A stupid Q?

FLYNN-DOG

Ok....so before i post this i should let you know i can mix. (just)...been playing for about 9 months and seemed to have cracked it.....

So was playing last night and something struck me....though this may be slightly hard to understand for some....

Most of the tunes i play are around the 128 bpm mark, so it occured to me that if i had both records RIGHT on the 128 mark, as in + .02 after 127, that they would be beatmatched.

tried it a couple times....and lo and behold they sounded pretty good-but are they actually in sync? It also left me more time to play with loop and effects which is good because I'm usually concentrate all my time on mixing, and never get around to playing with em....

Is this cheating or was the beatmatching a complete fluke?!

I expect a bit of **** about this post by the way!

Also, i should probably mention I'm using cdj400's and a pioneer djm400

SteveDon

I noticed this very thing when i was playing with my cdjs, after a while of messing around with them i noticed that most songs synced at a 0.8% of a pitch change or a division of that as a 0.8% change seemed to be a 1 bpm change, so if i was starting off with a song at 126 and i was about to mix in another song that was at 127 i would change its pitch to -0.8%, beatmatching came a whole lot easier to me after this.

SteveDon

Just checked traktor and noticed that its exactly the same, as in 0.8% will increase the tempo by 1bpm.....

I think its so stupid when people are so hung up on beatmatching as main technical skill in djing when its so easy to divise a solution like this....

As most producers seem to be using similar software to produce tracks the tempo clock is somwhat fixed for the genre so a 0.8% or even a 0.4% change nearly always works.

That being said, i think its different for producers using hardware, as i recently started using hardware to produce, i would produce a track at 127 say and it would end up being something like 127.23 in traktor, so those tracks that are an exception to this 0.8% rule may be produce on hardware?

FLYNN-DOG

Yeah, i kinda felt like i was cheating though....glad i figured this now as opposed to when i first started so i learnt how to match.....though using my fx would be a lot better....

SteveDon

Theres no such thing as cheating with beathmatching.

Personally at the moment i am using the sync grids on traktor to beatmatch, before i get a torrent of abuse about it i can beatmatch on both cdjs and vinyl.

Part of the reason i do this is because i dont have the money for a traktor scratch setup with vinyls (which id prefer just for the feel you get with vinyls) and the other part is because i am somewhat over beatmatching, prefer to spend the few seconds that it takes to beatmatch to mess around with loops and use fx.

FLYNN-DOG

Well in fairness there kind of is, i mean you cant compare the skill it takes to match vinyls to matching tunes digitally on a cdj......but i see what you mean

SteveDon

I dunno i always thought it was pretty easy, i was producing long before i started djing and i was always a bit cynical of the skill it takes to dj, i always thought that the technical side of djing was pretty easy (especially for modern techno), i think the more difficult side of djing is the originality of your use of fx and looping and of course track selection and building a set, still working on that side of things!

pallepille

presumably this would only work in this way if you are using something (to mix on) with a set tempo % - (in this case +/- 10%) ???..............................flynn i dont really think its cheating at all cue point still need to be correct, both tracks still need to work with each other etc etc etc, if you had have realised this when you first started it may have made some difference alright but i think the difference would be overwritten by the fact that you need to know these things by ear anyway (as in for example to correct it when it gonna move slightly out of sync etc u need to recognise is that too fast too slow etc etc, basically you cant beatmatch using just numbers if you dunno how its done in the first place)............Im with steve here once it can be done its done its a given i think and to take into account all the hole its cheating not beatmatching i honestly think somebody who cant do it manually (as in hasnt learned at all) and can only do it coz its done for them will run into serious problems anyway from a djing point of view. the very learning of the thing introduces a whole load more things into picture, like phrases/bar structures on tracks etc etc etc.

FLYNN-DOG

Thats actually the main problem i have - structuring my sets...how do you arrange them? I have 6000 tunes, so it'd take ages to listen to everyone (about 70% dance) and name em all by genre, bpm etc? Occasionally I'll plan it by writing down what I'm planning on playing, but that kinda constrains you if you get me.

My overall problem is probably that i prefer playing peak time tunes......kinda difficult to build a set like that i guess...

How Dj's like Garnier play structured sets for 8 straight hours amazes me...!

SteveDon

Theres no real magic fomula, depends what you want to get at, i usually play around a good bit till a find a few songs that mix well together, ill make a mental note of them and keep on playing till i get enough good mixes to form a set, then i think about the direction of the set, do i want to build it up slowly, do i want to start with a few bangers and wind it down, or for longer sets where can i put transtions in to give clubbers a bit of a break from madness etc....

