Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

DJs Spinning Those Hard Drives 250

Posted by michael from the kids-these-days dept.
Mipmap writes "Ben Kirkendoll leaves the records at home in favor of his iPods, Apple Computer's disk-based music player, which he simply plugs into an audio system's mixer. He's part of a small but growing number of DJs who have turned to MP3 music files for their accessibility and convenience..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DJs Spinning Those Hard Drives More

DJs Spinning Those Hard Drives

Comments Filter:

  • The talent? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kirby-meister ( 574952 )
    "When I was younger I felt like there was a talent to it because they were spinning records backwards and forwards and really cutting it in and overlapping songs," Parrish says. "It doesn't take much talent to be a DJ anymore. You just have to have a good flow of songs." I tried using Acid Mixer during a Beck contest one time...

    Needless to say, yeah, you still need skills to be a good mixer these days.

    • Re:The talent? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rblancarte ( 213492 ) on Saturday July 27, 2002 @09:37AM (#3964117) Homepage
      "It doesn't take much talent to be a DJ anymore."
      If he really thinks this, then he is not a true DJ. There is a huge difference between spinning and just bluring music together. I can do that, but to be able to actually keep a SOLID flow of music takes the ability to beat match and group themes etc. I am trying to learn how to do these, but it certainly is not easy.
      But I have friends that are DJs and it certainly is an art. Of the 3 guys I know, 2 can keep a party rocking, but the 3rd guy while being able to mix and such, finds a way to clear the dance floor faster than that Baby Ruth cleared the pool in Caddyshack.

      RonB
      • There is a huge difference between spinning and just bluring music together. I can do that, but to be able to actually keep a SOLID flow of music takes the ability to beat match and group themes etc. I am trying to learn how to do these, but it certainly is not easy.

        First of all, beat matching is not that hard. A couple weeks of practice and any body can nail it, whether it's variable speed turntables or digital sources with knobs for simulating the same thing.

        Secondly, if you don't know how to mix songs together by theme, you simply don't know your music. Go home and listen to your entire library a few times and come back when you're ready. Sheesh!

        Finally, nobody ever gives a fuck about synching the beat mix except for other DJ's. A bad transition will not clear the floor... I have, in the past, deliberately done ultra-shitty, gear-grinding shifts between tempos, just to see for myself. A good DJ doesn't need to keep things at a steady 112 BPM. At all. He just needs to know how to read the crowd. Sometimes slowing speeding up or slowing down a track by about 4 BPM can really ruin the feel of the song anyway. How you work the room is way more important than how you work the wheels, even if mastering the turntable does make you feel like some kind of rave god.

        DJ'ing is not a difficult task, if you know how to deal with people. Come to think of it, the human element might be why so many geeks think it's hard to do. Hmm....

  • you down with mp3 yes you know me you down with mp3 yes you know me you down with ctrl-c every last pc
  • I'd hate to walk into a club with a nice sound system and hear it pumping a 128 kbps mp3 encoded with Xing.

    • Not important. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Krapangor ( 533950 ) on Saturday July 27, 2002 @07:48AM (#3963900) Homepage
      At the very high sound levels in clubs a human ear cannot distinguish any longer between the high frequency pitchs which would be affected be low quality encoding.
      Additionally the standard audience of a club is usually exposed to high sound levels over longer periods therefore having a reduced ability of hearing these high frequencies.
      BTW: This also affects the DJs, you can check this by making a spectrum analysis of the standard techno/club stuff on MTV. You'll notice extremely repetitive/monotone patterns in the high frequency bands. This is were the club saying: "I'm addicted to bass" comes from.
      • You'll notice extremely repetitive/monotone patterns in the high frequency bands. This is were the club saying: "I'm addicted to bass" comes from.

        Except bass is on the low end of the frequency spectrum.

    • Not Important? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AlaskanUnderachiever ( 561294 ) on Saturday July 27, 2002 @09:00AM (#3964049) Homepage
      Well I hate to disagree but I've actually HAD experience DJ'n both with vinyl (crappy ass gemini hand me downs admittedly) and with some tweaked mp3 & similar rigs. While 128 IS fairly acceptable for club/party/etc, you have to understand by the time it GETS to the floor it's been routed through GOD knows how many jury rigged XLR cables and half assed patch bays. Your "decent" encoded signal will pick up noise like Armani picks up cat hair and end up sounding like the south side of 64kbps. I hate to say it but from having played at a number of venues (one of which gave me the joy of actually MAKING and laying my own cables bless their souls) that unless you're dealing with a pristine route from DJ booth to said speakers, you're gonna get noise. And noise loves a low quality signal. It's like they're drinking buddies or something. As for "mixing" and similar, I think the real skill of a DJ is indeed as the article stated "reading" the crowd and playing what they want to hear. It's well and good to scratch and master mixing beats and transitions but if you're not picking the right tracks in the first place it's just a waste of skill (impressive skill that I envy and lust for the spare time to develop). . . . - end psychotic 6am rant-
      • Also, unless you're playing to a mausoleum, or a goth crowd who has finally taken that final plunge to their Nirvana, there's gonna be peripheral noise. Crowd noise, what-have-you, etc. People make it when they're packed in densely enough.
      • Who wants some rewind?

        I have to agree with the first post. Good sound is important. Have you been to Fabric London [fabric-london.com] or The End [the-end.co.uk] in London?. 2 of the best club soundsystems I have ever heard. And you notice it. The highs are crisp and clear and you can actually hear the midrange...top this off with some thumping bass (Fabric has it coming straight through the floor) and you can't beat it. Trance, Hard Hou se, Drum 'n Bass or god forbid UK Garage it doesn't matter, a good system sounds excellent and if your source material sucks then the output is going to be bad

        Although I do agree that song selction is key, how you mix them is also equally important. This may be easier or hard on turntables/mp3's depending on the music. You will find that most DJ's in the 'Hippy Trance' scene use CD's, its a pretty simple mixing technique that is used. However other genres need techniques particualry suited to turntables. (Hip Hop, Turntablism).

