Jump to content

DJ'ing with MP3's.


TRohr
 Share

Recommended Posts

In my view, beatmatching is the drudgery you do before getting to anything interesting. If digital tools can help, why say no?

 

With that said, it is dangerous to become reliant or dependant on digital tools to take care of everything. Here I am thinking of the alarmingly common situation where laptop/digital DJ doesn't even realize when two songs are slightly out of phase (yet still phrased and beatmatched). When this happens, the songs can start to intersect in a bad way, and everything will sound slightly off. Time and again have I seen digital/laptop DJs carrying on as if nothing were wrong. With good reason, I suspect this is due to relying on the "sync" feature--i.e. handing off responsibility for a mix to the software. As I say, it is a concern--not an inevitability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

yea, thats as logical as the douchebag rock guitar player who thinks electronic music isn't music because your not really playing an instrument.

 

software doesnt fucking mix the tracks for you. big deal to anyone who spent years learning to beat match. guess what, you dont fucking have to. so why not do something creative with new technology instead of bitching about like an old lady.

 

Cool points achieved = 2

 

Number of points to next level: 1

 

Go back to e-jay :drama:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One statement I take issue with is "MP3s are the future."

To clarify, I never meant MP3s per se, but also all other forms of digital media. DJs are in the future going to rock up to gigs with hard drives as opposed to record and/or CD cases. That is what I meant...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One statement I take issue with is "MP3s are the future."

To clarify, I never meant MP3s per se, but also all other forms of digital media. DJs are in the future going to rock up to gigs with hard drives as opposed to record and/or CD cases. That is what I meant...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea, thats as logical as the douchebag rock guitar player who thinks electronic music isn't music because your not really playing an instrument.

 

software doesnt fucking mix the tracks for you. big deal to anyone who spent years learning to beat match. guess what, you dont fucking have to. so why not do something creative with new technology instead of bitching about like an old lady.

software does indeed mix the tracks for you if you want it to. People just want to see that you are doing something and not just dancing around the booth with a premade track list you did the night before. there is nothing wrong with not being able to beatmatch...since that takes a lot of effort I notice that most new DJs bypass that completely and do the software thing. older DJs transitioning to software bring in their traditional skills and learn the new stuff too.

 

mixing with vinyl is damn sexy :) it just looks cooler than any other way. Its a pain in the ass to carry though.

 

the future might not even be taking hardrives to the party.

 

the future is computers doing it all and maxed out with sensors on peoples brainwaves etc etc. then laptop guys will be bitching why virtual dj 2012 gets all the gigs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say FLAC (and other lossless) is the future, not mp3s. By the time computer DJs become overwhelming majority drive space will be so cheap that space taken by FLAC over mp3 won't be an issue. To those who think they can hear sound difference between a proper 192 (V2/V0 vbr) and 320 and wave maybe you should do a blind test and see, you'd be very surprised that what you read from snobs about 'lack of color' of mp3s might not actually be true. You will not hear it on a sound system in a club, it's just not happening, maybe in very good headphones if you have perfect hearing. I worked in sound research for a long time and while I seem to have been blessed with very good hearing (from the tons of experiments that we've conducted) I still can't pass blind tests with properly ripped high quality mp3s on any of my equipment. Obviously there are some tracks that will 'beat' mp3 compression but the chances of that within trance music are VERY low. So don't fool yourself about sound quality, other than that I can't make a call about computer DJs not being real DJs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to what clubs people are going to that don't have high quality speakers!

Everywhere I've attended has had kick ass speaker systems :unsure:

Speakers alone don't make the sound, other factors like preamp, speaker placement, room acoustics and such have a lot to do with it. There is a reason headphones can sound better than speakers even though they are 1/10th of the price. Speaker based system has to work much harder to combat all the sound movement. In a club with a crowd and if you are moving and so on you'd have to have absolutely incredible hearing to distinguish between compressed (properly) and uncompressed audio. I seriously believe that in 99% of trance music the only way you would be able to tell is in very good headphones and with good hearing. Enjoy your hearing while you can, age does sad things to your ears, I really hope I still have quite a while to go before mine starts deteriorating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holy crap

how many freaking times must it be said

 

expand your mind. 128 and 320 and .WAV is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. underestimating and stupefying the crowd into accepting your low quality standards will go around and come around to bite you in the ass.

you can dj with your laptops and wavs

 

stop dumbing it down for some bonehead mass audience

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stop dumbing it down for some bonehead mass audience

Just because people don't analyze or pay special attention to the sound quality that doesn't make them bonehead! If you can't enjoy a party because someone is playing 320k's instead of wavs then the problem really is you. You can't accept anything less than perfection?

