacy Estacy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 141
I also find beatmatching easier on the 1200 because I ride the pitch and its just perfect on a 1200. You compensate for the platter speeding up and slowing down, and I automatically do that on a CDJ, but they don't have the delay
__________________
Technics SL1210mk2s and a Freevox DJ CLUB
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 11-01-2012, 04:22 AM
ves ves is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens
Posts: 85
the 2000 drift sometimes... it's the media the tune, i don't know but it happens. I trust more the old mk3's and the 1200 for this basic task than the 2000.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 11-01-2012, 05:25 PM
Fred Bissnette Fred Bissnette is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: toronto ontario canada
Posts: 1,123
im not sure what it is either but the 1000mk3 def has a tight pitch esp in 6% mode the 900s seem to be more difficult

the 2000 is ok but weighs a lot less than a 1000 or 800 and i know whats inside its not much makes me wonder

plastic decks are plastic decks ive used 1200s 25 years old that work.

peas
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-05-2012, 12:33 AM
georget georget is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Chicago, Il
Posts: 129
One of the reasons I hate Pioneer decks is the cheap plastic. I would much rather play on a Denon deck. I keep hearing that Pioneer is going to release a big firmware update for the CDJ-2000 nexus on 12/10, which will fix all the freezes and crashes. No thanks. I stick with vinyl and DVS.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 12-05-2012, 02:48 PM
R_Dub R_Dub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 126
the problem with the pioneer updates is that they fix 3 problems but create 2 more! LOL. I always wait a month before updating to find out all the new issues
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-06-2012, 09:32 AM
Ryan0751 Ryan0751 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 150
1200's, while great to mix on, are not that precise for pitch control. They ARE accurate (wow/flutter), but not precise. And before you argue with me, test it yourself. This is actually objective and not subjective. .

Use a timecode record and a timecode CD, and feed the audio from your 1200 and your CDJ into either a DVS, or even better use Ms Pinky if you have it to analyse the raw data. You will find, that for the smallest physical movement you can make with your pitch slider, you can adjust the pitch value much more precisely on the CDJ than on your 1200. And this makes sense, the 1200's pitch slider is +/- 8%, where the CDJ will go to 6%, and the physical lengths are nearly the same (they might actually be). And of course with a pitch readout on the CDJ, you can see exactly where you set it. If you notice two tracks are the same BPM, and one deck is set to +1.40, you can set the other deck to +1.40 and they won't drift.

I moved from 1200 MK5's to the M5G's a few years ago, and something interesting happened. On the MK5, when you would set the pitch, the pitch readouts in the software was rock solid. If it started out at 125.5, it would stay at 125.5. On the M5G, the digital pitch correction in that deck makes the pitch jump, 125.4, 125.5, 125.6, 125.5, constantly. It does this on both my decks. It's as if the digital circuitry is constantly making corrections in the deck.

Of course none of this actually matters when you are mixing. If you can't mix on CDJ-1000/2000's or 1200's, there's no hope for you

I've had a few instances where I was using the sync feature of the Nexus's with a loop, and I still had to stay on top of the loop and make little platter corrections to keep it super tight. So it's not infallible.

I will wait a little bit after the firmware update on the 10th to upgrade mine.

Last edited by Ryan0751 : 12-06-2012 at 09:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12-06-2012, 09:44 PM
georget georget is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Chicago, Il
Posts: 129
at 0.02 % rsolution for the CDJ-2000, it allows for good mixing, but the pitch slider on an Analog SL-1200 can get in between the 0.02% increment. I can achieve tighter mixes with SL-1200s than with the Pioneer deck. the Sl-1200 pitch slider can get in between the 0.02% resolution to give you 0.01% or better resolution. The fluff and flutter have never been an issue. the technics table keeps it locked tight. I can sync tracks on the SL-1200 and walk away and they would be synced for 3, 4 minutes without drifting. The M5G was a lemon. Analog mixing will always be more accurate than digital mixing.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 12-07-2012, 09:12 AM
ves ves is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens
Posts: 85
@ryan the pitch in the mk2 is analogue and in theory infinite. the measurement of o.oo2 is due to the dvs sampling an analogue signal and translate it to digital steps. If you experience fluctuation in pitch this is due to a bad calibration or maybe your turntables need service. P.S. form what i know the new sl have digital faders controlling the pitch.

On the other hand cdjs 2000 nexus etcetc they introduce a pitch drift over time that is unacceptable for a digital system. digital audio is just 1 and 0's and if they skip this is due to a bug in the code. (i.e. there is no pitch fluctuation due to mechanical movement of the plater )
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 01-15-2013, 03:00 PM
Reticuli Reticuli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 931
SEVEN THOUSAND BUCKS FOR 3 CDJ 2000 NEXIS AND 1 DJM 900 NEXUS?!!! WTF. And the damn things have sync now. Hah hah hah. So now the barrier to entry into djing in clubs is just to be some rich kid who can hit the sync button after properly "managing" all their music in Recordbox? I got more respect for someone with a dirt-cheap Traktor MIDI setup or a Citronix MPX-10 & a thumb drive. And thank god for the Technics and Geminis of the world.
__________________
The term "necroposting" was invented by a person with no social memory beyond a year. People with a similar hangup are those o.k. with the internet being transient vapor.

http://www.openfuelstandard.org/2011...pen-wager.html
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 01-15-2013, 04:33 PM
Mistick Krewe Mistick Krewe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hoodoo audio heaven
Posts: 1,403
7Gs is alot for a piece of gear expected to be upgraded in a few years, by the manufacturer, IMHO...

but I'm cheap/poor like that....
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 01-15-2013, 05:23 PM
vinyl_junkie vinyl_junkie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: South East Kent, UK
Posts: 1,841
I was told by some one who services Technics that the pitch on the Mk5G isn't digital and that it's analogue.