        --End 6pm rant after last night at Peach [peachyravers.com]--

        /b
    • We got one radio station here in Birmingham that is already using MP3. Nothing like driving down the road and hearing a MP3 artifact.
      • AFAIK, all Clear Channel stations (read: the majority of commercial radio in the US) are using lossy-compressed music for their regular programming already, and have been for some time.

        If Slashdot's search engine didn't suck so badly, I'd dig up the years-old post from one of their programming directors.

        If I recall, it is not MP3 that they're using. Bell Labs' PAC format rings a bell, though.

        I hear artifacts all the time on the radio, though usually on the advertising spots -- I'd imagine that the Ad People are busily sending eachother MP3s these days instead of carts or open-reel tape.

        Even the local 150-watt college station uses compressed audio on a PC for their spots, though they do have three nice Tascam decks for playing real music and one remaining cart player (down from -six-).
    • I can see it now.

      "At club Perversion, all of our mp3s are ripped at 360k/sec. While you dine and dance with many of our Gothic Ravers, and sample some of our fine variety of blood viles, know that you get the highest quality remixes of Nine Inch Nails, Type O Negative, and Cradle of Filth."

      And people ask me why I stay at home so much...

  • DJ's have been putting mp3s on CDs for a while now. It's only a natural progression for them to put the mp3s on smart media.

  • I hope these guys don't show up with a mp3 that has that annoying bleeps. Guess what most idiots on the dance floor would consider that a new style and might actually become a new craze just like scratch!

  • Performance vs. programming (Score:5, Interesting)

    by marcsiry ( 38594 ) on Saturday July 27, 2002 @05:01AM (#3963655) Homepage
    And he can't use iPods to match up beats, alter the pitch of music or spin records back and forth for a scratching effect -- all things that professional club DJs consider essential.

    The performance aspect- hinted to in the quote above- is a big part of what makes club DJ's so popular. If you've never seen one at work, it can get quite physical- they literally throw those records around the platter in an attempt to generate sounds and synchronize beats. A good DJ can elicit cheers and applause from an otherwise oblivious crowd.

    The DJs with the MP3 players are acting more like radio DJs- they're programming the night with a list of songs, not cutting up raw material into a performance. There's a place for both, obviously, but one will not replace the other- similar to the way theater and movies continue to coexist.
    • Its just a matter of time before the right GUI exists for DJs to do all the beat matching and mixing with mp3s. Right now most programs are geared towards simple sequential play, or maybe cross-fading (or if its an ipod, a slight pause between songs... ugh).

      Give it time. They'll be scratching and mixing purely digital before too long.
      • That isn't true. I mean, PCDJ [pcdj.com] (which I am using) and DJPower [djpower.com] both allow for doing some very solid beat matching. Plus with equipment like the Numark DMC-1 [pcdj.com], you have some VERY solid offerings out there.

        What I find interesting about this article is that they make it seem like using IPods is the only way to go right now. There are a TON of options out there, and many of them very powerful, you just have to have the right equipment. I guess it is like any nitch market, where the people in the know will understand, while it will seem like news to the uninformed.

        RonB
      • Its just a matter of time before the right GUI exists for DJs to do all the beat matching and mixing with mp3s. Right now most programs are geared towards simple sequential play, or maybe cross-fading
        This [megaseg.com] ain't bad. No scratching, but for beat matching, etc., it does the job, as long as you've got a second sound device (USB or whatever).
    • > The DJs with the MP3 players are acting more like
      > radio DJs- they're programming the night with a
      > list of songs, not cutting up raw material into a
      > performance.

      It is a bit harsh, I think: a good DJ will adapt the songs played to the mood of the crowd whereas radio DJ only have a static list of songs to play.

    • ...or SoundForge for that matter. Both allow you to cut up raw material. Mixmeister [mixmeister.com] allows you to beatmix, cut, splice and overlay. About the only thing you can't do is scratch, and there are other ways of adding in scratches. doing it on the fly takes some doing, but with a little practice, it still can be done...especially since you can pre-save a bunch of cool effects and drop them in at the appropriate points.

    • Unfortunately, you do not know what you are talking about. I have the Numark DMC-MP3, which is an external controller for the PCDJ software. It has two decks with cue, stutter, shuttle, jog, pitch control of up to +-64%, etc . It's identical to what I can do with vinyl except for the inability to scratch. I can load tracks much quicker than with vinyl, allowing me to blow through just the chorus, break, or single verse of five or six (or however many) songs in a row.
      The DMC-MP3 is certainly not the only external MP3 controller available, either. I know of at least 3 others. And they are all used identically to the way a CD DJ player is used, which is certainly not limited to making a playlist.

      maru
  • Personally I dont know the guy in question, but you dont have to be a hip-hop or Techno DJ to realize that Vinyl has a different sound, even compared to CDs, that beatmatching is something that helps if you actually want to mix and that its terribly unsexy to bop your head while staring at your iPods displays. Another problem in my eyes is capacity. An ipod has -way- too much storage room for a DJ.
    • An ipod has -way- too much storage room for a DJ.

      You're wrong there. A friend and I did a club-style radio show for 8 years, mixing with Denon CD Players and vinyl. We brought approximately 250 CDs every week, which at roughly 50MB/CD once converted, which comes out to 12.5GB. However, our complete collection of DJable music is much closer to 1500 CDs, which comes out to 75GB. I think it'll be a while yet before you can fit that in two off-the-shelf, unmodified ipods, much less one.

      You'll also notice I've made no mention of the 18 crates of records we own which have not been ripped yet.