 

I think both of these "djing w/ mp3" threads have really converted to DJ's vs Producer's threads. All I see is people posting about how "lame" dj's are for playing mp3s. But I really think what bothers these people is that they think DJing is easy and letting DJ's play mp3's is going to make their job's even easier. But that's far from the truth. DJ'ing is a hard to master skill, anyone who says it isn't has most probably never tried doing it or is a music artist who has experience in music production and know it's hard to make music but thinks that DJ'ing is a child game that anyone can master. I cannot argue that making music is in most cases harder than DJ'ing, but that's no reason to hate the DJ's. Besides, the DJ can only play the recorded music, you as an artist can perform it live! The beauty of changing the form of the track in just seconds is a magical thing that every artist should look up to. Something that DJ's can only dream about. But DJ's have their own magic too to look up to. They show the listeners their great choice of music by playing what they think is good music, they mix the tracks together live so it sounds like a big long journey.

 

Not all DJ's mix it live, and not all Live Acts perform live, I wouldn't call neither of those DJ's or Live Acts. However, the ones that do deserve respect no matter how easy or hard their "job" is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How I would love to do a blind test on you guys to prove to you the power of placebo :) It's funny that in our experiments the best hearing came from people who had no clue about it, and all the 'yeah I can tell the difference between 192kbps and 193kbps' people failed on the most basic tests. We can all agree to disagree but I've worked in sound psychology for many years and I've learned a few things there that most people don't know or care to know.

 

Oh yeah, to the guy who said he can tell vinyl vs cd so he can tell cd vs mp3, do you know anything about how music is stored? You can tell the difference between vinyl and cds because of analog (groove on a record) vs digital (digital data stored as thousands of discrete snapshots), it's MUCH easier to tell that difference vs two digital formats. I'm sure even when 24bit audio (192Khz) is the norm you will still scream how easily you can tell the difference. Go do a blind test, you can lie on the boards but you can't lie to yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How I would love to do a blind test on you guys to prove to you the power of placebo :) It's funny that in our experiments the best hearing came from people who had no clue about it, and all the 'yeah I can tell the difference between 192kbps and 193kbps' people failed on the most basic tests. We can all agree to disagree but I've worked in sound psychology for many years and I've learned a few things there that most people don't know or care to know.

 

Oh yeah, to the guy who said he can tell vinyl vs cd so he can tell cd vs mp3, do you know anything about how music is stored? You can tell the difference between vinyl and cds because of analog (groove on a record) vs digital (digital data stored as thousands of discrete snapshots), it's MUCH easier to tell that difference vs two digital formats. I'm sure even when 24bit audio (192Khz) is the norm you will still scream how easily you can tell the difference. Go do a blind test, you can lie on the boards but you can't lie to yourself.

wasn't sure you would even beleive me on the vinyl, but yeah, also the huge dynamic range of cd vs vinyl does make a difference. (i only added that cuz seems like MANY folks don't even notice that difference)

 

as far as the test, i've done it for myself and countless others. i have various bitrates of several tracks available on my HD all the time, some by accident, some on purpose for these tests.

 

pretty much anyone given the chance to really listen can hear the difference-

 

really funny ok, i'm some kind of liar. (although im not sure what you say i am lying about, tell 192 from what?)

 

what is my motivation for lying here? makes me laugh. yeah, i came here just to lie and make you mad.

funny- bet anything the people denying the differnce between mp3 and wav are those who don't own full qual cds. pirate djs, upset their pirated material isn't going to be hifi enough for a real party

look just learn to copy cds and get a BIG hd, you'll be fine.

 

192 and 193? you're right, im sure i couldn't tell those two apart.

 

why dont you try this on a decent system and see for yourself.....

 

rip a track at

128

160

192

220

320

and a WAV

 

 

maybe some people can't hear the diff of 192 vs 320, but i doubt it. 192 vs 160 or 220? maybe not...

 

but if you can;t hear the diff between at least some of those, and notice the HUGE diff of WAVs, well, i really hope you aren't a dj.

 

but unless you're listening on a crap ass system with no bass at all, you'll hear it.

 

isnt that hard to do either, all you need is itunes and a cd (or other ripper)

 

really, resorting to calling me a liar because you don't like what i say- weak.

 

i'd just own up and admit maybe your hearing isn't what you would like it to be, but you're satisfied because it means lower quality audio is fine by you.

 

(ps , thorns really prick if you grab on them)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a point getting missed

 

some of you get it , and others are missing this small item==

 

the digital media aspect, OBVIOUSLY the future. the problem with mp3 is the quality.

 

with the cost of hard drives these days, you store 500 cds in full quality wav format for like $200 (ok i dont know exact prices, but it isnt much)

 

i love traktor myself, and by now i am sure there are tons of other proggys that are equally awesome (or better), but there is no reason to use inferior quality recordings with them

 

dumbing it down- i am not meaning to insult the audience, the "bonehead mass audience" is a figure of speech, but i hear similar too often.

 

djs saying things like "most people don't notice this mistake or that, it doesn't matter" - well, of course djs make mistakes sometimes, but it is a general attitude of "it's good enough for them"

what? aren't we better than that?

but no, pretty much the response i have gotten from most djs seems like they consider the audience somehow less of a listener than hey are (after all if we were such great listeners, we'd be djs right? ugh...)

 

granted a large percentage of party goers will not notice when things are lower quality, but more will notice when it's better.

lots of people aren't even paying attention, some barely care about the music at all, they're there for the scene.