I have the schematics somewhere but I can't seem to find them so in all my confusion I emailed KAB USA who said..

"M5g pitch control is digital.

It has its own time base and uses some sort of proprietary chip.

It has a defect which produce a random jitter in the speed.

You can see the strobe platter display jitter back and forth.

This is audible on sustained tones.

However, it is a very stable pitch control. It does not drift. And it is more accurate with respect to its actual setting.

This jitter is only a problem when the pitch control is in use. When it is off(green lamp on) the table is a rock solid as any other model.

The pitch control of the Mk2,3 and 5 are analog."

Well I guess that solves that mystery...
__________________
--The future scares me, any chance of a lift back to the past any one?--

Last edited by vinyl_junkie : 01-15-2013 at 07:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 01-15-2013, 05:28 PM
vinyl_junkie vinyl_junkie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: South East Kent, UK
Posts: 1,841
As for the debate on all this Pioneer malarkey and sync button BS, who cares. Keep on doing what you love doing and cut out the BS, moaning wont make these devices go away or the very rich kids who buy them.

Personally really not for me and neither could I care about Pioneer's marketing and what have you.
I will say this though, their CDJ's ARE very good though if you still want to spin with CD's and probs the most pro out there but WAY over priced. Call me old but I still don't see what's wrong with the CDJ-1000mk2 other than the meh sound hahahah

I couldn't be more grateful to the dude on here who sold me my Bozak.
It sounds sweet and once I get some money one day it's going to work solid for another 30 odd years without a hitch, say that Pioneer :-D

I'll add, I recently tried the Technics SL-DZ more closely, what a joke they are. There is a big probelem with the pitch control.
If any one has ever used a EMU SP-1200 it sounds like hahah And yes that is without pitch lock on and the latest FW :-D
Confirmed this with an oscilloscope, some major harmonic distortion when you move even the slightest bit away from 0%... Guess what not on a Pioneer
__________________
--The future scares me, any chance of a lift back to the past any one?--

Last edited by vinyl_junkie : 01-15-2013 at 05:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 01-15-2013, 10:04 PM
John-Martin John-Martin is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 176
Does the 2000 have any real competitors? I think Denon released something recently but if I remember correctly pros were put off Denons because of wonky software and slow updates to fix them.
__________________
Rane 2016S, CDJ-200s, Traktor Scratch Pro, Sony MDR-7506, Fostex PM 0.5 monitors.


My SoundCloud
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 01-17-2013, 01:35 PM
colinmono colinmono is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-Martin
Does the 2000 have any real competitors? I think Denon released something recently but if I remember correctly pros were put off Denons because of wonky software and slow updates to fix them.

Denon's most recent DJ CD player is the DN-SC2900. They have new software called "Engine" (also used by the spinning platter model SC3700) which actually looks pretty good.

The SC2900 has a fairly minimal screen so doesn't compete directly with the 2000, however it can be combined with an iPad for track browsing / searching - in that setup it does pretty much everything the 2000 does. Looks like an attractive setup to me.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 01-25-2013, 07:21 AM
ves ves is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens
Posts: 85
i am very impressed by this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MRnl...ayer_embedded#!
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-25-2013, 04:00 PM
Reticuli Reticuli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 931
Yes the two new Denons have interconnection ability to share storage and AIFF playback. Two very big deals.

FLAC is the other thing all these players should be supporting, as the Numark HDX did. Apparently some other formats cannot be supported for realtime playback and pitch alteration. So the standard formats should be MP3, WAV, AIFF, and FLAC on all these players. At least if you do have AIFF support, you can convert FLAC to that and keep all the tagging.

The Engine software is really amazing looking I think. Much more potential than Rekordbox. The ability to have DVS-style file management but offload all the processing and controls externally to the players is a great idea. But if you have a laptop with your setup, then for under $500 more you can have a 4 deck USB MIDI controller setup already. 4-5 grand for the Denon external equivalent still seems irrational if a laptop will be there anyway.