      I'm currently experimenting with a mobile unit that includes a Fujitsu P-2110 Laptop [fujitsupc.com], PCDJ [visiosonic.com], A 120GB firewire drive (for now), and a Creative Labs Extigy [creative.com]. Complete mobile DJ solution for under 10 pounds.

  • Disadvantage (Score:3, Insightful)

    by neksys ( 87486 ) <grphillips AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday July 27, 2002 @05:03AM (#3963659)
    The disadvantage is that DJs just won't look as impressive anymore - I love seeing a DJ moving sporatically and energetically to control his equipment. How boring would it be to see a DJ sitting down in front of computer, occasionally clicking something unseen on the screen? It's sort of like comparing Neil Peart playing his drum set to some dude of equal talent tapping on his triggered pads. *shrug* Just a thought.
      • I love seeing a DJ moving sporatically and energetically to control his equipment.

      Isn't that illegal in a public place?

      No, wait, I think I see what you mean.

    • while you're watching the DJ, I'll be horning in on your girl...
    • What you're describing has always been a problem with "electronic music" in general.

      A friend of mine put together a band some years ago, doing all electronic/sampled music. He had 2 or 3 really good CDs they put together - but he said they broke up after doing a couple live shows. They immediately realized that it was nearly impossible to generate any type of crowd interest, due to the way their music was made.
      (They did everything on the computer, on cheap synths run through a rack of effects processors, or with sounds generated with creative mic'ing of common household items.)

      They really never had a full-time "singer". They just sampled their voices over and over until they got sections right, and then edited those phrases into their mixes where the vocals were needed.

      How can you re-produce something like this live, without just setting up a computer desk on stage and letting people watch you click your mouse and keyboard all night?
    • I hate to say it, but this is true. The geeks are going to need to learn how to dramatize it. At the "super clubs" in LA (i.e. Spundae) where we regularly book the worlds top Trance talent, the DJ booth is usually showcased and a lot of people spend portions of the evening watching the DJ.

      For example, I don't even like Carl Cox, but it was fun to watch him rock out on the turntables...

    • How boring would it be to see a DJ sitting down in front of computer, occasionally clicking something unseen on the screen?

      Actually, the move to CD's made me a better performer as a DJ. Spending less time physically cueing up songs meant I could spend more time observing the people's mood, monkeying with the light show, or even going out on the floor with the crowd. Instead of thinking about what I'm going to play next, I would be thinking about what I will be playing 15 minutes from now.

      I can only think that MP3's will make a mobile DJ's life even easier.

  • Theres something about listening to true analog sound. As soon as you record that sound into a computer it becomes digital and loses that warm quality it had. /me waits for the comments regarding the fact that the music was made with synths and drum machines... Listening to music on vinyl is a lot different than listening to an MP3 on a computer or portable MP3 player. You can never get the same quality of sound (of course, now we're also on the topic of comparing computer speakers to those nice ones you have plugged into your stereo downstairs).
    • The topic is about DJ'ing with MP3's. Now, I can see arguments about the lack of scratching (still something of a problem), beatmatching (programs do exist & and are pretty damn good, IMHO), and possibly computer problems "crashing" the party, so to speak. What I can't understand is all this bullshit about lack of sound quality! This is the same bullshit all the analog-obsessed DJ's of the world started spouting when the rest of us started using CD's in our performances. Who the hell cares about the "warmth" of the sound??? I still remember when I started using MP3's to DJ and I never had comments about them. Starting with parties I did back in 1997 while I was the house DJ at the Delta Upsilon house at Carnegie Mellon, I would switch between vinyl, CD, CD-R's with converted MP3's on them, and MP3's played off my laptop. Guess what? It wasn't a bunch of old people sitting around bitching about the lack of "warmth" in the sound. It was a shitload of college kids getting piss-drunk and having fun, in part because of me. They didn't complain about the sound quality at the beginning of the parties when sober & they didn't say a word at the end when they were drunk & tone-deaf. I would mix & beatmatch with simple utilities (whose names escape me) downloaded off the net. For scratches, I would impose the turntable's sound with the mixer. The trick was finding something appropraite to scratch with a paticular song, however this made me a much stronger DJ, not the other way around. And as far as the image goes, the bitches loved coming up there and seeing a laptop running Winamp mixing in with the CD's. They thought it was the coolest shit they'd ever seen.

      So, to conclude, not only does your argument (sound quality) have nothing to do with parties, but all of the other arguments against MP3 DJ'ing are either bullshit or pretty weak as well.

      -Kikta

      P.S. If it makes you vinyl guys feel any better, I was against automatic-HTML generation programs for a long time in favor of text editors. So I guess I can sort-of see how you feel...
  • Quote:

    And he can't use iPods to match up beats, alter the pitch of music or spin records back and forth for a scratching effect Eall things that professional club DJs consider essential.

    I'll stick to clubs with vinyl based DJs thanks.

  • ...so instead of saying a good dj is 'bad', we can now say he is LAME!
  • Ok I can't see an Ipod replacing turntables, but Stanton came with a product that really rocks.(http://www.finalscratch.com/fs2/pictures.as p) It uses the turntables as an interface for for a computer to control mp3 streaming. Now that's smart. And it runs on Linux. "It doesn't take much talent to be a DJ anymore. You just have to have a good flow of songs" Spinning records and beatmatching isn't hard to do. I think the skill of a dj is to be able to build up a night, play good tunes that'll make people in the crowd react.
    • Hasn't Ritchie Hawtin been using this for a while now ? I don't know if it was this product or another.

      I agree I dont want to listen to some shitty 128bit file encoded by some idiot with no ears - but the possibility of carrying a laptop instead of 3 boxes of vinyl impresses me.

      The best nights clubbing involve good well chosen music and a DJ who knows what s/he is doing.