 

I just would hope as a dj, one would want to provide the hardcore audiophile dancing maniac with the ultimate experience instead of just saying :"it's good enough"

 

especially since i am that listener

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is my motivation for lying here? makes me laugh. yeah, i came here just to lie and make you mad.

People lie to themselves to make them feel better, that's what I meant. I am not mad at all, why would I be?

 

why dont you try this on a decent system and see for yourself.....

 

rip a track at

128

160

192

220

320

and a WAV

maybe some people can't hear the diff of 192 vs 320, but i doubt it. 192 vs 160 or 220? maybe not...

but if you can;t hear the diff between at least some of those, and notice the HUGE diff of WAVs, well, i really hope you aren't a dj.

but unless you're listening on a crap ass system with no bass at all, you'll hear it.

isnt that hard to do either, all you need is itunes and a cd (or other ripper)

And there we go :) you just proved everything I said :)

Maybe some people can't hear the difference between 192 vs 320? I will bet you that MOST people will not hear the difference (been tested and proven).

128 has too much loss, I am not arguing that. 160vbr can be good (on a portable probably can't tell the difference).

 

Again, I will BET you that in 99% of cases you can't tell the difference between wav (any lossless) and 320kbps or I'll do one better, wav vs V0 VBR. How can I be so sure? I can see from your post that you aren't exactly sure what lossy compression is really like and in most cases that means placebo ftw. By the way, how exactly do you ABX in itunes? I never knew that was possible. You know what ABX is, right?

 

really, resorting to calling me a liar because you don't like what i say- weak.

 

i'd just own up and admit maybe your hearing isn't what you would like it to be, but you're satisfied because it means lower quality audio is fine by you.

 

(ps , thorns really prick if you grab on them)

I have no problem with what you say, I just don't want you to fool yourself.

Let me ask you this, can you hear a 19khz tone? a 20khz tone? I am talking really hear it not look at the tone when it's playing and say you can hear it. Lowpass filter of a decently compressed mp3 is over 19khz so I'm curious if you can hear the tone at all. For the sake of argument I tested myself last night and my limit is in mid 18ks.

 

As to the thorns, it's fine, if I can humble another 'audiophile' it's all worth it. Next time he will do the same to someone else and both will enjoy the music instead of pretending.

 

By the way, I am not a DJ, I've worked in sound research for many years (including hearing implants and so on) so I'm a bit more qualified than most DJs to talk about sound perception. Obviously you can be that tiny percentile of the population that actually has animal-like hearing but as we found out most of those people have no clue about their hearing ability so I like my chances here.

 

Please don't take this personally, this same conversation applies to tons of people. It is a humbling experience when you do a real test and realize that you do have limits and maybe you should just enjoy music instead of thinking that you are hearing something that's not really there (or not hearing something that's there). It's a bit of an ego bruise first but once you get over it you will actually enjoy more music/parties because you will let go of that silly notion that somehow as soon as computer touched music it becomes inferior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19khz tone? a 20khz tone?

see this is where it gets interesting!

 

can i hear those tones?? -maybe , maybe not. the low end of human hearing is 20hz

 

but can i FEEL those vibrations ??? HELL YES. THAT is where the difference comes from, and with a good sub, you'll feel it.

 

as far as a true double blind test (no i had to look up your abx) you're right my tests are not that complicated, but i find them uneccessary. most of the tiem the diff in wav to mp3 is like a punch in the face

 

but where on one hand you say i prove your point, at the same time you prove mine.

 

i'm not trying to argue that miniscule differEnces will be heard but i think aT THIS point even you can admit the diff between a wav and a 192 mp3 is giant, and hopefully you also are able to accept that 320 vs wav is also quite a diff.

 

i do know for a fact my hearing is well above the average, and it has run in my family, but i also know the vast majority can tell the difference if given the chance to really listen, just at parties most people don't think about it that much

 

but my point remains the same

there is no good reason to use lower quality audio at a party

what still baffles me is here are people arguing about why we should give the people less rather than more.

really really sad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument can dip into non-scientific territory when we consider that music is a feeling, and we don't have all the answers as to why it makes us feel a particular way. Music tests are accomplished with conscious faculties, but are such practises really giving us the full story? I rather err on the side of caution, as I said, and all it costs me is a bit more disk space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only read the first post, will not read the rest. This is my only post in this thread as well.

 

Usually the people (95%) that moan about laptop djs are the ones that are not djs (anoebis being the exception, and a couple more). I am a turntable fan, and I love my vinyl. I have made many pepsi tests with people lately, and people dont hear the diffrence. All I can say, if you dont book me (or any other good dj out there that prefers to have half his collection instead of 50 cds) because we play with a laptop wav/mp3, you are missing out on hell of a good set. Being dj for over 15 years now, and seeing a lot of the GOOD djs having the same opinion as me, i know that I am going the right direction.

 

I personally hope that Vinyl will never die, but CD's I can be without, ill rather download for a cheaper price and put it on my harddrive.

 

Fuck you all non-djs that dont know anything about djing, and the people that moan about laptop djs that have no clue what djing is about (harsh? yes, and its intended). Im tired of you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...