My biggest complaint about DVS is the use of USB 2.0 for the majority of the hardware. It's just terrible for audio interfaces stability. USB 1.1 (limited to three 16 bit stereo pairs, though) is relatively stable by comparison. Firewire is and will remain for some time the best connection standard for audio and/or video interfaces, but most PC laptops don't have them. Dumb. You kind of have to hunt for them. Macs usually have one, though.
__________________
The term "necroposting" was invented by a person with no social memory beyond a year. People with a similar hangup are those o.k. with the internet being transient vapor.

http://www.openfuelstandard.org/2011...pen-wager.html

Last edited by Reticuli : 01-25-2013 at 04:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-26-2013, 06:16 PM
vinyl_junkie vinyl_junkie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: South East Kent, UK
Posts: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reticuli
Firewire is and will remain for some time the best connection standard for audio and/or video interfaces, but most PC laptops don't have them. Dumb. You kind of have to hunt for them. Macs usually have one, though.

Shame then that Apple has ditched it ages ago, most mac's now don't have it.
__________________
--The future scares me, any chance of a lift back to the past any one?--

Last edited by vinyl_junkie : 01-26-2013 at 06:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 01-27-2013, 05:23 PM
Reticuli Reticuli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 931
That's a bad decision on their part, then.
__________________
The term "necroposting" was invented by a person with no social memory beyond a year. People with a similar hangup are those o.k. with the internet being transient vapor.

http://www.openfuelstandard.org/2011...pen-wager.html
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-27-2013, 05:55 PM
vinyl_junkie vinyl_junkie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: South East Kent, UK
Posts: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reticuli
That's a bad decision on their part, then.

I agree, I also prefer firewire over USB1 or 2 but I don't know how good USB 3 or this lightening bolt (Apple's new connector) stuff is
__________________
--The future scares me, any chance of a lift back to the past any one?--
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 01-28-2013, 04:42 AM
Reticuli Reticuli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 931
USB 3 will probably not be useful for audio and so far anything that is meant for audio and USB 1.1 or 2.0 is not supposed to be used on the 3.0 ports at all. And I'm not sure why anyone would bother with a new connection standard for audio when Firewire works so well already and is on so much stuff. Heck, in the USA it is required by law on all ATSC cable tv boxes if the customer requests it. Firewire 800 is also totally backwards compatible with the already great 400 standard in all respects. All this other stuff probably has something to do with lame cost-cutting measures with cheaper connectors or chipsets.
__________________
The term "necroposting" was invented by a person with no social memory beyond a year. People with a similar hangup are those o.k. with the internet being transient vapor.

http://www.openfuelstandard.org/2011...pen-wager.html
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 01-28-2013, 04:56 AM
ves ves is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens
Posts: 85
it's not the interface but the device drivers and how well are implemented.
just for the record:
usb3 can support up to 5Gbps and usb2 and 1.1 support 480Mbps and 12Mbps respectively. Firewire 800 is well, 800 800Mbpts.
All of the above are more than enough for audio. the main advantage will be i guess less stress on the cpu and less latency. But then again its how well the audio interface is implemented and who well drivers are written..
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 01-28-2013, 06:42 AM
vinyl_junkie vinyl_junkie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: South East Kent, UK
Posts: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reticuli
USB 3 will probably not be useful for audio and so far anything that is meant for audio and USB 1.1 or 2.0 is not supposed to be used on the 3.0 ports at all. And I'm not sure why anyone would bother with a new connection standard for audio when Firewire works so well already and is on so much stuff. Heck, in the USA it is required by law on all ATSC cable tv boxes if the customer requests it. Firewire 800 is also totally backwards compatible with the already great 400 standard in all respects. All this other stuff probably has something to do with lame cost-cutting measures with cheaper connectors or chipsets.

Have to agree, can't remember the details as it's not really my kind of subject but Firewire is a much better interface than USB not just from a speed point of view but from a design point of view, how it accesses memory etc.
In a lot of cases I remember FW-400 outperforming the slightly "faster" USB-2.0 connection by quite a bit.
__________________
--The future scares me, any chance of a lift back to the past any one?--
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 01-30-2013, 01:17 PM
Reticuli Reticuli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 931
It's inherent in USB 2.0. It sends in chunks. Firewire sends data in a stream. USB 2.0 relies upon the CPU to manage this even under the best implimentation in a way that Firewire does not. The per second bandwidth maximums are deceptive. If you're only using 3 or less stereo output channels in 16bit and don't have Firewire, then I highly recommending to sticking to USB 1.1. Otherwise 2.0 requires a monster computer, background processes eliminated as much as possible, and a lot of luck to get equivolent stability in low-latency situations like ASIO. If you have a desktop or mini, then the obvious solution is to go internal with PCI or PCI-E if possible.
__________________
The term "necroposting" was invented by a person with no social memory beyond a year. People with a similar hangup are those o.k. with the internet being transient vapor.

http://www.openfuelstandard.org/2011...pen-wager.html
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 01-30-2013, 01:21 PM
Ryan0751 Ryan0751 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 150
Apple didn't abandon Firewire, yet. They are moving forward with Thunderbolt, which is an exceptional technology.

The new Mac's don't have firewire ports integrated into them, but you can get a Thunderbolt to Firewire adapter for $29.

I can see eliminating the port on the Macbooks (given they are so thin now, and most people don't use firewire). For the iMac's it's a little premature IMO.

Soon we'll see Thunderbolt audio interface and the like.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.0.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2006 Wave Music


© Wave Entertainment Group, Inc.