      Too many people think its all about the tunes, or it's all about the mixing. it's a combination.
  • The title made me think instantly of this [slashdot.org]
  • ...would be if DJ's would use Ogg Vorbis instead of MP3. That'd be news, and it'd convince a lot of people about what you can do with Ogg Vorbis.
  • And he can't use iPods to match up beats, alter the pitch of music or spin records back and forth for a scratching effect -- all things that professional club DJs consider essential.

    So he just fades one track over the other?
    Nasty.

    Is there anything for Linux that provides two cue-able, independant music streams where you can alter the speed of each track, and where play starts in 0.01 of a second?

  • One of the students where I work is developing a system so you can control MP3's, PCM audio, Ogg streams, DivX movies etc. -- via vinyl.

    Everything you do to the record will directly translate to whatever digital thing is being played/run. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but he is a (and knows many) DJs so I think he's aiming to make them happy.

    This is the only DJ I know, and this is only one of his projects. It seems one heck of a lot more exciting than "gee, I bought an iPod!" though, yet stuff like this is never mentioned in mainstream news like Yahoo. Then again, most people who call themselves DJs probably aren't, anyway, and couldn't make use of such technology because they wouldn't know how to spin vinyl in the first place. It's like all those "webmasters". I'm just happy that the DJing world still has some potential for innovation, even though my taste in music is completely different :)
    • Interesting, but using the control medium from the previous technology to control the new one is akin to using a set of reins to control your car. It's a good metaphor to transition the old people into the new, but it's not the most efficient way to control the new medium.

      We can argue that mp3 players aren't the same as vinyl, and it's true, they're not. But technology, for good or for ill, marches onwards, and you'll be hard pressed to convince a DJ who's just starting it that it's better to lug 10 kilos of records instead of .8 kilos of iPod to the club.

      It won't be the same as vinyl, certainly, but the only thing constant is change.
  • I know of one pub in Sydney and have heard about some more night clubs which have PC's set up playing huge MP3 play lists over and over off of MP3's on removable hard drives.

    DJ at home mixes music until his removable hdd is full, then takes it to the night club, swaps hdd's, goes home and does it all again to keep the mixes fresh.

    • I know of one pub in Sydney and have heard about some more night clubs which have PC's set up playing huge MP3 play lists over and over off of MP3's on removable hard drives. DJ at home mixes music until his removable hdd is full, then takes it to the night club, swaps hdd's, goes home and does it all again to keep the mixes fresh.

      Yeah, I moonlight for one of those outfits. I don't know shit about music, but they pay me $25/hr to go to the club, stand behind a set of turntables that aren't connected to anything, fiddle with knobs, hold a headphone to the side of my head, turn my baseball cap around backwards, squint a lot, speak with a crap Manchester accent, draw fake needle tracks on my arms, and bop my head around as if I'm mixing the music. If anyone makes a request I just give them a withering look for being so uncool as to request such a tired song.

      Meanwhile the real DJ is at home programming the real sets, shooting the real heroin, and earning the other $75/hr.

  • If Apple or someone made a (software, I pressume) mod to the iPod to allow for pitch control) and they already have the jog dial, which could come inhandy), i'd buy two without a moments thought.

    As I suspect lots of other people would.

    Is anyone working on this?

  • final scratch (Score:5, Interesting)

    by golden spud ( 23221 ) on Saturday July 27, 2002 @05:45AM (#3963718) Homepage
    I've been a DJ at a dance/techno club for a year and a half now, and have absolutely no vinyl :-)

    While I don't use an MP3 solution directly, I use Pioneer CDJ-500's. Most of my CDs are made from well-encoded MP3's, and occasionally my own tracks.

    No, you can't scratch with the old CDJ-500's, but the style of music I spin (mostly house and techno) doesn't necessitate scratching to get a good enough sound for people to have a good time and even cheer! :-) Also, I've found that people are more often intrigued by the use of pro CD players and want to find out how they work, rather than being put off by them because they "aren't vinyl".

    Club DJing is NOT all about scratching, it's about providing a great set of tunes, mixed well and mixed appropriately, that your audience that evening will enjoy... no matter what method you use to get that.

    Now turntablism -- that is about scratching :-)

    Speaking of turntables and scratching, there are products out there that do a fine job of bridging the gap between traditional vinyl and the "digital DJ" world.

    One is Pioneer's CDJ-1000, which allows you to scratch audio CDs with its touch sensitive jog dial. I've had the chance to play around with these, and they're awesome!! While there is obviously SOME sort of latency, it's definitely not noticeable by humans, and approaches zero :-)

    Also, Pioneer now has a professional CD player that can play MP3 CDs. I'm sure before too long they will merge the two together into a unit that will play MP3 CDs and let you scratch them intuitively like the 1000.

    Perhaps the best example yet is Final Scratch. Some well-known DJs use this, including some that've used it back when it ran on BeOS. Now it runs on Linux though! :-)

    It consists of specially-encoded vinyl that you play on standard turntables, which are hooked up to a controller, which is in turn hooked up to your laptop which is presumably filled with MP3 and WAV files.

    Essentially, you are able to play MP3 files WITH VINYL. I believe there is a slightly more perceptible latency than the CDJ-1000 but not so much that it's frustrating to work with.

    Right now I'm happy, but if I upgrade my setup I will more than likely go with the Final Scratch solution...

    • Really? (Score:3, Funny)

      by devphil ( 51341 )
      No, you can't scratch with the old CDJ-500's,

      Are you sure? I've had no problems scratching my CDs...