This is the hardest part of djing in my opionion

seannash

FLYNN-DOG wrote: »

How Dj's like Garnier play structured sets for 8 straight hours amazes me...!

its really not that hard.most djs after a few years experience dont preplan there sets so its really just a case of going with what the crowd responds too.
also top djs have it alot easier than the nobody djs.people comes to hear them and will automatically just dance where as the local unknown guy really has to impress in order to get people moving.
this is why the high profile djs get to take such risks with track selection that many local djs wouldnt get.
i regularly have done 6 hour sets in clubs by myself(used to do it weekly) and its alot easier than trying to cram in all your tracks in an hour or two,plus you have the added luxury of knowing you have more time.if youve only got an hour,youve only got maybe 12 tracks in order to make an impression so everyone of them has to be winners

FLYNN-DOG

My real Q i suppose, is are the records necessarily beatmatched if they're done like this? They seem to be (or at least very very close)

I guess someone with a production background would have an answer to this........

Also, is this how crap djs like Steve Angello get away with playing without headphones?

SteveDon

FLYNN-DOG wrote: »

My real Q i suppose, is are the records necessarily beatmatched if they're done like this? They seem to be (or at least very very close)

I guess someone with a production background would have an answer to this........

Also, is this how crap djs like Steve Angello get away with playing without headphones?

Well i used this method and it seemed to work on about 95% of songs, and if you work out the math it does all seem to add up and they are beatmatched, The odd song might be produced at a half tempo like 127.5, all this requires doing is dividing 0.8% into two and changing by only 0.4%, its still only a guidline figure tho, you still have to work out with its a 0.8 1.6 2.4 or 3.2%,

Id say Steve Angello (although im not familar with him) either uses traktor, or warps his cds before he plays them, Ive heard that John Digweed does that so he doesnt have to bother with beatmatching

keithkk16

John Digweed warps his tracks instead of beatmatching them ? Would ya not call that cheating

JoeSchmoe

I'm confused by your question, do you mean you have two tunes, which are that same BPM, 128, and you put the pitch control to the same position on each deck, and they are beatmatched? You think this might be cheating? why?

I play breaks on vinyl, which is typically around 135 bpm, so I discovered that a 1 bpm difference in two tracks equated to a 1.5% difference on the pitch control, so most of my records are, 1.5 or 3 or 4.5 or 6% apart, so when beat matching I immediately try these pitch control postions first.

Is that what you mean? that's not cheating, it's common sense

FLYNN-DOG

Is that what you mean? that's not cheating, it's common sense[/quote]

I was playing em again last night without using this method and i noticed very little in the way of me being off in my mixes.....

After that, i started using the digital counter-just to finetune the mixes. I used the same songs, recorded both sets and noticed it was slightly better when i used the digital clock.

My point is like i said; I obv have 2 record in deck 1 and one in deck 2. I am mixing the record in deck 2 in to deck 1.

On deck 1, i ensure that the record is at precisely 128, as in +.02 after the last 127. I do the same for record 2......

Works, but because i don't need to use my ears it kinda feels like I'm cheating....

MikeHoncho

Do whatever sounds better. Thats all that matters at the end of the day. You will still need your ears to concentrate on things like your EQ's and making sure the 2 tracks make sense together so its not really cheating.

Executive Steve

if you're lame enough to use cd decks you might as well just do what 99% of big name dj's do and burn all your cd's to the exact same bpm - plenty of time for doing the fun creative stuff that having to beatmatch just gets in the way of doing then...

FLYNN-DOG

[cm]tyranny wrote: »

if you're lame enough to use cd decks you might as well just do what 99% of big name dj's do and burn all your cd's to the exact same bpm - plenty of time for doing the fun creative stuff that having to beatmatch just gets in the way of doing then...

The vinyl v cd debate has been done mate

Riesen_Meal

[cm]tyranny wrote: »

if you're lame enough to use cd decks you might as well just do what 99% of big name dj's do and burn all your cd's to the exact same bpm - plenty of time for doing the fun creative stuff that having to beatmatch just gets in the way of doing then...

Name one so called "big name" that I may be familiar with that has been proven to do that?

Maybe in the "Deebee" scene but not aware of any house or techno dj that does that, and again Steve, your vinyl vs cd debate is irrelevant....