      Er, wait, we're talking about two different things. Never mind. :-)

  • Wait stop the presses! Several years ago 2 guys from the Netherlands built this gadget together with 2 pieces of vinyl which had the song-position digitally encoded on vinyl. The gadget is connected with a laptop with their software on it playing the position given by the record and even decides if it is real music or the specially encoded vinyl records. So you can scratch and do all the things DJ's like doing and you get to play mp3's. If in doubt look at: www.finalscratch.com
  • You know, I've been doing this for a few years.. going to parties, setting up a sound sytem, and playing high-quality mp3s for people to listen/dance to. But I'd be too embarassed to call it "DJing". I mean, yes, it's like DJing in a sense where you have to select the music to fit the mood and keep the party going, and have the songs people ask to hear.. but still. It's just fundamentally different somehow. Maybe because just about any schmoe could do it :)
  • than my stuff? No, they don't have two pioneer cdj-1000 and a djm-600 to mix with.
    • Peer-to-peer networks and Internet download sites provide Kirkendoll with a hefty supply [of mp3's]

    And he's making a living off of doing this? Hello? RIAA? You know where this guy is and where he works now. Hello? How about you go after the people actually profiting off of you rather than those of us doing no-profit sharing. Is anybody in there? Hello?

    • He may not be pushing it at all. The club has, in all certainty, pays ASCAP/BMI performance royalties. Through that, the public performance is covered, no matter the medium used.

      This is what I've been told is true for those of us doing radio. We burn CDs all the time to keep at the station. And, I play loads off my MP3s. When a musician is coming to town, and I don't have the CD to plug the show, I even go on P2P. Since we pay the artist through BMI for the performance, it's legal.

      However, I host/listen to folk and bluegrass, so maybe the RIAA will never care...
        • The club has, in all certainty, pays ASCAP/BMI performance royalties. Through that, the public performance is covered, no matter the medium used

        Hmm, very good point, but it really opens a can of worms, as ASCAP is very vague [ascap.com] about what's actually covered by their licenses.

        One thing that they do say with regard to DJ's is that Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license [ascap.com], and I believe that a lot of DJ's work as contractors, not employees. Unless he's got his own explicit license, then he's effectively trusting that merely being likely to play the copies at a licensed venue gives him an implicit license to make as many copies as he likes. But couldn't that apply to anybody? Hey, I might end up playing my mp3's at a licensed club, so it's all right to use them for home use until then?

        Hard to say without seeing the terms for one of the hundred plus license variants that they produce. Still, I wouldn't be shouting about it to Associated Press unless I was sure that it wasn't going to bring Hilary Rosen down on me like a ton of bricks.

  • Who doesn't have talent? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fex303 ( 557896 ) on Saturday July 27, 2002 @06:20AM (#3963771)
    "When I was younger I felt like there was a talent to it because they were spinning records backwards and forwards and really cutting it in and overlapping songs," Parrish says. "It doesn't take much talent to be a DJ anymore. You just have to have a good flow of songs."

    Basically what Parrish is saying here is: I wanted to be talented DJ but I couldn't. So I decided that there's no talent to being a DJ.

    What Parrish is describing (slecting a playlist) is, as mentioned in the article, something any moron can do. The only problem is the fact that this isn't DJing. Picking a playlist is only the start of what a good DJ does. The DJ then has to mix them together in a way that sounds natural and unforced, that takes more than just matching the beats up, it's also good to make sure that the sections are matched (sections being the 32 or 64 beat repetitions in music). If they really know what they are doing then they can start to think about key mixing (ie. keeping the songs you are mixing together in the same key), a difficult trick when altering the speed of the record will put into a different key.

    Then there is the fact that REAL DJs can have at least two tracks going at the same time, without making it sound awful. They don't just use this to mix from one track to another. They can also use this to add an element of one track into another, without leaving the original track.

    DJs can also use their mixer to make a track sound very different to what's on the vinyl. Using EQs the DJ can emphasize or reduce the Bass Midrange and Treble, effectively cutting instruments out or bringing them to the fore. Some mixers like the Pioneer DJM-600 [pioneerprodj.com] allow the DJ to also add effects like Echo, Flange, or Reverb. It's even got a mini-sampler built in, allowing the DJ to grab a section of a track and create something new with it. Well, partially new anyhow.

    In short, if you don't think there's any artistry or talent required to be a DJ, then you simply don't understand what it is that DJs can do. I haven't even begun to cover the fact that a DJ is also required to understand, respond to, and influence the vibe of an evening.

    I also haven't mentioned the idiocy of using MP3s over a commercial grade sound system. Let's just say that the ear can detect lots of frequencies and lots of frequency ranges. When speakers have the ability to playback all those frequencies clearly the ear can easily hear the difference between analogue/44.1kHz/MP3.

    Conclusion: this "DJ" is an idiot and I won't be going to BQE bar for the music anytime soon. (The fact that I'm on the other side of the world is worth considering too...)

    • I was nodding in agreement right up until...

      I also haven't mentioned the idiocy of using MP3s over a commercial grade sound system. Let's just say that the ear can detect lots of frequencies and lots of frequency ranges. When speakers have the ability to playback all those frequencies clearly the ear can easily hear the difference between analogue/44.1kHz/MP3.

      Please leave the mysticism to the wiccans. A properly encoded MP3 played back on professional equipment will be beyond your ability to distinguish from the original recording. The same applies for any digital system. Perhaps 128kbps MP3s won't cut the mustard, but there will be a rate that beats even your own golden ears.

      • A high enough bitrate will be impossible to tell apart from an analogue source, sure. But bitrates still make things sound a lot better. The best way to prove this is to get you go to a place that sells sound systems that can handle Super Audio CDs [superaudio-cd.com]. When I did this they played me two recordings of a guitar concert, one regular CD (44.1kHz, 16-bit), the other a SACD (~2.8MHz, 1-bit). None of the other settings were changed. The difference is startling.

        So don't say that using a lossy encoding system isn't going to make a difference. It will. Maybe a small difference, but I still know that I'd rather hear warm basslines and crisp highs when I go out.

        It's like images: A lossy system like Jpeg is fine while you're looking at an image on your screen or home printing, but anyone sending things to pro printers or publishers is going keep using non-lossy formats like Tiff. Why? Because it's the only way to make the finished product look the same as you made it.

        It's not mysticism, just an understanding that people are really good at detecting subtle differences in quality, even if it's not at a conscious level.
        • When I did this they played me two recordings of a guitar concert, one regular CD (44.1kHz, 16-bit), the other a SACD (~2.8MHz, 1-bit). None of the other settings were changed. The difference is startling.

          I don't doubt you heard a difference. But I would suggest that there was a lot more involved in your A-B comparison than just the bitrate. At the very least there are differing decoders and DACs. Also the mastering between the CD and the SACD was likely done at different times by two different audio technicians. Even a tone deaf person can hear differences between a cheap CD player and a decent CD player. Hearing a difference is hardly a big deal.

          So don't say that using a lossy encoding system isn't going to make a difference.

          I didn't say it isn't. I said there's going to be a bitrate where you can't discern the difference. The environment places an upper bound on the fidelity of the audio system. In a noisy dance floor with 100s of people huffing and panting and stomping their feet it hardly matters if you're playing SACD or an AM radio. Calling the guy out for using MP3s is like trying to colour-coordinate your clothes for a nighttime walk.

          Regarding "lossy": the vinyl recording itself is lossy. The preamp and amp introduces its own special brand of noise. The environment - the walls, the floors, the furniture - will create echoes and attenuate specific frequencies. The temperature and humidity of the air itself will affect the audio. Combine all of this introduced noise with a dancefloor full of people and what you're hearing isn't even close to the original recording.

          This is why I said enough with the mysticism. If you're on a dancefloor and you reckon you can hear "crisp highs" and "warm basslines" then I'm calling you deluded. It doesn't matter how damn good the data source is: there are dozens of systems between the data source and your ears and none of them are perfect.

          It's not mysticism, just an understanding that people are really good at detecting subtle differences in quality, even if it's not at a conscious level.

          That is mysticism. If there were real differences in quality then you could measure them. Detecting things with your "subconscious" is how hippies speak about auras and vibes.

          • That is mysticism. If there were real differences in quality then you could measure them. Detecting things with your "subconscious" is how hippies speak about auras and vibes.

            This is ludicrous. Someone else said it, but it bears repeating - the human ear is not just a frequency processor. Just because we haven't figured out how to measure something yet doesn't make it "mysticism." The fact that you can hear real differences in quality means those differences exist, whether or not you can measure them with the available tools. To ignore the evidence of your own senses in favor of a pre-ordained system of measurement, however scientific that system may be, seems to me the height of mysticism, not the reverse.

            • This is ludicrous. Someone else said it, but it bears repeating - the human ear is not just a frequency processor. Just because we haven't figured out how to measure something yet doesn't make it "mysticism."

              Your belief that we can't measure it with electronic equipment is what's ludicrous. The noise is PRODUCED by electronic equipment. Why would you think your amplifier can produce a signal that an oscilloscope can't measure? It's all electrical signals and the oscilloscope is much more sensitive than the mass-manufactured circuits in the amplifier.

              This is why it's mysticism. You're hearing something - produced by a $100 circuit - that a $10000 oscilloscope says isn't there. It's incredible because when this sort of mysticism is applied to computers the believers are labelled kooks. But when the same illogical beliefs are applied to audio the believers are simply "more attuned with their senses" then the skeptics.

              It bears repeating simply because so many people think their ears are beyond science: if it is an electrical signal then it can be MEASURED and RECORDED and REPEATED at a precision so high that you can't detect the difference. Electronics can measure parts in billions. Your ears are not that sensitive, no matter how much mysticism you want to be true.

              Now it's almost certainly true that CD isn't precise enough, nor is 128kbps MP3, but there's this huge myth that digital can NEVER be better than vinyl. Nonsense. This is the mystical part that I've argued against.


              • Your belief that we can't measure it with electronic equipment is what's ludicrous. The noise is PRODUCED by electronic equipment. Why would you think your amplifier can produce a signal that an oscilloscope can't measure? It's all electrical signals and the oscilloscope is much more sensitive than the mass-manufactured circuits in the amplifier.

                It is the effects of this electronic equipment on the human ear and body that I said was difficult to measure. How is that mystical?

              • WHat I find truely funny about it all is that 90% of audiophiles seem to be male.

                And study, after study has shown that women have better hearing.


        • A high enough bitrate will be impossible to tell apart from an analogue source, sure. But bitrates still make things sound a lot better. The best way to prove this is to get you go to a place that sells sound systems that can handle Super Audio CDs [superaudio-cd.com]. When I did this they played me two recordings of a guitar concert, one regular CD (44.1kHz, 16-bit), the other a SACD (~2.8MHz, 1-bit). None of the other settings were changed. The difference is startling.

          That's because the two are mixed differently so you should hear a difference. (Yup. different mixes same disc.)

          The oly real reason that SACD exist is that sony wanted to grab a slice of the audio on DVD market. An to really make som cash you need to control the standards. Unfortunately for sony the reasonable way to do things were allready well known (store PCM), and they needed somthing novel to patent.

          Thus were born DSD encoding (as is used on on SACD). The fact of the matter is that DSD encodes far less information than a similar bitrate PCM stream (SACD is comparable with CDDA in fidelity) as most of the signal energy is spent in storing noise. (Take a look at the output of a delta sigma noise shaping modulator and you will see what I mean).

          You can of cource not actually hear this as CDDA allready goes well beyond what is humanly perceptible. Though as SACD mandates a single bit encoding it may be possible to create pathological signals which will sound markedly worse in SACD that what might be possible on CDDA. (Single bit SD conversion has some problems with dithering)
    • When speakers have the ability to playback all those frequencies clearly the ear can easily hear the difference between analogue/44.1kHz/MP3.