:rolleyes:

Omnipresence

What about someone like Surgeon.. possibly one of the greatest techno producers, djs, live set .. he gave up mixing on vinyl a few years ago and uses ableton live.. his sets are some of the most mind-blowing around ... hes no wasting his time "beatmatching" - its 2009 FFS who cares.... the few chin strokers up the front ?

not wasting time beatmatching has meant that Surgeon has been able to spend time putting essentially samples of his whole record collection and production into live and can make a real hybrid set that really stands out from the one song straight into another song in time with some filtering -

I mean im still listening to his sets that now go from techno to dubstep and further - dropping in the likes of autchre and radiohead in the middles of his sets .. its just amazing and feels far more where we should be in 2009

rather than people thinking beatmatching on vinyl or cds actually means anything anymore...

beatmatching on vinyl is an artform... i have so much respect for people who do it well and appreciate the technical/acoustic talent it takes - however do you think 95% of the people listening to the set ... care ? again apart from the chin strokers i dont think so... 100% of people will remember the impact of what is actually produced... be it from vinyl, cdjs, ableton, hardware whatever...

people need to forget about beatmatching and start putting the time saved into making truely inspiring sets... now its the people who pre-beatmatch and stand there waving thier hands that need to be shot ... there is a billion other things they can be 'fiddlin' with...

-O-

Executive Steve

excellent post omnipresence

beatmatching is a relic of the past

billyk

take our the mixer with the bpm counter and put in a crappy kam or numark with no bpm counter, and if you can still beatmatch you're alright

FLYNN-DOG

billyk wrote: »

take our the mixer with the bpm counter and put in a crappy kam or numark with no bpm counter, and if you can still beatmatch you're alright

I've a djm 400 and have never used the bpm counter on it....

Riesen_Meal

I never use a bpm counter, never had em "back in my day" and I still dont make use of the one I have on my djm 600 as they are usually wrong anyway....

deevey

Betamatching .. pfft, its only a few seconds and its still a nessesary evil on some occasions when the software / CD deck screws up, but there are better chores at hand these days like keying/looping/FX etc etc .. you know where a DJ can look like he's earning his dues

But why drive stick when you can drive flappy paddles

Never noticed the .8% lark myself, but I don't generally trust what I see on a digital readout as gospel anyhow, I find normally with traktor I end up adjusting tracks somewhat through a long mix (2-3 mins) and almost never 100%, but damn close, fine pitch set at 3% for minor adjustments for me thank you very much.

But the arguement for % = BPM doesnt really stand up if your tracks were for example 200bpm .8% would be 1.6 bpm, unless I'm missing something with the way the calculation works, and I would doubt a whole set is precisely the same BPM the whole way though (is it?) :-S

Ironically I can generally sync pitches faster on a pair of 1210's that will stay in sync for longer than Traktor within 5-7 seconds grrrrr, Guess the human ear wins again, gah! wish I still had the space for turntables.

[edit]And yeah I know with Ableton and Traktor pre-warped you can get "bang on", I prefer to spend my time playing the tunes than having to basically re-edit them, I see that as akin to downloading the file and having to burn it to CD before playing .... oh errrr :P .... [/edit]

Helix

rather than worrying about percentages and how they reflect on bpms, youd be quicker just relying on your ears

BaZmO*

Helix wrote: »

rather than worrying about percentages and how they reflect on bpms, youd be quicker just relying on your ears

Indeed.

The only reason why I would imagine counting the numbers would be handy would be to get the pitch control as close as possible to the exact location as quick as possible. But even at that, you would still need to adjust to get it (to quote Marisa Tomei) "Dead on balls accurate"

And sure if you were beat mixing for long enough you generally know where to put the pitch control fairly quickly.

deevey

rather than worrying about percentages and how they reflect on bpms, youd be quicker just relying on your ear

Sure we'd hardly want to hear the muck we're playing now would we ? Start to rely on your eyes get yerself a decent spectrum anaylyser and mixer with a good level meter .....It'll come in useful anyhow for when the hearing dies though all this industrial noise pollution anyhow hehe.

Zascar

Omnipresence you hit the nail on the head, I've been banging on about that for years. Finally most people are coming around to this level of thinking, dam it's taken a long time. I still manually beatmatch my tunes cause I like doing it, even though I can do it at the click of a button. I would like to try the traktor/ableton warping thing and just not ahve to think about it, maybe give 4 decks a go.

Tyrrany you've certainly changed your tune over recent years...