      A well encoded MP3 cuts out only the frequencies that the majority of humans can't hear.

    • "Commercial-grade" sound systems, such as those typically found in dance clubs, generally reproduce the music so poorly that not only can you not hear the difference between vinyl, CD, or MP3 you can barely recognize any track as being anything other than "something with screaming highs and bone-shaking bottom". A club isn't exactly an environment for critical listening and I seriously doubt that anyone at an average club could hear the difference between a CD and a 128 bit MP3.

      maru

  • Remote mp3 jukeboxes. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rasjani ( 97395 ) on Saturday July 27, 2002 @06:27AM (#3963784) Homepage
    When i was young and wiril, i used to get into these "generic nightclubs" just to get wasted. I made friends with one dude who ran a dj agency. During that time they where planning a remote mp3 jukebox.

    The thing was, company had setup a computer in each of "their bars". Each of these computers where hooked up to internet via isdn. Each night, this machine polled for one centralized server, downloaded all the latests hits for that day and playlists and the box was set. No dj, no room taking stacks of cd's or vinyls and "decent" music for the night. If customers wanted some song really badly, bartenders had a console to this box where they could browse all the songs machine holded at that moment and he could queue anything from the list.

    I'm not sure if their product really took over but i'd imagine that this kind of jukebox could really be working solution in places where music is not really that important but nice to have, like pubs and small disco's..

  • Tools for the trade. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fross ( 83754 ) on Saturday July 27, 2002 @06:55AM (#3963825)
    ObAbstract - i've been DJing for over 10 years, headlining festivals with up to thousands of people, and been a long time fan and admirer of really good DJs. I learned on vinyl, but have been encompassing more advanced media in recent years.

    The move onto solid state media is a good, and inevitable one. The demands on a DJ are higher than ever before, and more tools are needed for the job. Some tricks *need* preparation to be performed, if for instance you want to cut out a middle chunk of a song, or want to overlay a track with a large number of samples very close together - these simply aren't possible on a traditional dual-turntable setup.

    Some very big DJs have access to vinyl-pressing facilities, so can play around with tracks and then have them available to play from a 12" - but hardly anyone can afford that. So there have to be other solutions.

    There will always be people arguing that one approach is better than the other, that one needs more skill than the other. This is ridiculous - both approaches can take time and skill, to become adept enough to create a good set with the tools you have. Vinyl is (for now at least) the most tactile "interface" for playing with music, though many other dj-quality units (such as CD players) compensate for their lack of interactivity with some neat tools, such as automatic BPM counters, instant dropping, better pitch or indeed fixed-pitch tempo controls, and frame by frame shifting. These already show some benefits over vinyl in some situations. Harddrive or solid-state solutions provide further benefits, such as instant accessibility, visual wave representations (it's really nice to be given an on-screen reminder that the track goes into a break in 15 seconds time), and so forth.

    The real benefit is that both approaches have their strong points, as well as limitations, so people benefit from even more variation, tricks and fun stuff in their sets. The best solution would be to have all the equipment available, but this would require all the skills across the board to use properly.

    If you're interested, I've been using a laptop/mp3 player live to augment DJ sets for years now. I ususally use the mp3 player for sample queuing, the laptop for processing or playing preprocessed tracks, or queueing large numbers of samples - you want to get 15 samples right in a minute, it'll be VERY tough with a regular mp3 player. And impossible on vinyl. Add these to 2 CD players (sometimes more) and sometimes a turntable, and you have what I usually use.

    I have some sets available for download, that hopefully can withstand a slashdotting ;) And if you're into vinyl-based DJs can show you the different sorts of tricks that can be achieved with these mediums.

    There are a bunch of mirrors for the sets available here [modernangel.org], around the US and Europe.

    Fross

  • Not exactly DJ'ing... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lunenburg ( 37393 ) on Saturday July 27, 2002 @09:56AM (#3964165) Homepage
    It's not DJ'ing in the strictest sense of the word, but I switched the sound system at the improv comedy club [comedyworx.com] I'm a part of over from tapes and CDs to an MP3/OGG based system about a year ago to good results.

    Under the tape and CD system, it took a significant amount of time to find the music selection that you needed. Even if the tapes and CDs were well-organized, it could take 20-30 seconds to find the right audio clip, where you'd need to be able to get it in 3-4 seconds to hit "the moment." Plus, especially with the tapes, you'd always have to worry if the person in front of you had rewound it to the right spot.

    So I converted most of the common clips to MP3, wrote a Perl/Tk frontend [lunenburg.org] running with XMMS, MySQL, and Linux to allow for quick searches, and put it into production. The results have been great - the people running the audio can get to their samples incredibly fast, and it really impresses the audience.

    So a digital audio solution worked wonders for us, even though we're not the traditional "DJ".
  • The next step ought to be DJing from multitrack recordings, with each instrument on a separate track. That's usually what was originally recorded, but it was mixed down to two tracks for volume distribution. Some DJs now are trying to separate instruments by frequency, but that never works very well. Special multitrack recordings for DJs might be worth trying. Just being able to cleanly pull the vocals from one song and synch them to another minus vocals would be fun.
  • I think this is just a matter of DJ's catching up to what current technology has to offer. I laugh every time I hear about this type of story, where a traditional DJ, or even radio station, starts adopting MP3 or some other digital format for their source of music. I don't mean to toot my own horn here, but when I became Chief Engineer, and later General Manager of WGHR in Marietta [spsu.edu], the first thing I did was set up a massive file server, and a new computer in the DJ booth. That allowed people to use digital music as a supplement to the supply of CD's and vinyl already in the studio. Since then, almost all of the DJ's have turned to using MP3's, since they're available in one place, and much easier to organize than shelves of CD's. There's still a personal preference available to use the "old" style of spinning tracks, but now it's much easier for the beginners to just throw some tracks into Winamp--something they already know how to do at home.

  • Like the poster above said, a guy who plays one song after another is not a "DJ", he's a "Dude that plays music at your bar mitzvah/wedding/party". The difference between "DJ" and "Dude" is that you might pay money to hear a DJ spin and create a continuous musical experience, while Dude is just there filling the time with whatever crap he's got on his iPod. I'm sure he can keep the folks entertained, but a DJ has to be able to touch and manipulate his music, not just play it.

    Though I don't see MP3's as a real problem, I mean the guys chopping up the music, adjusting the EQ and pitch and speed, so what if the music has a little barely-detectable MP3 sound.

    (flamebait)Besides, vinyl is so shitty anyway, MP3 is probably an improvement.(/flamebait)

    ;-)

    Surprised more folks haven't mentioned Traktor [nativeinstruments.de] amd similar software, which lets you do real DJ stuff with the tracks, besides just playing one after the other. Another cool thing about Traktor is you can record a mix and save it independently of the MP3 files, which would be a cool way to distribute mixes (if everybody has the same MP3 files).

    What'll really be cool is when the DJs go beyond just emulating the vinyl tricks, and create new MP3-only tricks, like resample the sound or combining it with another track in a unique way. That's what I"m waiting to hear. It'll really blur the lines between DJing, live improvisation, and sampling. Or maybe an artist that continuously combines other people's songs into his own in some funky way. The RIAA will love that guy.....

    And please ignore the "gee whiz, them computers is nifty" CNN/Yahoo/AP articles.

  • $10,000* to the first hacker who figures out how to mod the iPod to create a "song speed" menu option. Or better yet, maybe this'll encourage Apple to add the option themselves. Or even better yet, maybe this'll convince Apple to open-source their iPod software, so people can continue to use the iPod in was it was never intended (thus increasing profits).

    *before $10,000 processing fee
  • Disclaimer: I work at both a radio and in a nightclub.

    Remember how they used to call people on the radio "disc jockies"? They are no longer referred to as such...they are "air personalities" because most of radio is now computerized (Prophet Sys, Audiovault, etc).

    The same goes for club jocks...if you're MP3-man and you try to impress the ladies with technology rather than skill, you're a "clown pushing play", not a disc jockey.

    Ok...so from a DJ to you...why do we spend $500 on a turntable when a CD player can be cheaper? Why do we opt for the vinyl from the record pool and lug around 2 heavy milk crates (or USPS mail bins...come sue me USPS)?

    It's easier. It gives you more options while spinning.

    On the other side of things, it puts you among the others before you...since you use the same 'ole Technics 1200s, same 'ole black discs...

    To put it in perspective, what do you think about the Windoze 5cr1p7 k1dd135? Don't you get insulted when you've been using DOS, Linux, Win3.11, Desqview, OS/2, Solaris..maybe you even did some C64 programming..used a PDP.....everything learned from the ground up? Now, anyone can hop on a PC and be "1337", regardless of history, talent or natural skill.
    • It's basically the 'ease' vs 'work' issue- I personally think that the 'work' method produces better results. I have my own small studio, and I use Protools, not ACID to record, because I would rather work harder with it and get a higher quality result (yes, Protools with give you a higher quality, just look at the convertors on a 192 interface vs your sbLive).
      I have used Techinics 1200s, I thought they were great, I have used a Comodore 64 since I was 3, and it's been a great ride. I don't think that people should just jump into something without knowing any background with it.

      Do these DJs who some even call themselves musicians even know the notes in D Superlocrian? What's a Tritone sub? Do you even know a major chord from a diminshed chord or do you just call it 'that weird one'? Don't tell me that classical and jazz training isn't worth anything- look at what Sir Martin did for the Beatles...

  • This article was not interesting at all... (Score:3, Informative)

    by steppin_razor_LA ( 236684 ) on Saturday July 27, 2002 @02:00PM (#3964920) Journal
    I hate to be a troll, but I'm a little bummed this article made it to slashdot. I read it last night on Yahoo and was only impressed with it's lack of newsworthyness.

    The recent Slashdot article on Digital DJ Turntable [slashdot.org] was far more interesting.

    Lets recap this article. Some people have figured out that you can put a bunch of music on a computer or ipod and play that at events. Wow! You say this technology allows you to put together a list of songs and then play then in a row one after another???

    Look at who they interviewed:

    But Kirkendoll, who calls himself "The Podiatrist," was hired for his collection of music and penchant for feeling the vibe of a crowd, not his ability to mix or scratch.

    In other words, this is the guy who plays music at your wedding.

    What the story should be about is about some of the developments in technology that allow *real DJs* to perform instead of vinyl. When I say *real DJs", I mean those that perform at clubs that use beatchmatching, effects, and other techniques to create a fluid music listening experience.

    AtomixMP3 [www.atomixmp3] has been making some good progress at allowing people to use MP3s like turntables. Unfortunately, it still doesn't have anything that allows DJs to be able to "see" the CD the same way real DJs can apparently visually check out the grooves on the record.

  • that article mentioned some commercial software due out by the end of the year to make dj-ing with mp3s easy.

    time to shamelessly plug gdam [ffem.org] an open source mp3 dj-ing app some friends of mine have been hacking for over three years now, which imho is totally awesome. using gtk and runs under linux, os/x, and maybe even windows (don't know about that last one for sure).

    one of the main developers is a dj in the burgeoning new york electronic dj scene.

    check it out.

  • Don't tell the RIAA (Score:2, Informative)

    by eldub1999 ( 515146 )
    Since the music is being used in a public performace, I'm sure he pays the appropriate ASCAP and BMC licensing fees...

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Close